‘We’re A Second Amendment State’: DeSantis Warns Off Prospective Ian Looters thumbnail

‘We’re A Second Amendment State’: DeSantis Warns Off Prospective Ian Looters

By The Daily Caller

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a stern warning during a Friday press conference in Fort Myers to would-be looters in the wake of Hurricane Ian.

“I can tell you in the state of Florida, you never know what may be lurking behind somebody’s home,” the governor cautioned, according to Fox News.

“And I would not want to chance that if I were you — given that we’re a Second Amendment state.”

DeSantis warned against taking advantage of vulnerable people in areas hit hardest by Ian’s destruction. “We want to make sure we’re maintaining law and order,” he said. Local law enforcement remains involved in monitoring any and all looting and state assistance could be called on for help, DeSantis noted further. One sign reading, “You loot, we shoot” was spotted by the governor in Punta Gorda, Fox News reported.

Florida is a law and order state.

Looting and lawlessness will not be tolerated. pic.twitter.com/8Ma9RuSlPq

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) October 1, 2022

The Category 4 storm left more than 2 million without power after making landfall Wednesday. Flooding hit Fort Myers, Florida particularly hard, where looters were arrested Friday on Fort Myers Beach, according to ABC 3. The Lee County Sheriff’s Office expressed a zero tolerance stance on looting, promising to arrest any involved in criminal activity, the outlet said.

“We are not going to look like Chicago or New York where we’re letting people out in 24 hours so they can go back and loot another home,” tweeted Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody in response to reports of looting. “That will not be tolerated here.”

AUTHOR

ALYSSA BLAKEMORE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newly-Minted American Legend Just Braved Hurricane Ian Shirtless To Wave A ‘F*ck Biden’ Flag

Hurricanes Aren’t The Only Thing Climate Alarmists Lie About

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ATF Agent Caught Creating Illegal Gun Registry With Personal Cellphone

By Lee Williams

Dave Nagel, one of three co-owners of Black Metal Firearms in Mesa, Arizona, said there was something odd about the inspector the ATF sent to audit his gun shop late last year.

Pamela Scott, an Industry Operations Investigator, or IOI, from ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, showed up in December, 2021. Her audit lasted two months and concluded in February, which ruined more than a few Christmases.

“People ask me why I waited until July to go public about this,” Nagel said. “The public needs to know that the crazy stuff the government is accused of doing, they’re actually doing.”

Nagel and Scott clashed from the very beginning. All of his records are on paper. Nothing is computerized.

“She asked me why our stuff wasn’t digital,” Nagel said. “I told her I wouldn’t trust her with our digital info.”

During another exchange, Scott told Nagel he had a lot of “gun nuts” frequenting his shop.

“I told her we prefer ‘gun enthusiast,’” Nagel said. “She said she prefers ‘gun nuts,’ and she works for the ATF?”

Scott found nothing in the shop’s books other than a few minor clerical errors. There were no missing firearms or other significant problems.

“She said she was going to put us in for revocation, and that it may change as it goes up the chain, but that was her recommendation,” Nagel said. “We didn’t sell guns to the drug cartels like the ATF did. Everything we deal in is something that can readily be sold to a customer. There’s nothing here outlandish. We sell normal stuff to the common man, and she treated us like drug dealers.”

An illegal gun registry

Nagel noticed that Scott always had two cell phones – a government-issued phone and her personal cell.

This became important when he caught her copying pages from his A&D Book – using her personal cell phone.

The ATF requires gun dealers to maintain an Acquisition and Disposition book – a log of every firearm that’s acquired by the shop, as well as personal information of the buyers.

“Once she started recording the information from our books, I confronted her. I was concerned she was creating a database,” Nagel said. “She claimed that copying our records with her personal cell phone was ‘part of the purview of her investigation.’”

Nagel has retained Scottsdale, Arizona attorney Derek Debus to help him fight the revocation of his Federal Firearm License.

Debus reacted strongly when told of Scott’s actions.

“There’s no reason for her to be taking photographs of my client’s data,” Debus said. “It’s illegal. There are rules against it.”

Nagel took several videos of Scott copying his records and posted them on his social media. The videos have gone viral.

ATF declines to comment, again

Scott declined to comment.

“Thank you for the email and yes, I see that you are calling me. I would appreciate you contacting our division PIO Cody Monday with any questions regarding my inspection of Black Metal Firearms.  He may be able to answer any questions that you have at this time,” Scott said in an email.

Cody Monday, public information officer for ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, said he could not comment because the investigation was ongoing.

Brendan Iber, ATF’s Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office similarly declined to comment.

Takeaways

The ATF has recently come under fire for warrantless home inspectionsquestionable arrestsignoring federal open-records laws, and inflating “ghost gun” numbers, in the hopes that Congress will inflate its budget.

The agency is clearly ramping up its enforcement efforts as part of the Biden-Harris administration’s war on “rogue” gun dealers, which has caused FFL revocations to skyrocket a staggering 500%.

The Black Metal Firearms audit and the actions of ATF’s IOI clearly show – yet again – the agency is out of control.

The ATF is willing to do whatever it takes for a pat on the head from the current administration – even to violate the law. This needs to be stopped immediately. They need to be brought under control because their history proves that the ATF’s mistakes often end in bloodshed.

*****

This article was published by The Second Amendment Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Gun Safety: Good Mother in a Bad Neighborhood thumbnail

Gun Safety: Good Mother in a Bad Neighborhood

By Marcie Young

No matter what country, state, or city you live in, every neighborhood has pros and cons. Most big cities in the United States tend to have “good” areas and “bad” ones, though it is unclear to me exactly what differentiates one from the other. What I do know is that too many neighborhoods are wracked by the (supposed) “gun violence” and abuse of gun ownership.

I had a horrible experience in the past, which made me realize that carrying a firearm for self-defense is vital. I have a 2-year-old child and we live in Tolleson, which is among the 10 most dangerous towns in Arizona, so I am fully committed to protecting myself and my family by arming myself and maintaining gun safety.

Regarding firearm safety and awareness, here are two important things to consider:

Care About Mental Health

DRGO released the story of a young woman, Shayna Lopez-Rivaswho was denied her Second Amendment rights just because she was seeking mental health help for an ongoing case of PTSD. As a rape survivor, this woman had already gone through many painful experiences, so she was simply looking to protect herself just like any other citizen.

Psychiatrist Dr. Robert Young, DRGO Editor [Ed: no relation], explains the importance of gun ownership very clearly. He describes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms using the words of St. George Tucker: “the palladium of liberty”. According to Dr. Young, owning guns is a basic individual right just like all other rights of the American people. He also adds that for society to be successful, it is the responsibility of the individuals to care their own safety and the safety of others.

Shootings are not only a societal problem, but they are also a matter of public health. Not just physically, as commonly held by anti-gun academics, but because they can deeply affect survivors’ mental states. At the same time, you should not want your child to hate or reject guns simply because of the risk of misuse. Teaching gun safety is much more effective than banning guns from the home or society. Every citizen has the right to own a firearm, and this right should not be denied based on someone’s mental health short of dangerous ideas.

Make Sure Your Child is Safe in Other Homes

When my child grows older and asks me to spend time at friends’ houses, I will support that. However, I will make sure that neither he nor his playmates come in contact with unsecured guns while they play. I will share my family’s safety measures and will discuss theirs with the playmates’ parents.

Sadly, many neighborhoods have been targeted for their endemic violence, which has led children and adolescents to poor life outcomes and self-perpetuating cycles of deprivation and crime.

In 2019, Everytown Research reported a study of 7-year-olds, showing that 75% of those who lived in urban neighborhoods had heard gunshots at least once, 18% had seen a dead body, and 61% worried that they might get injured or killed.

To prevent children from developing misconceptions about the use of guns, they must understand the deeper meaning behind gun ownership, which is instilled in the country’s Constitution. Parents have the responsibility to communicate openly with their children, explaining the importance of staying safe when using a gun and how they should behave when they see one. As per the US Constitution, citizens cannot be prohibited from firearm possession. However, parents should be aware that kids have a natural curiosity about guns, therefore lack of education about the matter may cost their life.

Parents should explain to children that if they ever come across a gun, they should immediately leave the area and find an adult. As they get older, conversations may be expanded to discuss the difference between gun use in TV shows and video games vs reality. A good way to keep the topic alive is by using the TV news as a starting point to talk about how dangerous guns can be and how to stay safe.

Among the debates about gun ownership, my focus is on the use of guns for self-defense. In particular, firearm use should be evaluated not by how many people have died in shootings, but by how many lives have been saved because of their defensive use, not even fired in 90% of cases. As a mother, I will teach my son that defensive gun use is much more than just owning and carrying a weapon. Successful gun defense occurs when crimes are prevented rather than when someone gets killed. Numerous studies have shown that defensive gun use is more protective than restrictionist anti-gun laws.

Concluding Remarks

Violence can shape the lives of children who witness it, leaving them living in fear that they will become victims. Showing that you are prepared to defend them reassures them that their lives are precious, that they will be kept safe. Teaching them the rules of firearm safety and shooting skills as they grow up encourages them to take their safety into their own hands, as we all must in the end.

©Marcie Young. All rights reserved.

