Categories
Atf pistol brace rule Biden administration Gun accessories gun control gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment Stabilizing pistol brace

Biden’s ATF moves could turn millions of gun owners with a certain accessory into potential felons

Gun rights activists are pledging to fight a new rule proposed by the Biden administration that could turn millions of gun owners into potential felons.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on Monday proposed a new regulation that would define a handgun as a short-barreled rifle if it is equipped with a stabilizing pistol brace, a popular gun accessory. The rule would make most guns equipped with such a brace illegal under the National Firearms Act, requiring gun owners to either register, forfeit, or disassemble their weapons or else they be charged with a felony offense.

According to one government estimate, as many as 40 million gun owners could be affected by the rule change.

“[W]hen individuals use accessories to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the heightened regulations on those dangerous and easily concealable weapons,” the Department of Justice said in a statement announcing the new rules. President Joe Biden’s DOJ claimed that stabilizing braces “make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements.”

The proposed rule is a fulfillment of an executive order issued by President Biden.

ATF states that a gun with a brace that is intended to be fired from the shoulder by its manufacturer will be considered a short-barreled rifle. ATF has created a complicated “worksheet” that implements a point system to help owners, retailers, and regulators determine if a gun with a stabilizing brace should be classified as a pistol or instead as a rifle. Factors under consideration include measures like the weight or length of the firearm, the design of the brace, but also “peripheral accessories” that may be attached to the gun like “flip-up sights.”

The agency said stabilizing braces that are intended for individuals with disabilities and are not used for shouldering the weapon like a rifle would not be affected by the rules change.

Gun owners in possession with a handgun equipped with a stabilizing brace that meets the ATF’s proposed definition of a short-barreled rifle must pay a $200 tax stamp and apply to register the weapon with the agency as a rifle. If they do not wish to do so, they would have to remove the brace or remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm so that it does not fall under the provisions of the National Firearms Act. Failing that, they could either destroy their weapon or turn it over to a local ATF office, which opponents say is tantamount to gun confiscation.

ATF will receive comments on the rule for 90 days before it is posted in the Federal Register.

According to the ATF’s estimate, between 3 million and 7 million braces are owned by American gun owners and approximately 1.9 million would be affected by the rule.

Gun rights activists blasted the rule as too far-reaching, pointing to estimates that indicate tens of millions more gun owners would be impacted than ATF claims.

“Today’s proposed rule making on pistol-braced firearms represents a gross abuse of executive authority,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “Millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners now will be forced to destroy, register, or surrender their lawfully-acquired pistol-braced firearms.”

Alex Bosco, the inventor of the stabilizing brace, told the Reload that his company, SB Tactical, manufactured and sold at least 2 million of their best-selling SBA3 model braces alone, which would be outlawed under the proposed ATF rules. SB Tactical makes several other models of stabilizing braces and there are at least seven other manufacturers who compete with them, The Reload reported.

An April 2021 estimate by the Congressional Research Service said there are between 10 and 40 million braces owned by American citizens.

“It will be the largest gun registration, destruction, and confiscation scheme in American history,” Bosco said.

Gun Owners of America and other activist organizations have promised to fight the ATF’s rule during the comments period.

“Gun owners are disgusted by today’s blatant infringement on their right to keep arms by the Biden Administration,” Johnston said. “Gun Owners of America will work to defeat these unlawful regulations during the comment period or, failing that, through legal action.”

“Just as FPC did when the Trump Administration’s DOJ lawlessly declared that bump-stocks were machine guns, we will use every available resource to defend the People’s human right to keep and bear arms from attacks by the ATF,” said Adam Kraut, Firearms Policy Coalition senior director of legal operations. “We stand ready to defend the People, human liberty, and personal property in this rulemaking process and, if necessary, in court.”

Anything Else?

