Tag Archives: freedom

Government Attacks on Us Citizens

Posted on by
Reply

First, it was Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland agreeing with a National School Boards Association letter to him labeling American parents who object to school board decisions regarding sexualizing their children’s education as domestic terrorists and his subsequent ordering an FBI investigation into our parents. The NSBA has since retracted the letter, and Garland insists he meant no such thing, but where is the evidence that he’s called off the FBI’s investigation, or that the FBI has stopped?

Then it was Biden’s DoJ’s FBI memorializing in an internal memo the FBI’s position that traditional Catholics should be considered, and treated consonantly, to be in the same category as violent extremists. FBI Director Chris Wray has since claimed to have ordered the memo’s rescission, but where is the evidence the FBI isn’t still investigating traditional Catholics—or any other Catholics, or any group of Americans of any other religious adherence?

Now it’s Biden’s Department of Homeland Security. The subheadline says it:

Clergy, spouses, bartenders should keep tabs on “middle-aged” women who are “increasingly fervent” against abortion, white men who rant about government online and go to rallies, domestic terrorism materials say.

This tab-keeping actually is an older assault, dating from 2021, but they’re only now being exposed, pursuant to an FOIA request by America First Legal.  The “concerns” are the outcome of a series of Choose Your Own Adventure videos intended by DHS to instruct us ignorant American citizens in identifying and mitigating “radicalization and potential violence.” Because pro-life Americans, along with white male Americans who disagree with the government and attend political candidate (or other) rallies, and (divorced) mothers suspecting government connections to child abuse and trafficking are domestic terrorists.

JtN notes that it’s not clear whether DHS ever actually made the videos, but DHS didn’t respond to JtN‘s Sunday (7 May) requests for comment. DHS’ decision to remain silent on the matter emphasizes the lack of clarity of whether the department did not make the videos or, more importantly, whether the department is acting sub rosa on the information garnered during the proposal stage.

This is part and parcel with Progressive-Democratic Party members constantly deriding the concept of MAGA—we’re all MAGA extremists, or MAGA Republicans—in their disdain for the concept of Making America Great Again. Instead, it’s disagree in any way with the Progressive-Democratic Party-run government and be labeled, in one form or another, an Enemy of the State.

Elections do, indeed, have consequences, and we need to inflict some in the fall of 2024.

A Red Flag Law

Posted on by
Reply

This one waiting to be signed by Michigan’s Progressive-Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

A judge would have 24 hours to decide on a temporary extreme risk protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year.
Lying to a court when petitioning for a protection order would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The law starts out being unconstitutional: the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. No. As with all other moves to limit an individual liberty or to circumscribe an individual right, it must be on Government to prove the “flagged person” is a risk.

Then, since the matter is claimed to be urgent, the court should be required to complete its adjudication within an additional 24 hours after having granted the temporary order.

Beyond that, the sanction for dishonestly petitioning for a red flag order must not be left to the wrist slap of a misdemeanor punishment. Falsely petitioning for a red flag order should carry a jail sentence—not reducible—of one year, the same duration of the red flag sanction if a petition is upheld.

And one item not addressed in this red flag law proposal, or in any of the others: the police department that took possession of the weapons on execution of the temporary extreme risk protection order must produce them in court, and in the event Government fails to make its case of significant risk, release them to the now no longer flagged person on the spot.

There also are no protections for the rights of other members of the “flagged person’s” household regarding their lawfully possessed weapons. Those weapons also are subject to seizure under the Michigan red flag law and other such laws. That seizure is an unconstitutional infringement of the non-flagged persons’ right to keep and bear Arms.

As with all the red flag laws on the books or currently proposed, this one is fatally flawed and a deliberate attack on our Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Permit to Buy

Posted on by
Reply

The Delaware legislature is trying again to infringe on American citizens’ right to keep and bear Arms; the Know Betters of the legislature are renewing their drive to require the State’s citizens—who, for those Progressive-Democrats not keeping up at home, also are American citizens—to get the State’s permission just to buy a firearm.