It’s ‘Unreasonable’ for Banks to Share Your Financial Info With the Government, 8 in 10 Americans Say thumbnail

It’s ‘Unreasonable’ for Banks to Share Your Financial Info With the Government, 8 in 10 Americans Say

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

About a fifth, 21%, think it is reasonable.


hat if your bank shared what you spent your money on with the federal government? By law, banks and other financial institutions (like car dealerships, jewelers, pawn shops) are required to report certain types of purchases people make to financial regulators. What do Americans think of this?

new Cato Institute national survey of 2,000 U.S. adults conducted by YouGov finds that 79% of Americans believe it is “unreasonable” for your bank to share your financial records and bank transactions with the federal government. About a fifth, 21%, think it is reasonable.

Instead, and overwhelming majority—83%—think that the government should first obtain a warrant to access your financial records, while 17% think a warrant shouldn’t be needed.

Even in an era of hyper‐​partisanship, Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree on this issue. Majorities of Democrats (68%), independents (83%), and Republicans (89%) think it’s unreasonable for your bank to share your financial records with the government. Similarly, overwhelming majorities of Democrats (82%), independents (76%), and Republicans (87%) think a warrant should be needed first.

The issue somewhat divides a portion of the Democratic coalition. Americans who identify as “very liberal” were the most likely (41%) group to think it’s reasonable for banks to share customers’ records with the federal government compared with 26% of mainline liberals.  Nevertheless, strong majorities of both strong liberals (59%) and moderate liberals (74%) believe sharing what people buy with the federal government is unacceptable. Furthermore, the same percentage (86%) of both say the government should need to obtain a warrant before reviewing purchases people make.

The Cato Institute 2022 Financial Privacy National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 17 to 23, 2022, from a national sample of 2,000 Americans 18 years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.39 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

The topline questionnaire and survey methodology can be found here. If you would like to speak to Dr. Ekins on the poll’s results please contact pr@​cato.​org or 202–789-5200.

This Cato Institute article was republished with permission.

AUTHOR

Emily Ekins

Emily Ekins is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

McDonald’s CEO Warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that Soaring Crime is Leaving its Corporate Staff Too Terrified to Return to HQ thumbnail

McDonald’s CEO Warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that Soaring Crime is Leaving its Corporate Staff Too Terrified to Return to HQ

By The Geller Report

Mayor Lori Lightfoot has allowed criminals to take over the once great city of Chicago. As such, we are now seeing a corporate exodus out of the Windy City. How long before McDonald’s follows Boeing, Citadel, the Chicago Bears and others out of Chicago? Not very long at this rate. The city of Muddy Waters, John Belushi, John Hughes, and Michael Jordan is dying before our eyes. Little to no media coverage on Lightfoot’s willful incompetence. Shameful.

McDonald’s CEO warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that soaring crime in burger giant’s home city is leaving its corporate staff too terrified to return to its HQ

  • Chris Kempczinski spoke last and says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back
  • He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis’ 
  • Crime is up 37 percent from this point in 2021, according to the city’s own data 
  • Murders and shootings are down double digits but thefts are up a shocking 64 percent
  • Previously, Kempczinski appeared to blame parents of two children who were shot and killed in a McDonald’s drive-thru in Chicago to Mayor Lori Lightfoot 
  • Kempczinski – who lives in the city with his family – pledged to not only keep the golden arches headquartered in Chicago but build a new innovation center 

By DailyMail.co.uk, Sept 16, 2022

The CEO of McDonald’s is speaking out about the crime crisis in Chicago and believes the lack of safety is keeping employees from returning to the fast food giant’s Windy City HQ in a warning to Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Chris Kempczinski spoke last Wednesday at the Economic Club of Chicago, where he says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back.

He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis.’

View Chicago Crime Statistics Here.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Suffers Enormous Defeat: Chicago Bears DENY Her Proposal To Stay In The City Of Chicago

Judge Overrules Despotic Democrats, ‘Vote-By-Mail Statute Is Unconstitutional’

Watchdog To Probe IRS After Hundreds Of Employees Failed To Pay Taxes

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Jewish Gun Group Plans to Sue New York Over Law Banning Concealed Carry in Churches and Synagogues thumbnail

Jewish Gun Group Plans to Sue New York Over Law Banning Concealed Carry in Churches and Synagogues

By Michael Tennant

A Jewish firearms organization is preparing to sue New York state over its new gun-control law, which prohibits most congregants from carrying a concealed weapon into a house of worship.

The New York State Jewish Gun Club has “retained a civil rights attorney to challenge the law and is asking others to join the fight,” reports the Bronx’s News 12. “[Founder Tzvi Waldman] says synagogues should be able to let licensed civilians carry guns in case of an attack.”

The law, known as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), was introduced and passed on July 1, just eight days after the Supreme Court invalidated the Empire State’s prior, highly restrictive concealed-carry law. The CCIA, which took effect September 1, makes it a felony for anyone to carry a concealed weapon in a “sensitive” location unless he is an active or retired police officer, an active-duty member of the military, or a private security guard. As one might expect from a law specifically designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision, that list of “sensitive” locations is quite lengthy and includes most public buildings, private businesses, schools, and houses of worship.

Houses of worship, especially synagogues, have good reason to oppose the new law. As New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms observes, “In essence, the state has made it unlawful for houses of worship to have armed congregants serve as members of their security teams unless those congregants are active or retired law enforcement officers. Churches would be permitted to hire professional security, but that could prove cost prohibitive for many houses of worship.”

It is, in fact, quite common for churches and synagogues to have congregants packing heat.

“Almost every orthodox synagogue in Baltimore has an armed congregant,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director for the Coalition of Jewish Values, told the Daily Caller. “People do not feel like calling the police or having an armed security guard who may be five blocks away is enough.”

Even if the police got there in time, they could react as the officers did during the May school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. “What happens if we run into a police officer who does not want to involve himself?” Pastor Jesse Stevenson of Revive Church of Rockland County told News 12. “Why then would it not be necessary for someone who is licensed to carry?”

Houses of worship have, after all, been the sites of several shootings in recent years, from the 2015 South Carolina church shooting to the 2017 Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. A 2019 attack on a Texas church was largely thwarted by an armed worshiper, demonstrating the value of allowing concealed weapons in church services.

“The average Orthodox Jew spends up to 20 hours a week in shul (synagogue). So for us, not being able to be protected in shul means more than the average person who goes to church once a week,” Waldman told News 12.

Jews aren’t alone in fearing racially motivated attacks during worship. One clergyman told Buffalo’s WGRZ that the racist who allegedly shot 13 people, killing 10, at a Tops supermarket in that city “was seen on security camera video apparently casing an East Buffalo church the week before his supermarket attack.” Another clergy member “said they would not allow themselves to be sitting targets for a killer looking for a place where Black people congregate,” meaning worshipers at that minister’s church should be permitted to arm themselves.

“Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not congregants should be allowed to carry in church,” asserted New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “Instead, state government has taken that decision out of their hands.”

Not if the gun club’s proposed lawsuit succeeds. Waldman told the Daily Caller he is “very confident” the courts will overturn the CCIA because it is “unconstitutional on so many levels.”

“The Second Amendment,” he declared, “is not a second-class right.”

*****

This article was published by The New American and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Weekend Read: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment. thumbnail

Weekend Read: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment.

By Richard W. Stevens

Editors’ Note:  This well-reasoned argument was made before several Supreme Court decisions which affirm, that the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right.  Two important decisions in that regard were rendered just this year, even though the right of self-protection has long been part of our history and tradition.  This morning, a lead editorial in the  Wall Street Journal cites a “new study” from Clemson University showing that where Blacks kept arms, they were much less likely to be lynched in the Jim Crow South.  You would hardly think a “study” would be necessary to confirm common sense, but as readers likely know, common sense is in short supply these days. A number of states continue to try to make an end run around recent Supreme Court decisions and have reconfigured their onerous restrictions on the right to have arms in defiance of the Court. Likewise, Progressives have successfully bullied banks and others to deny credit to gun dealers and credit card companies are now conspiring among themselves and with Progressive pressure groups to code firearms-related transactions in a way that could act as a national registry. There is a growing ominous trend whereby Progressives, are unable to democratically get their way in the legislatures, and are unable to prevail in court, but resort to enlisting private companies to deny rights to citizens. That these companies would even consider alienating more than half the population, and hence many of their customers, is an indication of how “woke culture” has captured the executive suite. In order to appreciate the importance of these recent Supreme Court decisions and corporate developments, it is likewise helpful to revisit the Biblical antecedents for the right of self-defense and the English common law.  Much like a cut flower, you can’t expect the flower to remain beautiful for very long if it is severed from its roots. Hence, you can’t expect our rights to be protected if severed from the philosophical roots that produced them. You would think freedom-enhancing positions would be supported without much argument.  But the actions of many governors and legislatures in Democrat-run states, corporate executives, as well as recent statements from the Premier of Canada Justin Trudeau; indicate that many in the West no longer understand the origins of Western morality or the theory of natural rights.  Or maybe, they do understand the origin of these rights, and rather wish to destroy the roots from which they have grown.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.