Watch this video, courtesy of Mission Ridge Range & Academy, for a quick explainer on the difference between a short-barreled rifle and a pistol with a stabilizing brace:

Share
Categories
Cmt Cmt boycott Everytown for Gun Safety gun control Intelwars Wear orange

Fans boycott CMT after it urges viewers to wear orange to support Bloomberg-backed gun control: ‘Anti-gun propaganda disguised as virtue’

Social media users are vowing to stop watching CMT after it urged viewers to “Wear Orange” to support National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

The ViacomCBS-owned network tweeted its plea on Friday, ahead of Wednesday’s annual CMT Music Awards in Nashville.

What are the details?

Wear Orange,” an initiative from Everytown for Gun Safety — which is backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — was set in motion after the 2013 shooting death of a Chicago 15-year-old.

According to the organization’s website, “Orange is the color that Hadiya Pendleton’s friends wore in her honor when she was shot and killed in Chicago at the age of 15 — just one week after performing at President Obama’s 2nd inaugural parade in 2013.”

“After her death, they asked us to stand up, speak out, and Wear Orange to raise awareness about gun violence,” the organization wrote in its mission statement.

More from the site:

Since then orange has been the defining color of the gun violence prevention movement. New York gun violence prevention advocate Erica Ford spearheaded orange as the color of peace through her work with her organization, Life Camp, Inc. Whether it’s worn by students in Montana, activists in New York, or Hadiya’s loved ones in Chicago, the color orange honors the more than 100 lives cut short and the hundreds more wounded by gun violence everyday.

Our movement gains momentum when gun sense activists come together to fight for a future free from gun violence. Wear Orange originated on June 2, 2015—what would have been Hadiya’s 18th birthday. Now, it is observed nationally on the first Friday in June and the following weekend each year. This year, National Gun Violence Awareness Day will be June 4, 2021.

Wear Orange Weekend is an opportunity for us to show the country just how powerful we are. But the work doesn’t end there. Everytown and our partner organizations continue to do life-saving work so that we can get closer to realizing a future free from gun violence. We wear orange to be seen, and demand that we be heard. Support us by going orange.

On Friday, CMT
tweeted its support of the movement, writing, “We’re (virtually) wearing orange today in support [sic] National Gun Violence Awareness Day and to call attention to the more than 100 lives that are lost every day to gun violence. #WearOrange and visit wearorange.org for more.”

What was the reaction?

One user
responded, “This is anti-gun propaganda disguised as virtue. CMT has gone down the drain with all other corporations who sell out to Woke extremists.”

Another user added, “I for one, will not ever watch any station who champions any campaign against the 2nd Amendment, which is what CMT just did. You’d think they would know their audiance [sic], but you put woke idiots in charge, and you get stupidity.”

@CMT and @NASCAR have both forgotten who their core audience is again I see,” another commenter complained.

Another user took aim at the network for supporting the movement.

“I wish you’d (virtually) stop supporting @MikeBloomberg’s anti #2A agenda which prevents everyone, including women and minorities, a chance to defend themselves, especially during efforts to defund police, leaving many people vulnerable to violence,” the user wrote.

Another commenter added, “Every day guns save innocent lives … You might not understand who your audience is, but an overwhelming majority are gun owners …”

“Rest assured I’ll never subscribe or watch anything else sponsored by you … The 2nd amendment is still there. Get off this soapbox before you find yourself in the dustbin of history,” another user demanded.

Share
Categories
gun control gun laws guns Intelwars San Jose San jose shooting

Reporter admits ‘no California law or proposed reform’ would have stopped San Jose shooter. Democrats insist on more gun control anyway.

Tragedy struck in San Jose, California, Wednesday morning when a public transit employee opened fire on co-workers at a downtown rail yard killing nine people before taking his own life.

The lone suspect, 57-year-old Samuel Cassidy, an employee of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, reportedly used multiple firearms to carry out the heinous attack and may have planted explosives at his home with the intent to harm others.

Immediately following news of the attack, Democratic media figures and politicians alike — including President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — predictably called for the passage of new gun laws to curb the spate of gun violence.