A proposal filed Wednesday in the state Senate would require prospective handgun owners to complete a state-authorized firearms training course and submit an application that would include fingerprinting and an extensive background check. If approved, Delaware’s Department of Safety and Homeland Security would issue a free 180-day permit.

A permit just to buy. The duration of this…requirement…is laid out in the proposed bill:

A handgun qualified purchaser permit is valid for a period of 180 days from the date of issuance….

I have no conceptual objection to requiring training on the firearm, so long as neither the training itself nor the cost of it, are constructed as barriers to the getting and subsequent keeping and bearing, and so long as any license (not permit to buy) is issued on a will-issue basis.

I do object to fingerprinting the prospective firearm keeper and bearer of his weapon. No government has any business keeping track of which of its citizens have weapons and which of them do not. That’s a need only with regard to criminals, and acquiring a firearm is not, by definition, a criminal act.

But beyond that, these worthies are carefully ignoring the key phrase in our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment [emphasis added]:

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plainly, getting Arms, including the purchase of one or more of them, is a necessary precondition to the keeping and bearing of them. Restrictions on buying a firearm—which is what a State-granted permission slip, of any duration, is—is just that infringement. No permit to buy, no matter its construction, is legitimate; such permission slips start out unconstitutional and they are incurably so throughout their existence.

 

The bill on offer can be read here.

ERIC Surveillance

Posted on by
Reply

ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) is an increasingly farther-Left standing organization that shares voter registration data among the member States, ostensibly so the States collectively have cleaner voter rolls that contain fewer ineligible registrants. Apparently, ERIC also shares those data with others than the member States, too, and does so in deliberate secrecy, without required permissions, and outside the center’s charter—for instance, with the Center for Election Innovation & Research, which got $70 million from the Leftist Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, just in time for the 2020 elections. I’m actually more concerned about another aspect of ERIC’s activities [emphasis in the original].

The authors [of a Heritage Foundation report] note concerns about ERIC forcing member states to engage in active voter registration activities, despite states already making it easy for citizens to register to vote. …the membership agreement forces states to send out notices essentially yearly (every 425 days, to be precise) to at least 95 percent of the individuals in a state who are potentially eligible to vote but who have not registered “inform[ing] them how to register to vote.”

How does a State know who is eligible to register but has not? Certainly, the needed data are generally publicly available, but they need explicitly to be sought out, collected, and then fused into an eligible-but-not-registered list. Why are States being required by ERIC to conduct this surveillance, instead of leaving that up to the citizens of each State to do or to refuse to do? Why is it any American government’s business why this or that American citizen chooses to register, or not? Why is it any American government’s role to hector any American citizen to engage in this lawful behavior rather than that one? What other government surveillance is this supposed Organizational Compact trying to get governments to carry out at its behest? For what purposes? Maybe more States should be leaving ERIC and leave the government surveillance of private citizens to the Progressive-Democratic Party-run States whose governing personnel actually think this level of surveillance is a good idea.

Ban Assault Weapons

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) wants to ban assault weapons completely.

His Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach, testifying under oath before a House Appropriations subcommittee, flat refused to say what an assault weapon was when asked by Congressman Jake Ellzey (R, TX).

…if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work, but we would be there to provide technical assistance. I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert to the same extent as you maybe, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause, so that whatever determination you chose to make would be an informed one.

Weasel words. You define the term, Dettelbach said, we’ll “help.” After all, he could have provided his own definition; those same experts could have advised him as he prepared for his testimony.

Biden wants to ban, and his ATF honcho—the man and the agency responsible for “regulating” the weapons us American citizens choose to keep and bear—refuses to say what it is that this administration would ban.

The obvious, and only logical, conclusion from this deliberate obfuscation is that Biden and his fellow Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate members intend to ban all of our firearms.