  • 1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
  • 2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
  • 3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
  • 4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has a personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against the government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give the civil government power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.

C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]

E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people …and at the people’s expense … in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only … which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, and the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:

  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
  • Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty…”
  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.
  • The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.
  • The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms … unthinkable to Southern slave owners.)][Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]

B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished, however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

  • A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See … Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
  • B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
  • C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings extensively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die … unless the people are armed.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

  • (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
  • (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
  • (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
  • (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis, and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

*****

This article was published by JPFO, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Weekend Read: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment thumbnail

Weekend Read: The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment

By Richard W. Stevens

Editors’ Note:  This well-reasoned argument was made before several Supreme Court decisions which affirm, that the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right.  Two important decisions in that regard were rendered just this year, even though the right of self-protection has long been part of our history and tradition.  This morning, a lead editorial in the  Wall Street Journal cites a “new study” from Clemson University showing that where Blacks kept arms, they were much less likely to be lynched in the Jim Crow South.  You would hardly think a “study” would be necessary to confirm common sense, but as readers likely know, common sense is in short supply these days. A number of states continue to try to make an end run around recent Supreme Court decisions and have reconfigured their onerous restrictions on the right to have arms in defiance of the Court. Likewise, Progressives have successfully bullied banks and others to deny credit to gun dealers and credit card companies are now conspiring among themselves and with Progressive pressure groups to code firearms-related transactions in a way that could act as a national registry. There is a growing ominous trend whereby Progressives, are unable to democratically get their way in the legislatures, and are unable to prevail in court, but resort to enlisting private companies to deny rights to citizens. That these companies would even consider alienating more than half the population, and hence many of their customers, is an indication of how “woke culture” has captured the executive suite. In order to appreciate the importance of these recent Supreme Court decisions and corporate developments, it is likewise helpful to revisit the Biblical antecedents for the right of self-defense and the English common law.  Much like a cut flower, you can’t expect the flower to remain beautiful for very long if it is severed from its roots. Hence, you can’t expect our rights to be protected if severed from the philosophical roots that produced them. You would think freedom-enhancing positions would be supported without much argument.  But the actions of many governors and legislatures in Democrat-run states, corporate executives, as well as recent statements from the Premier of Canada Justin Trudeau; indicate that many in the West no longer understand the origins of Western morality or the theory of natural rights.  Or maybe, they do understand the origin of these rights, and rather wish to destroy the roots from which they have grown.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.

  • 1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
  • 2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
  • 3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
  • 4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has a personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against the government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give the civil government power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.

C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from G-d. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]

E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people …and at the people’s expense … in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only … which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, and the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:

  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
  • Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty…”
  • New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.
  • The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.
  • The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms … unthinkable to Southern slave owners.)][Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]

B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished, however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

  • A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See … Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
  • B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
  • C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings extensively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die … unless the people are armed.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

  • (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
  • (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
  • (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
  • (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis, and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

*****

This article was published by JPFO, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

New York Banker: Gun, Ammunition Purchase Code ‘answers the call of millions’ thumbnail

New York Banker: Gun, Ammunition Purchase Code ‘answers the call of millions’

By Steve Bittenbender

Editors’ Note:  There are a number of highly disturbing trends embedded in this article. First and foremost, is the ability of Democrats to make an end run around the legislative process by engaging highly regulated industries for their cause. Whether it be electric vehicles from GM, suppression of free speech by Facebook and Twitter, or now highly regulated banks creating a national firearm registry; Democrats are getting what they want without the representatives of the people voting. They do this openly while criticizing others for threatening “democracy.” Secondly, the alliance of big business with the government truly would make Mussolini proud, since that was among the key ingredients of Italian-style fascism. Thirdly, it shows no amount of evidence will convince Progressives of their folly. Most guns used in the commission of crimes are stolen and are not purchased using a credit card from legitimate dealers. The law-abiding public buys at gun stores, not hardened criminals. At the margin, this will likely hardly make a dent in crime, especially since the same Democrats are reducing or eliminating bail, freeing dangerous criminals early, and joining with Black Lives Matter and other groups in denigrating and de-funding police forces. Democrats are turning our major cities into hellholes. This all makes the average citizen need to have a gun for self-protection. But now, his or her private purchases will be monitored by the banking system, which is a weaponization of the banking industry by the Democrat party. Be sure to view the video by Jason Riley in the video section.  It would seem their goal is to leave us all vulnerable to criminals, as pictured above.

The president and CEO of the New York-based bank that pushed for a specific credit card code for gun retailers have claimed victory in the wake of the International Organization for Standardization’s approval of that request last week.

“We all have to do our part to stop gun violence,” Amalgamated Bank’s Priscilla Sims Brown said in a statement from Guns Down America.

Critics say she and the ISO have done little.

“The ISO’s decision to create a firearm-specific code is nothing more than a capitulation to anti-gun politicians and activists bent on eroding the rights of law-abiding Americans one transaction at a time,” Lars Dalseide, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, told The Center Square. “This is not about tracking or prevention or any virtuous motivation – it’s about creating a national registry of gun owners.”

On its website, Amalgamated bills itself as “America’s Socially Responsible Bank.” Gun safety and anti-violence are among 10 social causes the bank pursues, along with pro-labor, pro-choice, and climate issues as well as immigrant, minority, and LGBTQ+ rights.

As part of its gun safety crusade, Amalgamated says it does not offer loans to “gun, nuclear weapon or ammunition manufacturers or distributors.” It also offers investment funds that exclude those companies.

Brown said in her statement that the merchant category code will allow Amalgamated to “report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales” to law enforcement while not interfering with lawful purchases.

This action answers the call of millions of Americans who want safety from gun violence, and we are proud to lead a broad coalition of advocates, shareholders, and elected officials to achieve this historic outcome,” Brown said.

Amalgamated got support from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, both Democrats, who said establishing the MCC would help prevent mass shootings.

James, in a letter co-signed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta to executives of American Express, Mastercard, and Visa, said the perpetrator of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando that killed 49 people and injured 53 used six credit cards in spending $20,000 to buy the guns and ammunition used in the attack.

Guns Down America said the MCC will apply to all federally-licensed 9,000 gun and ammo retailers.

According to PaymentCloud, a financial services provider to merchants, MCCs were initially established to simplify 1099 reporting to the IRS. However, credit card processors have since started using them to determine fees assessed to merchants and consumer cashback rates.

Risk is another factor card companies consider.

“High-risk merchant category code classifications can also come with other downsides,” PaymentCloud said on its blog. “This can include exclusion from the same eCommerce fraud protections as other businesses. Some MCCs, like those assigned for gambling and money orders, do not receive these protections in transactions where a card is not present.

“Sometimes high-risk businesses are not accepted by a credit card provider at all.”

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Giffords [Wife of Senator Mark Kelly] Opens Florida Office, Backs Anti-Gun Extremist Candidates thumbnail

Giffords [Wife of Senator Mark Kelly] Opens Florida Office, Backs Anti-Gun Extremist Candidates

By Editors at Second Amendment Foundation

Editors Note: Gabbie Giffords is the wife of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and a former liberal Congresswoman from southern Arizona. Kelly, who is making every effort to appear to be a moderate Democrat, is actually a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment. Don’t be fooled. Conversely, his Republican opponent Blake Masters is a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. If you believe in Second Amendment rights and the rest of the Bill of Rights is important, support Blake Masters.

Progressive Democrats are advancing a multi-prong attack on personal safety. They have let huge numbers of dangerous felons out of prison ostensibly because of Covid, they want to put fewer people in prison supposedly because of “racial equity”. They promote prosecutors who will not work to put criminals in prison, weaken criminal statutes,  reduce or eliminate bail, push for early release, and strive to both defund and hamstring the work of local police. The results in many Democrat-run cities are obvious: widespread carnage and lawlessness. Thus leaving citizens more exposed than ever to violent criminals, they seek to confiscate or restrict access to firearms by citizens. In a crisis, the citizen is the first responder, and cannot rely on the government. If Democrats get your guns, you will be defenseless against the Democrat crime wave.  Arizona must not return Mark Kelly to the US Senate. He is just too dangerous to our safety and our Constitutional rights. It is Florida today, and tomorrow, it will be Arizona.

One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of the criminals and paid so little attention to their victims. Thomas Sowell

Gabbie Giffords is taking aim at the Gunshine State.

In a press release issued this week, she announced the creation of Giffords Florida, which she described as “a new initiative dedicated to supporting candidates for local, state, and federal office in the Sunshine State who have the courage to fight gun violence.”

According to the release, this is Giffords “first and only state-specific political initiative,” as well as the “largest bilingual gun safety political program focused entirely on Florida.”

Giffords, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has more than $5 million in assets. Their law center, located in San Francisco, has more than $10 million.

Giffords bankrolled their new Florida office with $1 million, which they say they will spend on “endorsing candidates with strong records on gun safety, helping get out the vote for gun safety candidates, conducting research about Floridians’ views on gun violence prevention measures.”

Much of their efforts and money will be spent in Miami-Dade, promoting a slate of anti-gun candidates Giffords calls its “gun safety champions.”

Giffords endorsed Democrat Janelle Perez for Florida’s Senate District 38, which consists of part of Miami-Dade county.