However, it doesn’t appear that any progressive gun control measures would have been effective in preventing the attack, at least according to Demian Bulwa, director of news at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Bulwa made the assessment in a tweet posted Thursday morning after Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith informed the public that Cassidy had used two semiautomatic handguns in the attack.

“The VTA killer carried 2 pistols and several ammo magazines that can be switched out in seconds,” Bulwa tweeted.

“In other words, there may be no California law or proposed reform — assault-rifle ban, large-magazine ban, gun-show loophole — that would have prevented this,” he assessed.

Nevertheless, even while admitting he was “still awaiting many of the details” about the incident, Biden re-upped his call for Congress to pass stricter gun laws.

“I have the solemn duty of yet again of ordering the flag to be lowered at half-staff, just weeks after doing so following the mass shootings at spas in and around Atlanta; in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado; at a home in Rock Hill, South Carolina; and at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis, Indiana,” the president said in a statement Wednesday.

“Enough,” he added. “Once again, I urge Congress to take immediate action and heed the call of the American people, including the vast majority of gun owners, to help end this epidemic of gun violence in America. Every life that is taken by a bullet pierces the soul of our nation. We can, and we must, do more.”

Gov. Newsom also joined the chorus calling for more gun control.

“What the hell is going on in the United States of America?” he asked during a Wednesday press conference. “When are we going to come to grips with this? When are we going to put down our arms — literally and figuratively — our politics, stale rhetoric, finger pointing, all the hand wringing, consternation that produces nothing except more fury and frustration … over and over and over again.”

Share
Categories
Colorado birthday party shooting Colorado mass killing gun control Intelwars Mass killing Senseless killing

Mass killing at Colorado birthday party leaves 6 dead

A suspect opened fire at a Colorado birthday party on Sunday, killing at least six people before turning the gun on himself.

What are the details?

The suspect, whom authorities have yet to publicly identify , reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs birthday party, killing six adults. Children who were attending the party witnessed the killing spree.

He then was said to have fatally shot himself.

According to a Monday report from the Associated Press, the suspect is believed to have been the boyfriend of a female victim at the party.

The birthday party was for one of the people who was killed, the outlet noted.

Neighbor Yenifer Reyes said that she heard the gunshots and thought they were thunder.

“Then I started hearing sirens,” she added.

She also recalled police ushering children who were “crying hysterically” from the home.

Authorities have yet to divulge the identities of the victims at the time of this reporting and stated that a motive was not immediately known.

The investigation is ongoing.

What else?

Colorado Springs Police Chief Vince Niski expressed his condolences in a statement on the incident.

“My heart breaks for the families who have lost someone they love and for the children who have lost their parents,” his statement read.

Niski added, “Words fall short to describe the tragedy that took place this morning. As the chief of police, as a husband, as a father, as a grandfather, as a member of this community, my heart breaks for the families who have lost someone they love and for the children who have lost their parents. From the officers who responded to the shooting to the investigators still on scene, we are all left incredibly shaken.”

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) also tweeted about the incident, writing, “My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of today’s tragic act of violence in Colorado Springs.”

“The tragic shooting in Colorado Springs is devastating, especially as many of us are spending the day celebrating the women in our lives who have made us the people we are today,” he continued. “Multiple lives were taken today by this terrible act of violence. Families torn apart, and at a birthday party no less.”

Polis concluded, “My deepest condolences and prayers are with the victims, their families, and everyone else impacted by this tragedy.”

Share
Categories
Colorado birthday party shooting Colorado mass killing gun control Intelwars Mass killing Senseless killing

Mass killing at Colorado birthday party leaves 6 dead

A suspect opened fire at a Colorado birthday party on Sunday, killing at least six people before turning the gun on himself.

What are the details?

The suspect, whom authorities have yet to publicly identify , reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs birthday party, killing six adults. Children who were attending the party witnessed the killing spree.

He then was said to have fatally shot himself.

According to a Monday report from the Associated Press, the suspect is believed to have been the boyfriend of a female victim at the party.

The birthday party was for one of the people who was killed, the outlet noted.

Neighbor Yenifer Reyes said that she heard the gunshots and thought they were thunder.

“Then I started hearing sirens,” she added.

She also recalled police ushering children who were “crying hysterically” from the home.

Authorities have yet to divulge the identities of the victims at the time of this reporting and stated that a motive was not immediately known.

The investigation is ongoing.

What else?

Colorado Springs Police Chief Vince Niski expressed his condolences in a statement on the incident.

“My heart breaks for the families who have lost someone they love and for the children who have lost their parents,” his statement read.

Niski added, “Words fall short to describe the tragedy that took place this morning. As the chief of police, as a husband, as a father, as a grandfather, as a member of this community, my heart breaks for the families who have lost someone they love and for the children who have lost their parents. From the officers who responded to the shooting to the investigators still on scene, we are all left incredibly shaken.”

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) also tweeted about the incident, writing, “My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of today’s tragic act of violence in Colorado Springs.”

“The tragic shooting in Colorado Springs is devastating, especially as many of us are spending the day celebrating the women in our lives who have made us the people we are today,” he continued. “Multiple lives were taken today by this terrible act of violence. Families torn apart, and at a birthday party no less.”

Polis concluded, “My deepest condolences and prayers are with the victims, their families, and everyone else impacted by this tragedy.”

Share
Categories
enslavement Force government is slavery gun control Headline News human rights Humanity Intelwars Joe Biden killing lockdowns locked up militarized police Murder no freedom no liberty order followers rule by brute force rulers ruling class SWAT Teams totalitarian United States Violence wake up we are the enemy

Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute. 

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

Rule by brute force.

That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

We are approaching critical mass.

The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

In effect, you will disappear.

Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives, and legislative signing statements.

President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations, and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.

That number is growing.

As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory, it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts, and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations, and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer, and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash-bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash-bang grenades, and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork, and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutterdrive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social mediaappear mentally ill, serve in the militarydisagree with a law enforcement officialcall in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go, and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms, and prognostication programs.

Hopefully, you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military-industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted, and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.

 

The post Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
CURRENT EVENTS Duncan Lemp gun control Intelwars No Knock Warrants Police State Red Flag Laws

Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants

Rule by brute force.

That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

We are approaching critical mass.

The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

In effect, you will disappear.

Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements.

President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.

That number is growing.

As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutterdrive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social mediaappear mentally ill, serve in the militarydisagree with a law enforcement officialcall in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.

The post Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
Change my mind COMEDY Crowder Crowder confronts CURRENT EVENTS Dave landau fake news Funny conservative gun control Gun reform Intelwars Joe Biden Joe biden executive order Joe biden gun control liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Mug club news Politics Red Flag Laws Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder Video Youtube.com

New Change My Mind: Common Sense Gun Control is Nonsense

President Joe Biden has a plan for the disarmament of law-abiding Americans by way of executive orders. His executive orders aim at enhancing national red flag laws and pressuring Congress to pass more intense regulations on gun manufacturers.

Biden’s intention to place heavy restrictions on gun owners prompted Steven Crowder to get a feel for how college students view gun control in this new installment of Change My Mind.

The three students featured in this video shared a common view on a need to treat gun violence as a mental health issue. Interestingly, each student found themselves disagreeing with the national red flag laws.

First up at the Change My Mind table was Evan, a young man concerned with individuals suffering with mental illness having access to firearms.

Crowder agreed that mental health is a valid concern in the context of gun ownership. But he stressed the dangers that could result from taking an individual’s right to exercise their Second Amendment right simply because a neighbor reports them to the police. Crowder added that another unintended consequence of giving anyone the power to report a person as “a threat to the public or themselves” is the potential for those suffering from mental illness becoming less likely to seek professional help.

Crowder later noted the importance of not going down the road of taking away an individual’s right to own a gun unless they have committed a crime.

The second student, George, was a self-proclaimed libertarian socialist who agreed that dangers associated with red flag laws are cause for concern.