According to her website, Perez, a political newcomer, holds extreme anti-gun views, including the licensing of gun owners.

“Much like driving a car requires a license, Janelle supports license requirements for owning a gun to keep our community safe,” her website states. It does not draw a distinction between owning a firearm, which is a constitutional right, and operating a motor vehicle, which is not.

Perez also supports a ban on “military-style assault rifles,” increased background checks “for every gun sold in the state of Florida,” and a ban on “modifications that increase the rate of fire.”

In a written statement, Perez does not appear to know the difference between constitutional carry, which Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-dominated state legislature support, and open carry.

“Our Governor and radical Republicans in the state Legislature have committed to passing open carry next year – putting our children, our community, and our future at risk for preventable gun violence,” Perez said in a statement. “When elected to the Florida Senate, I vow to fight for the kind of responsible, commonsense gun safety measures supported by the majority of Americans that protect us all.”

Giffords Florida steering committee consists of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, State Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, and others. The committee is chaired by former Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

*****

This article was published by the Second Amendment Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

The FBI Secretly Pressured Americans To Waive Away Their Gun Rights thumbnail

The FBI Secretly Pressured Americans To Waive Away Their Gun Rights

By The Daily Caller

  • The FBI secretly provided forms to Americans between 2016 and 2019 to “voluntarily” relinquish their rights to own, buy or even use firearms, according to internal documents and communications. 
  • The signed forms, which were unearthed by the firearms rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA), raise serious legal questions, lawyers say.
  • “We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, outside counsel for GOA. 

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

The form specifies that signatories will be permanently registered with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) — which the form states would legally bar signatories from being able to “purchase, to possess and to use any firearm.” It is unclear what exact criteria the FBI used to identify signatories, but some forms include bureau notes detailing ongoing investigations.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

Click here to view Screenshot/Signed NICS Indices Self-Submission Form.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

‘That Is Terrifying To Me’

In order to get signatures, FBI agents in some cases interviewed people at their homes and elsewhere. While signing the form is supposed to be done “voluntarily,” lawyers told the DCNF there is a sense of undue pressure when Americans have to deal directly with FBI.

“A person is almost invariably at a disadvantage when dealing with armed federal agents,” said Olson.

In 2017, there was one case in which the FBI “was advised of a Facebook conversation” where a man allegedly “threatened to ‘shoot up’ a church,” according to bureau notes. The man denied making the threats in interviews at his home, telling the FBI “he did not want to kill anyone” and has “never possessed a firearm and has no desire to possess a firearm,” notes show.

Nevertheless, the man later filled out the form waiving his gun rights.

In 2018, FBI agents in Maine interviewed a high school student who “decided to look at online advice for hacking” on his school-assigned laptop, bureau notes show. Agents tried to access the student’s Facebook, but were “unable” to do so, according to the notes. However, the high school student eventually agreed to sign the self-submission form.

Another case involved a Massachusetts man who was arrested for vandalism in 2017 after “he broke several apartment windows” and allegedly told police, “I’m gonna kill all you white cops,” according to FBI notes. Three months later, he was interviewed at a redacted location by the FBI and was transported to a hospital after he “became agitated, began sweating profusely and complained of muscle pains.”

Once at the hospital, the man signed the self-submission form in the presence of a doctor and an FBI agent, according to bureau notes.

Reed Martz, a lawyer who runs a Second Amendment blog, told the DCNF “there is implicit pressure any time the FBI is asking you to sign a form.” There is naturally “an adversarial relationship” between everyday people and the FBI, he said.

“The FBI presented this to people,” said Martz. “That is terrifying to me. Think about that. The whole thing is chilling.”

It is unclear whether FBI agents threatened anyone with arrest if they didn’t sign.

Click here for Screenshot/FBI Notes, 2017 Involving Church Incident/FBI

Unanswered Legal Questions

Records do not show when the FBI form was created, who created it and whether or not it was distributed to federal agencies. However, the form was apparently “reviewed by legal counsel,” an FBI employee told a colleague in a November 2016 email obtained by the DCNF. At least 10 people had signed the forms by November 2016, the same FBI employee told their colleague.

Two days later, on that same email thread, one of the FBI employees said they “shared” the forms with “agencies who use these forms like Secret Service and Social Security.” The Secret Service declined the DCNF’s request for comment and the Social Security Administration did not respond.

Federal law requires government agencies to get public comment and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. Likewise, all official federal forms are supposed to be assigned a “control number,” experts told the DCNF.

However, the forms unearthed by GOA do not have a control number — a fact that underscores the FBI’s glaring lack of transparency — lawyers say.

“This is a form that’s designed for outside the office,” said Martz. “It raises my level of suspicion that it doesn’t have an official form number that you can look up and can download.”

The form also contains space for a “physician or mental health professional” to affirm the signatory “has adequate mental capacity to voluntarily execute this document,” which is a huge red flag, according to John Harris, a lawyer who heads the Tennessee Firearms Association.

“I don’t see how a licensed physician could ever competently sign the declaration that the person has the mental capacity to voluntarily execute the agreement but lacks the ‘mental capacity adequately to contract or manage the details of my life.’” said Harris.

If the signatory does not have the “mental capacity” to own, buy or use firearms, they “could not possibly have the competence” to agree to sign a form waiving away their gun rights, said Martz.

Click here for Screenshot/Signed And Redacted Physician Or Mental Health Professional Verification On FBI form/FBI

There are also questions about the form’s compliance with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. The GCA holds that someone may be barred from owning guns if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.”

However, the GCA makes no mention of people being able to declare themselves as mentally unfit to own firearms. Likewise, the forms do not indicate that courts ruled signatories as unfit to own firearms.

“By definition, the people targeted with these forms are those who are not otherwise ‘prohibited persons’ and have not committed any actual crime with which they can be charged,” said Olsen. “Otherwise, there would be no need to use the form.”

Harris noted the GCA does not necessarily render anyone with a “mental condition” a “prohibited person” to own firearms. Both those labels “require adjudication,” he said.

“The form seeks to deceive and mislead not only the individual, but perhaps even a medical provider to believe that a mental health issue is adequate to render someone a prohibited person under the statutory language, when the form itself lacks any information or disclosures that make it even remotely an accurate representation of the law,” Harris told the DCNF.

The FBI declined to identify any statutory justification for the forms, and OMB did not respond to a request for comment.

‘You Can’t Waive Constitutional Rights’

Those who signed the FBI forms could have standing to sue should the government ever prosecute them for trying to buy a gun, lawyers say.

“How would such unilateral waiver of a constitutionally protected right give rise to a basis for subsequent denial of that right and or form the basis for a valid criminal conviction?” Harris asked. “Could, in contrast, someone waive the right to vote or run for office and have that enforced?”

More fundamentally, the FBI forms call into question whether or not Americans can sign away their constitutional rights. Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, says you can’t.

“You can’t waive constitutional rights,” said Cuccinelli, now a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America. “They’re natural rights.”

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ATF Agents, Officer Show Up ‘Warrantless’ To Demand Info On Man’s Guns, Video Appears To Show

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

How the James-Younger Gang’s Historic Defeat Showed the Importance of a Well-Armed and Responsible Citizenry thumbnail

How the James-Younger Gang’s Historic Defeat Showed the Importance of a Well-Armed and Responsible Citizenry

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The outlaws met their match on September 7 in 1876. They fell not to federal marshals but to the townspeople of Northfield, Minnesota.


“Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you.” Thus spoke Alexander Graham Bell on March 10, 1876, in the world’s first successful telephone message. Twenty-two-year-old Thomas Augustus Watson thereby became history’s first recipient of a phone call, though he was no further away than an adjacent room. Telemarketers would inevitably follow.

Six months later, on today’s very date—September 7 in 1876—telephonic communication in remote Northfield, Minnesota was still years in the future. Nonetheless, local townspeople by word of mouth put an effective end to a notorious crime spree. “Get your guns, boys, they’re robbing the bank!” shouted Northfield resident J. S. Allen.

The bank robbers on that day were among the most feared and famous outlaws of the day, the James-Younger Gang. Members included Jesse James and his brother Frank, the Younger brothers (Cole, John, Bob, and Jim), plus occasional cohorts such as Clell Miller, Charlie Pitts and Bill Chadwell. Most hailed from Missouri but over an entire decade, they robbed and killed in multiple states from Texas to Kentucky to Iowa and finally, Minnesota.

Not wanting to hold up the First National Bank of Northfield on empty stomachs, the Gang sat down for fried eggs and whisky at a restaurant at about noon. Tanked up and ready to go shortly before 2:00 pm, they headed over to the bank. Having noticed the outlaws (alert residents later testified that the thugs reeked of alcohol), the stage was set for a violent confrontation.

Gunshots rang out and a Swedish immigrant selling vegetables fell dead. Inside the bank, teller James Heywood refused to cooperate by forking over the cash and was shot dead on the spot. As townspeople opened fire, the Gang attempted to escape with a few bags of nickels. Two of the thugs were killed, and every one of the remaining six (including Jesse James himself) was wounded.

What’s the difference, asks an old joke, between a successful bank robber and one who ends up in prison? One’s a pro, and one’s a con. In the end, the James-Younger Gang were definitely in the latter category.

Well-armed and public-spirited Northfield citizens formed a posse and pursued the crooks. All but brothers Frank and Jesse James were either killed or caught and sentenced to long prison terms. To this very day, Northfield hosts an annual “Defeat of Jesse James Days” celebration in September to commemorate the town’s break-up of the James-Younger Gang.

In his riveting book, Chasing Frank and Jesse James: The Bungled Northfield Bank Robbery and the Long Manhunt, Wayne Fanebust assesses this colorful episode:

[I]t was a huge mistake for the James–Younger gang to venture forth into Minnesota, looking for fat bank to rob. It was extremely arrogant of the Missouri outlaws to think that the hard-working farm and businesspeople of the northern prairie would simply run away once the shooting started. And when the shooting started at Northfield, Minnesota, the townspeople offered stiff and brave resistance, exchanging gunfire with gunfire. When the shooting stopped, two outlaws lay dead in the street, and the rest were shot up and sent riding for their lives. Two citizens of Northfield were killed in a shocking crime that set in motion one of the greatest and most exciting manhunts in American history.

When the James Brothers resumed their crime spree (mostly train robberies) a few years later, Missouri Governor Thomas Crittenden privatized their apprehension by offering a huge reward.

On April 3, 1882, an aspiring Gang member named Bob Ford fired the fatal shot that killed Jesse James in St. Joseph, Missouri. The story is dramatized in the 2007 Brad Pitt/Casey Affleck film, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Jesse’s brother Frank surrendered shortly thereafter.

A fifteen-year theft and murder saga had come to an abrupt end, underscoring the wisdom of the adage, “A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.”

When the cops do their job and do it well, I’m the first to offer thanks. But we should always be just as grateful for a well-armed, vigilant, and responsible citizenry.

AUTHOR

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is www.lawrencewreed.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

President Biden: Ignorant Demagogue thumbnail

President Biden: Ignorant Demagogue

By Neland Nobel

President Biden was recently in Pennsylvania where he campaigned against “assault weapons” again, committing multiple egregious factual errors.

The press describes such events as “gaffes” and the President as “gaffe-prone.”

But simple factual errors occur so frequently, and most often in the context of major policy positions, that one must conclude either the President is either an ignoramus on the whole subject of crime and guns, or he is deliberately demagoguing the subject.

He also took the occasion to spin the yarn that Democrats were not for defunding the police but rather Republicans were. This is because Republicans refused to vote for some Federal funding for police buried in legislation that spent billions on wasteful and unconstitutional spending.

Apparently, Biden is not aware of the summer of 2020, the 700 or so BLM riots, and the frequent calls to “defund the police” by Democrat activists.

Besides, funding or defunding police forces is largely a local matter not within his jurisdiction.

Some time ago, Biden suggested firing shotguns into the air as a way to deter crime and suggested that when assaulted, police should shoot people in the leg.  Brandishing and discharging a firearm is a  crime in itself, and shooting someone in the leg may be one as well. Normally, the use of deadly force is permitted ONLY if the life of the victim or an innocent party is in imminent danger. If imminent danger is not the condition, discharging a firearm into the air, or shooting for the leg, is circumstantial proof that imminent danger was not at hand. Moreover, if imminent danger to life and limb are indeed present, both actions suggested by Biden would not save the lives of the victims because the perpetrator would not be stopped from committing his crime.

Concentrating on “assault weapons”, he told the crowd that the bullet used by AR-15 rifles is five times faster than any other kind of bullet.  He was suggesting that their lethality was therefore on a scale that should not be permitted. However, if the same round is fired from a bolt action rifle, rather than a semi-auto, the speed is the same, but he is not suggesting banning bolt action rifles, or is he?

Ballistically speaking, this is a lie, and anyone could prove it with three minutes’ worth of research. Anyone who has taken high school physics knows that force equals mass times velocity squared. So, the size of the bullet, its speed, what it hits, and how the projectile expands, are also factors in determining lethality.

The .223 or 5.56 mm used in the AR and similar platforms, shoots a very small .22 caliber projectile, commonly 55 to 62 grains in weight. It is so small, that while allowed in some states, most knowledgeable hunters believe the round is too small even for deer hunting. Ironically, the .223 is not permitted for deer hunting in Pennsylvania, the state in which the President was bloviating. The .223 is part of a family of centerfire rifles cartridges generally considered “varmint rounds” only suitable to be used on prairie dogs and coyotes.

As to the velocity of the round, it is not even the fastest, let alone FIVE TIMES as fast. Most .223 rounds travel around 3,200 feet per second.

How does this compare to other rounds?  Well, the .270 Winchester has been around since 1922 and is a popular mid-sized hunting cartridge. With a  90-grain projectile, it travels at 3,600 feet per second.  The .220 Swift similar in size to the .223 is considered the fastest “commercial” cartridge and moves along at 4,200 feet per second. That is 1,000 feet per second faster than the .223.

Custom, hand-loaded rounds, can go even faster.

Biden’s statement suggests the .223 travels at over 20,000 feet per second, which is just errant nonsense.

He also suggested the .223 blows up the target and therefore should be banned. Earlier he had suggested 9mm pistol rounds “blow the lungs out of the body.”

If that were true, Biden is guilty of war crimes because the .223 and 9mm are the standard rifle and pistol ammunition of the US Armed Forces which he commands, and it would violate the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention does not allow rounds to be used in warfare that completely explodes humans.

Some politicians have attacked the AR-15 platform because it is semiautomatic, but an “assault weapon” has a selector switch that allows the rifleman to go to fully automatic, that is one squeeze of the trigger sends multiple rounds downrange, as in a machine gun. ARs that Biden is referring to require one pull of the trigger for one round, which is common in other weapons that are semiautomatic. 

Semiautomatic rifles and pistols have been made since the late 1800s. They no more cause crime than do hands and feet. However, more people are killed annually with hands and feet than with AR-type rifles.

True assault weapons, which have a fully automatic function, are illegal in the US and like all machine guns can be acquired only with special Federal permits.

Biden is somewhat unique in that rather than attacking magazine capacity or appearance, he is attacking the round itself. In so doing, he commits numerous factual errors. One can only surmise he is lying to mislead the public on this subject.

This is not without serious consequences. When a President shows his ignorance of the important subject matter or deliberately lies, it makes citizens wonder if they can believe anything the man is saying. When people can’t believe their President, this is serious. We may face critical issues in the future wherein getting the American public ready to endure a crisis may be necessary. If the President has repeatedly blown his credibility or is believed to be deeply dishonest, he will not be able to rally the public in the event of an emergency.

Besides destroying domestic credibility by constant demonstrations of ignorance, a President may show foreign leaders that he is a buffoon as well. This too, makes the world a much more dangerous place.

This is much more than committing gaffes. President Biden is destroying the credibility of the most powerful office in the world. He should not be excused for being an ignorant demagogue.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

WATCH: Biden Holds Midterm Election Rally in Pennsylvania—And Nobody Came! thumbnail

WATCH: Biden Holds Midterm Election Rally in Pennsylvania—And Nobody Came!

By Dr. Rich Swier

Well, well. Joe Biden is on the midterm campaign trail and he held a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania on Thursday, August 30th, 2022.

The theme of the rally was a “Safer America.”

Interesting in that this comes after the FBI raid on a former president’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida and the U.S. Marshals armed raid on organic Amish farmer Amos Miller in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania.

QUESTION: Safer for who, exactly?

BTW, I guess someone forgot to send out invitations to his event because hardly anyone showed up. I guess there aren’t many Biden supporting Democrats in Pennsylvania?

Here’s a Fox News video of the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania rally:

Good on FOX for the wide shot showing the gathering 😂

I’ve seen bigger turnouts at PTA meetings pic.twitter.com/37Edlh86Ea

— Lisa Whicker (@Providential) August 30, 2022

Notice how few people showed up. I’ve seen bus stops with more people than this. It seems that Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. just doesn’t have the power to draw in the crowds that his predecessor did.

I wonder why? Was it gas prices are so high that people decided that they couldn’t afford to drive to Wilkes-Barre?

Maybe it was the cost to enter the event? Did Joe’s people charge for this event to make up for the massive spending to pay for the salaries of 87,000 new armed IRS agents or maybe the cost estimated to be between $469 billion to $519 billion to pay off student loans over the next ten years? Just saying.

Maybe it was the U.S. Marshals raiding an organic farm owned by Amos Miller who’s Amish in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania? Maybe the Amish are boycotting Uncle Joe?

Maybe it was because Biden fearlessly defended the FBI, that he sent to ransack his political opponent’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida?

Or maybe it was because at the rally Biden pledged to take away every Americans right to keep and bear arms stating, “We beat the NRA. We took on them and beat the NRA straight up. They have no idea how intimidating they are to elected officials. We don’t stop here. I am determined to ban assault weapons in this country! Certainly. I’ve done it before. And I will do it again.

Exactly, Biden clearly understands that an armed citizenry is a direct threat to each and every tyrannical elected official—like Biden.

Maybe its about defunding the police because that what his base, i.e. Black Lives matter wants. But wait Biden stated, “It’s disgusting to see the new attacks on the FBI threatening the lives of law enforcement agencies and their families for simply executing the law and doing their job. I am against defunding the police; I am also opposed to defunding the FBI.

So Biden doesn’t want to defund his private police force—the FBI. Now I get it.

Since the armed raid on Mar-a-Lago the FBI has been held accountable and is under fire by many American for their actions. It now appears that the FBI is nothing more than the enforcement arm, of and for, the Democrat Party, much like the Nazis Gestapo, East German Staci and Russian KGB.

Wait a minute. I don’t know anyone who has threatened any FBI agent or his family, do you? But we do know that the Florida Seminole County GOP office was vandalized over the weekend with the words “eat s*** Fascists” smeared on the windows.

QUESTION: Was this attack in Seminole County directly because Biden called Republicans “semi-fascists?”

On August 25th, Aljazeera reported, “Biden spoke on the need to save the country from the ‘semi-fascism’ of Donald Trump’s Republicans and prevent those ‘extremist’ Republicans from taking control of Congress in the November 8 vote.”

As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis noted in an email, “It’s no coincidence that this vandalism comes after Joe Biden called conservatives ‘semi-fascists.’

Rhetoric kills. Just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany and those anti-Stalinists in the former Soviet Union. Using language like this leads inextricably to violence.

BTW, the media reported that 500 people showed up for Biden’s Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania rally. Looking at the above video it appears to be less than 100 people.

We report, you decide.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Lawyer, “We’ve learned today that Trump’s files were taken by the FBI”

Governor Ron DeSantis on the Recommendation of a Grand Jury Removes 4 Broward County School Board Members thumbnail

Governor Ron DeSantis on the Recommendation of a Grand Jury Removes 4 Broward County School Board Members

By Royal A. Brown III

The gross negligence surrounding the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings in March 2018 was astounding including failures by the School District, the local FBI, the Broward Cowards in the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, including Sheriff Israel, and even the Administrator’s of the High School itself.

Parents of children murdered sued the School District for negligence and received $130 million after settling with the Department of Justice.

Remember that the School District had taken a large Grant from Obama/Holder called the “Promises Program” to suppress the criminal activity of minority students including the killer Cruz.  Also both the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and FBI had numerous reports on social media warning about Cruz that they failed to follow up on.  Sheriff Israel had a terrible policy in regard to response to active shootings; his Deputy stationed at the school was a coward hiding behind those policies and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Administration failed in many ways.

These terrible mass murders were preventable.

This was outlined in the Special Commission’s Report on the shootings.

Sadly, the result was a knee jerk reaction by Republicans under pressure in the Legislature to quickly drum up a Red Flag Law modeled after existing Blue State Laws which reduced the rights of law abiding gun owners.

DeSantis removes more local elected officials from office. This time, it’s school board members

Zac Anderson Tallahassee Democrat:

Gov. Ron DeSantis is removing more local elected officials from office, this time on the recommendation of a grand jury.

DeSantis announced Friday he is removing Broward County School Board members Patricia Good, Donna Korn, Ann Murray and Laurie Rich Levinson. They serve the nation’s sixth-largest school district and second-largest in Florida.

A grand jury investigating school safety issues in the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County recommended that the school board members be removed. The grand jury accused the elected officials of “incompetence and neglect of duty.”

“We recommend that the Governor remove them from their elected offices,” the grand jury report states.

DeSantis immediately appointed four people to replace the suspended school board members:

  • Torey Alston, a former Broward County commissioner and president of Indelible Solutions;
  • Manual “Nandy” A. Serrano, a member of the Florida Sports Foundation Board of Directors, and CEO and Founder of Clubhouse Private Wealth;
  • Ryan Reiter, a U.S. Marine veteran and Director of Government Relations for Kaufman Lynn Construction;
  • Kevin Tynan, an attorney who previously served on the Broward County School Board and South Broward Hospital District.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: DeSantis suspends Democratic state attorney he accuses of being ‘woke,’ not enforcing laws

The Australia Model for Gun Control Is Useless thumbnail

The Australia Model for Gun Control Is Useless

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The case of gun control advocates for the U.S. to move to the Australia model for gun ownership is faulty at best.


In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which left dozens dead and hundreds wounded, a great number of people have laid the blame on America’s relatively lax gun laws and alleged unwillingness to adopt “common sense” gun control.

In particular, gun control advocates tell us America could eliminate mass shootings if only we followed Australia’s lead.

The Australia Model

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in 1996, the national government introduced a mandatory buyback program which forced gun owners to sell certain firearms (mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns) to the state, who promptly destroyed them.

This program, which resulted in the stock of civilian firearms in the country being reduced by approximately twenty percent, was effectively large-scale gun confiscation, as gun owners would have become criminals were they to withhold their firearms from the state.

Since the introduction of these measures, Australia’s firearm homicide rates have fallen and it has yet to witness a mass shooting. Because of these “results,” Australia has been constantly cited as a successful example of gun control in action.

But the reality is much less simplistic than the narrative being promoted by gun control advocates.

Sure, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since it enacted gun control, but that hardly proves anything by itself. A 2011 study published in Justice Policy Journal compared the trends in mass shootings before and after 1996, when gun control was enacted, in Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is Australia’s neighbor and is very similar to it socioeconomically, but unlike Australia, it retained the legal availability of guns that were banned and confiscated in Australia in 1996. It thus served as a useful control group to observe whatever effects gun control had on mass shootings.

The authors of the study found that, after taking into account difference in population size, Australia and New Zealand did not have statistically different trends in mass shootings before or after 1996. Indeed, New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997, “despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

Well, what about firearm homicides in general? Or firearm suicides?

View Firearm Homicide Deaths by Calendar Year — 1979-2009

These questions were answered by a 2016 American Medical Association (AMA) study, which examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adoption of gun control in Australia in 1996. The authors found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate.

This is in accordance with past research. For example, the authors of a paper published in the International Journal of Criminal Justice report that, “Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.”

The authors of the AMA study did find that the decline in firearm suicide rates accelerated in the wake of gun control, but concluded that “it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms” because the “decline in total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths were of greater magnitude.”

In other words, since non-firearm suicide rates were reduced to an even greater extent than firearm suicide rates in the wake of gun control, one cannot firmly conclude that gun control is the reason firearm suicide rates fell.

Basically, gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all. If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.

A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.

AUTHOR

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a Master of Business graduate student at the University of Rhode Island with a bachelor’s degree in Pharmaceutical Science and a minor in Economics.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report on “Unprecedented” Criminal Firearm Misuse in Melbourne Undermines Hillary and Obama’s Calls for Australia-Style Gun Control

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

These 11 Defensive Gun Uses Show Protective Benefits of Second Amendment thumbnail

These 11 Defensive Gun Uses Show Protective Benefits of Second Amendment

By Amy Swearer

Editors’ Note: The collection of data is important to policy. Just as temperatures taken from heat islands can lead climatologists to wrong conclusions about “global warming”, so can incorrect data on the use of firearms can mislead policymakers. Professor John Lott is perhaps one of the best independent sources of information relating to firearms. Recently, he wrote in Real Clear Investigations:

“Evidence compiled by the organization I run, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and others suggest that the FBI undercounts by an order of more than three the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks, saving untold numbers of lives. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.”

So much of our public understanding of this issue is malformed by this single agency,” notes Theo Wold, former acting assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. “When the Bureau gets it so systematically – and persistently – wrong, the cascading effect is incredibly deleterious. The FBI exerts considerable influence over state and local law enforcement and policymakers at all levels of government.”

We will leave it to our readers and Mike Pence as to why FBI data is so consistently wrong.

*****

testified before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee last month in a hearing focused on “the economic toll of gun violence.”

Of course, there’s no doubt that gun violence imposes a tremendous cost on society, both financially and in far less readily calculable ways. How does one measure, for example, the mental and emotional toll of being shot?

As I explained to the committee, however, lawful gun owners are not largely to blame for these costs, despite many insinuations to the contrary by gun control advocates. Most lawful gun owners never will harm themselves or others and never will add a single dollar to the overall bill for gun violence.

Meanwhile, lawful gun ownership provides significant but often underacknowledged protective benefits, enabling peaceable citizens to defend themselves and others far more effectively than if they were unarmed.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in July. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

  • July 3, Surprise, Arizona: An armed citizen fatally shot a gunman who opened fire at a neighborhood Fourth of July gathering, police said. Witnesses said the gunman lived in the neighborhood and had engaged in small talk and eaten a plate of food before drawing a handgun and shooting those around him. He killed two and wounded four others before being fatally shot by the armed citizen. Police said they thought the gunman’s actions were unprovoked, but didn’t know his motive.
  • July 5, Houston: A woman was barbecuing with friends when her adult son showed up drinking and acting strangely, police said. The woman and her son went inside, where the son grabbed a rifle and fired more than 20 rounds at his mother before she fled outside. The son chased her, but was fatally shot by an armed neighbor who heard the gunfire and came to the woman’s defense, police said. The mother suffered multiple gunshot wounds, but was expected to survive. No one else was injured.
  • July 7, Pensacola, Florida: A local sheriff told reporters that a homeowner would “absolutely not” face charges for using an “AK-47-style” rifle to defend his home against three men who broke in and threatened him with a handgun. Police arrested two of the three men, one of whom was the subject of several active arrest warrants for violent crimes. Police were looking for a third man, who apparently was wounded.
  • July 12, Chicago: Police said that the holder of a concealed carry permit turned the tables on a teenager who started shooting at him in a restaurant parking lot. The man drew his own gun and shot his assailant in the hand and foot.
  • July 17, Greenwood, Indiana: A 22-year-old man with a concealed carry permit fatally shot a would-be mass shooter who opened fire in a crowded mall food court, police said. The gunman killed three people, but the permit holder saved countless lives by ending the shooting just 15 seconds after it began. Experts roundly praised the permit holder’s marksmanship after he hit the gunman with eight out of 10 rounds from 40 yards away, without any police or military training.
  • July 19, Kansas City, Missouri: Authorities said that a man won’t face charges after shooting and wounding an assailant who attacked him and his mother with a machete in a hardware store parking lot. The man and his mother were sitting in their vehicle when the assailant approached and began shattering car windows with the machete. He then swung the blade at them as they tried to escape. Although injured, the man managed to fire at least five rounds at the assailant, who ran a short distance before collapsing. Police charged him with several felonies.
  • July 22, Billings, Montana: Police said a man asked a hotel guest for a cigarette, then tried to rob him at knifepoint despite the fact that the guest openly carried a handgun. The guest drew the gun and shot the would-be robber when he lunged.
  • July 25, Williamsburg, Virginia: A homeowner and his family were sitting on their porch when an unknown man jumped a gate and approached, police said. The family went inside and locked the door, but the man tried to kick down the door and force his way inside. The homeowner fatally shot the intruder, police said.
  • July 27, Wichita, Kansas: A couple briefly left their SUV unattended in their driveway, only to discover upon their return that the car had been stolen—with their two young children still inside. Police said the man and woman called 911 while starting a frantic search. They quickly found the stolen SUV and held the teen driver at gunpoint until police arrived. Bystanders found the children unharmed two blocks away, left on the side of the road while strapped into their car seats. Police arrested three others, all younger than 18 and suspected of being involved in “numerous other crimes.”
  • July 29, Indianapolis: Just days after burglars “ransacked” his home, police said, a homeowner found himself again targeted by criminals. This time, he was home and armed when someone broke in, and he fatally shot the intruder. It was the second time the homeowner had used armed force to defend his home. In 2014, he shot and wounded another intruder, who was arrested. The homeowner told reporters that “you shouldn’t have to be armed inside of your house,” but that he hopes would-be criminals learn their lesson.
  • July 31, Norco, California: An elderly liquor store owner was manning the counter early in the morning when he saw on his security monitors that a man armed with a rifle was about to enter the store. The store owner grabbed his own shotgun and the second the armed man aimed a  rifle to announce a  robbery, he fired a single blast that sent the robber fleeing while screaming, “He shot my arm off!” Police later arrested the wounded man and three other suspects. Although the store owner was not injured during the incident, he had a heart attack shortly afterward and is now recovering.

As these examples underscore, lawful gun owners save lives and protect livelihoods. They routinely interrupt criminal activity and stop bad situations from becoming even worse. Significant evidence indicates that the threat of armed resistance deters many criminals from committing crimes in the first place.

And in this way, lawfully armed civilians help reduce the costs imposed on society by criminal actors.

Lawful gun owners are not a significant part of the problem of gun violence. The evidence shows, however, that they are part of the solution.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

With 87,000 New Agents on Way, 4 Facts About IRS Gun Arsenal thumbnail

With 87,000 New Agents on Way, 4 Facts About IRS Gun Arsenal

By Fred Lucas

Some of the 87,000 new agents whom Democrats propose to hire at the Internal Revenue Service could come with some extra firepower.

On Friday, House Democrats gave final passage to the tax and spending bill they dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, which, among other things, would double the size of the IRS with 87,000 new agents to beef up enforcement.

As of two years ago, the IRS had an arsenal of 4,600 guns, reported OpenTheBooks, a government watchdog group. 

Two federal investigations in the past decade found that IRS agents had not been sufficiently trained and were accident-prone with the weapons they have. Armed IRS raids on nonviolent taxpayers surfaced as a concern almost 25 years ago during a Senate hearing. 

Democrats’ bill, which the Senate passed Sunday, awaits the signature of President Joe Biden should it clear the House as early as Friday [it did].

The legislation, which unwinds from 2023 through 2031, would devote $80 billion to expanding the IRS and boosting tax revenue to pay for Democrats’ green energy subsidies and other pet projects.

Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group that opposes the legislation, assembled information about the IRS arsenal from government and media reports.

During the House floor debate Friday, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., raised concerns about arming IRS agents.

“This bill has new IRS agents and they are armed, and the job description tells them that they need to be required to carry a firearm and expect to use deadly force if necessary,” Boebert said. “Excessive taxation is theft. You are using the power of the federal government for armed robbery on the taxpayers.”

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., suggested that no IRS agents are armed.

“The idea that they are armed—I know that Ms. Boebert would like everybody to be armed, but that’s not what IRS agents do,” Yarmuth said. “I would implore my Republican colleagues to cut out the scare tactics. Quit making things up.”

In a posted job opening for a special agent, the IRS specified that applicants should be “willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments,” and able to carry “a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”

After sparking some controversy amid the proposed expansion of the agency, the IRS deleted “willing to use deadly force” from the job description.

The IRS referred questions to the Treasury Department as to whether the arsenal would increase as the number of personnel multiplied.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment for this report.

Here are four key things to know about the Internal Revenue Service and weapons.

1. IRS Guns and Ammo

The current IRS workforce includes 78,661 full-time employees, so Democrats’ legislation, if passed as written, would more than double the agency’s employees.

A 2020 report from OpenTheBooks, titled “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” shows that the IRS Criminal Investigation division has a stockpile of 4,600 guns.

The firearms include 3,282 pistols, 621 shotguns, 539 rifles, 15 fully automatic firearms, and four revolvers, the report says.

The Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog agency, reported in 2018 that the IRS had 3.1 million rounds of ammunition for pistols and revolvers. 

The tax agency had 1.4 million rounds of ammunition for rifles, the GAO report said, along with 367,750 shotgun rounds and 56,000 rounds for automatic weapons.

2. Armed Agents ‘Not Properly Trained’

The IRS’s National Criminal Investigation Training Academy has the responsibility to implement firearms training and a related qualification program nationwide.

However, IRS agents assigned to the Criminal Investigation division regularly failed to stay up to date with training or to report incidents of improper firearms use, according to a 2018 report from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The inspector general’s report notes that “there is no national-level review of firearms training records to ensure that all special agents meet the qualification requirements.”

“Special agents not properly trained in the use of firearms could endanger the public, as well as their fellow special agents, and expose the IRS to possible litigation over injuries or for damages,” the report says.

For qualification, each agent must score 75% or higher on the firing range, but the IRS lacked documentation showing its agents met the standards, according to the inspector general.

The report says that 79 of the 459 special agents in the agency’s long gun cadre failed to meet standard qualification requirements. Further, the report says the IRS could not provide information about whether 1,500 special agents were trained in tactical equipment proficiency.

In fiscal year 2016, the inspector general’s report determined, that the IRS Criminal Investigation division “did not maintain documented evidence that 145 out of 2,126 special agents met the firearm standards established by CI [Criminal Investigation] and therefore were not qualified law enforcement officers.”

3. More Unintended Discharges Than Intended Ones

The poor firearms training for IRS agents has led to more accidental firings than intentional firings, according to a separate inspector general’s report from 2012. 

“Having the availability of deadly force puts hiring so many new agents into perspective,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Daily Signal.

The inspector general for tax administration “found they fired their guns more times by accident than on purpose,” Norquist said. “I’m not sure if that’s good or bad.”

The poor training was not a new problem, since the 2012 report from the inspector general found similar issues with firearms training.

“If there is insufficient oversight, special agents in possession of firearms who are not properly trained and qualified could endanger other special agents and the public,” the report says.

The 2012 report not only found that IRS agents fired their weapons by accident more times than intentionally, but that the agency concealed details about the accidental discharges.

“There were a total of eight firearm discharges classified as intentional use of force incidents and 11 discharges classified as accidental during FYs 2009 through 2011,” the report says.

And, the inspector general’s report continues, “we found that four accidental discharges were not properly reported.”

It says that “the accidental discharges may have resulted in property damage or personal injury.”

The public report, however, redacts four references to unreported accidental discharges of firearms.

4. IRS History of Armed Raids

In 1998, the Senate Finance Committee held investigative hearings into IRS abuses that featured testimony from a Virginia restaurant owner.

The restaurant owner said that armed IRS agents with drug-sniffing dogs burst into his restaurant during breakfast hours and ordered customers to get out.

Agents took his cash register and records, the restaurant owner told the Senate committee. When he returned home, he found that his door had been kicked open and his residence had been raided.

A tax preparer from Oklahoma gave similar testimony, saying that about 15 armed IRS agents came to his business and harassed his clients.

The owner of a Texas oil company recounted that agents came to his office and told employees: “Remove your hands from the keyboards and back away from the computers. And remember, we’re armed!”

In each case, the agents came up empty-handed.

The Washington Post reported at the time that Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike expressed dismay and that the Clinton administration’s IRS commissioner, Charles O. Rossotti, promised an investigation of such actions.

At a separate hearing that year before the same Senate committee, Treasury Department’s inspector general, Harry G. Patsalides, told senators that the IRS had tolerated car thefts and anonymous bullying by promoting an agent accused of sexual harassment and allowing agents to conduct armed raids on nonviolent taxpayers.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you fed up? Are you worried that America in rapidly sliding into a neo-Marxist state by the radical left in control of Washington with historically narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and an Executive controlled by unnamed far leftists in place of a clinically incompetent President Biden? They are desperate to keep power and complete their radical progressive agenda that will change America and our liberty forever.

Americans just witnessed the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 without one Republican vote in the U.S. Senate and House (just as Obamacare was passed in 2010). The IRS  will be hiring 87,000 new agents, many armed, to terrorize American taxpayers.

Americans witnessed the FBI raid at the Trump Mar-A-Lago home and property of President Trump, truly a first in all of American history. We know what that is about. 

It is undeniable that the Democrat Party and the administrative state (the executive branches of the DOJ, FBI, IRS, et al) are clear and present dangers to our Republic and our liberty as they increasingly veer further away from the rule of law and the Constitution. What is the solution? At this critical juncture, there is only one action we can all take.

The only viable and timely solution at this critical point is to vote – yes, vote correctly and smartly to retake the U.S. House and Senate on November 8th and to prepare the way to retake the White House in two years. Vote and help everyone you know to vote. Please click the TAKE ACTION link below – we must vote correctly and in great numbers to be sure our votes are counted to diminish the potential for the left to rig and steal the midterms and the 2024 elections as they are clearly intending to do after their success in 2020.

Why Karl Marx Supported Gun Rights—but Marxists Don’t thumbnail

Why Karl Marx Supported Gun Rights—but Marxists Don’t

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Karl Marx didn’t support the right of workers to bear arms because he saw it as an inalienable right. He supported gun rights because they were a means to an end.


For just $10.77, people can go on Amazon and buy wall art of Ronald Reagan apparently defending the Second Amendment.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered,” the text reads next to a picture of Reagan; “any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary.”

There are a few problems with the quote, but the biggest one is that Reagan never said it.

As numerous fact checkers have noted—including ReutersSnopesFactcheck.org, and Politifact—the author of the quote is none other than Karl Marx, the German philosopher and author of The Communist Manifesto who used language nearly verbatim to this in an 1850 address in London.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary,” Marx said in his “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.”

In fairness to the many internet users duped by the fake Reagan meme, the quote sounds a bit like something Reagan could have said (though it’s highly unlikely the Gipper, a skilled and careful orator, would have ever said “by force if necessary”).

Reagan, after all, generally—though not universally—supported gun rights and was skeptical of efforts to restrict firearms.

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens,” Reagan famously noted in a 1983 speech.

Some might be surprised that Marx and Reagan had similar views on gun control. Marx was of course the father of communism, whereas Reagan was famously anti-communist. Moreover, Marx’s modern disciples are staunch supporters of gun control, whether they identify as socialists or progressives.

“Guns in the United States pose a real threat to public health and safety and disproportionately impact communities of color,” Nivedita Majumdar, an associate professor of English at John Jay College, wrote in the Marxist magazine Jacobin. “Their preponderance only serves corporate interests, a corrupt political establishment, and an alienated capitalist culture.”

This distaste for guns goes beyond socialist magazines. As The Atlantic reported during the last presidential election cycle, progressive politicians are increasingly embracing more stringent federal gun control laws.

“No longer are primary candidates merely calling for tighter background checks and a ban on assault weapons,” journalist Russell Berman wrote in 2020; “in 2019, contenders like Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas were calling for national licensing requirements and gun-buyback programs.”

The point here is not to disparage politicians like O’Rourke and Booker as “Marxists,” a label they’d almost certainly object to. The point is that progressive politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) might channel Marx in their class rhetoric, but they are not embracing his messaging when it comes to the proletariat’s access to firearms.

As it happens, this is a common theme with Marxists throughout history.

Some may find it odd that Marxists don’t support gun rights when Marx himself did, but there’s an explanation as to why, and it stems in part from Marx’s conception of rights.

Classical liberals of the American founding saw human rights as inviolable because because they are natural rights “endowed by their Creator.” As Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1824 letter, rights—including the right to bear arms—are “inherent in the people,” which makes them inalienable.

Unlike the American Founders (and Reagan for that matter), Marx didn’t see the right to bear arms as a natural, individual right. In fact, Marx didn’t believe in individual rights at all. Instead, Marx saw firearms as a means to an end, and the end was revolution.

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition,” he explained, “and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed.”

Marx continued:

“Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.”

We see here that Marx supported the right of workers to bear arms not because of some inalienable right, but because firearms were necessary tools in his revolution against the despised bourgeoisie.

We can surmise from this that Marx likely would have supported the peoples’ right to bear arms—right up until the point it no longer served his revolutionary purpose, at which point his support for gun rights would be jettisoned. And this is precisely what Marx’s followers did.

In his essay Letters from Afar, the infamous Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin called for an armed proletariat militia, writing that organizers should “arm all the poor, exploited sections of the population in order that they themselves should take the organs of state power directly into their own hands.”

Once Lenin achieved power, however, he immediately turned to a proven method of oppression: gun confiscation. On Decc 10, 1918, less than six months after the Bolsheviks butchered Tsar Nicholas II and his family at a house in Yekaterinburg, Soviet citizens were ordered by the Council of People’s Commissar to turn their firearms over to the state.

The penalty for refusal was ten years in prison.

Lenin was hardly an outlier. Marxists who followed in his footsteps, including Mao in China and Castro in Cuba, also turned to gun confiscation shortly after gaining power.

Marx was not wrong that firearms were the path to power, but his followers came to realize an obvious truth: firearms were also a threat to their own power.

“Political power,” Mao famously observed, “grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Mao, in a twisted way, was right. An armed citizenry was a double-edged sword. While it served the masses as a bulwark against political oppression, it also threatened the vehicle socialists used to usher in the people’s utopia: the state. And this explains why modern Marxists tend to despise gun rights.

“There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms,” US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) recently said. “Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate.”

There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms:

Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 30, 2022

Massie is not wrong, and it helps explain why so many Marxists part ways with Marx on gun rights.

It’s also an important reminder that rights are not really rights at all if they can be discarded once they have served the ends one seeks.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Guns Have More Rights Than Women in Polk County, Florida? What! thumbnail

Guns Have More Rights Than Women in Polk County, Florida? What!

By Royal A. Brown III

Two unhinged Letters to Ledger Editor were printed on August 7th, 2022 stating that guns are inanimate objects—they don’t have rights—however, we know that law abiding, gun owning citizens do under the 2nd Amendment to both defend themselves and defend against a tyrannical government, which we now have.

The woman writing the letter actually stated that guns themselves have more rights than women. I corrected this by stating that guns are inanimate objects = they don’t have rights – however…….

Guns have more rights than women

As of right now, AK-47s and other guns have more rights than women in Polk County and the United States. This is the first time in my lifetime that a class of citizens has been stripped of a right they have had for 49 years.

This was done by a politicized Supreme Court made up of five constitutional fundamentalists and one handmaiden of the conservative Republican Party.

It is also sad that in Polk County we two Republican state representatives that voted for Florida’s 15 weeks ban on abortion and have been reelected with no opposition.

That would be Melony Bell and Sam Killebrew. Both, to my knowledge, have never considered women’s health as an important issue, except to restrict it. These are the same two elected officials that manage to put gun rights before women’s rights. I am offended that that the rights my generation worked so hard to have, have been taken away from my granddaughters.

It is time for all women and men who support restoring these rights to send a message on this radicalized agenda.

I sincerely hope you will join me and become energized in voting this extremist view out of office and out of our private lives.

Sheryll Strang, Winter Haven

Gun rights are not ‘inalienable rights’

The Declaration of Independence affirms the ‘self-evident’ rights as ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ It says these ‘inalienable rights’ have been given to all humans by their Creator, and that governments were created to protect them.

The Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Blasé J. Cupich, reacted after a gunman attacked attendees at the Highland Park Independence Day parade. His words cut to the heart of the gun-violence crisis:

‘The right to bear arms does not eclipse the right to life, or the right of all Americans to go about their lives free of the fear that they might be shredded by bullets at any moment. Gun violence is a life issue.’

Cardinal Cupich is right. Loving our neighbors means no longer allowing angry, violent individuals to use weapons of war against our families, friends and communities. We do applaud the limited gun-safety bill that just passed Congress, but it’s going to take more to make our communities peaceful and safe.

The mass shooting in Highland Park is not unique; families’ lives are torn apart daily by gun violence.

We need to demand stronger gun-safety laws now – including a ban on assault rifles. Our government was created to protect us; it is time for them to honor this duty.

Bernice S. Warren, Bartow

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Karl Marx Supported Gun Rights—but Marxists Don’t