The third student, Emily, was a young lady who argued for access to psychiatrists on campus to help students struggling with mental health.

Watch the video for more.

Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
Change my mind COMEDY Crowder Crowder confronts CURRENT EVENTS Dave landau fake news Funny conservative gun control Gun reform Intelwars Joe Biden Joe biden executive order Joe biden gun control liberal libertarian Louder with crowder Lwc Mug club news Politics Red Flag Laws Stephen Crowder Steven Crowder Video Youtube.com

New Change My Mind: Common Sense Gun Control is Nonsense

President Joe Biden has a plan for the disarmament of law-abiding Americans by way of executive orders. His executive orders aim at enhancing national red flag laws and pressuring Congress to pass more intense regulations on gun manufacturers.

Biden’s intention to place heavy restrictions on gun owners prompted Steven Crowder to get a feel for how college students view gun control in this new installment of Change My Mind.

The three students featured in this video shared a common view on a need to treat gun violence as a mental health issue. Interestingly, each student found themselves disagreeing with the national red flag laws.

First up at the Change My Mind table was Evan, a young man concerned with individuals suffering with mental illness having access to firearms.

Crowder agreed that mental health is a valid concern in the context of gun ownership. But he stressed the dangers that could result from taking an individual’s right to exercise their Second Amendment right simply because a neighbor reports them to the police. Crowder added that another unintended consequence of giving anyone the power to report a person as “a threat to the public or themselves” is the potential for those suffering from mental illness becoming less likely to seek professional help.

Crowder later noted the importance of not going down the road of taking away an individual’s right to own a gun unless they have committed a crime.

The second student, George, was a self-proclaimed libertarian socialist who agreed that dangers associated with red flag laws are cause for concern.

The third student, Emily, was a young lady who argued for access to psychiatrists on campus to help students struggling with mental health.

Watch the video for more.

Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
activist ATF Biden Executive Orders Firearms gun control Intelwars Nominee

Biden to nominate gun-control activist for ATF chief and unveil executive orders on firearms: reports

President Joe Biden is expected on Thursday to roll out several executive orders restricting Second Amendment rights and announce that he has picked a gun-control activist to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to multiple reports.

Who is David Chipman?

The Washington Post reported that according to two sources, Biden has selected David Chipman to serve as director of the ATF.

Chipman “currently serves as senior policy adviser at Giffords,” the gun-control “advocacy group led by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.),” the newspaper reported.

Rep. Giffords was shot by a crazed gunman in an attack in 2011. She survived, but suffered a severe brain injury that forced her to resign from Congress. Two years later, she and her husband, now-Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), formed the nonprofit group now known as Giffords to fight gun violence in the U.S.

The Giffords organization argues that “strong gun laws save lives,” and fights to implement gun-control legislation in the U.S.

Chipman’s Twitter account is protected, but his bio reads that he is a “gun violence prevention advocate” with Giffords.

Besides being a part of Giffords, Chipman has a long history with the ATF. According to The Associated Press, he “spent 25 years as an agent at the ATF, where he worked on stopping a trafficking ring that sent illegal firearms from Virginia to New York, and served on the ATF’s SWAT team.” The outlet added that “Chipman is a gun owner himself.”

The Hill reported that “his nomination is expected to be welcomed by gun safety advocates and comes as Biden is preparing a series of executive actions on guns.”

What’s the president’s plan?

Politico reported that according to sources familiar with the president’s plan, “Biden will direct the administration to begin the process of requiring buyers of so-called ghost guns — homemade or makeshift firearms that lack serial numbers — to undergo background checks.”

The outlet added:

Other executive actions remain unclear. But advocates who have been in touch with the White House have speculated that the president could announce regulations on concealed assault-style firearms; prohibitions on firearm purchases for those convicted of domestic violence against their partners; alerts to law enforcement agencies when a potential buyer fails a background check; and federal guidance on home storage safety measures.

Several mainstream outlets reported that Biden has faced “increasing pressure” to implement gun control measures after recent mass shootings, but the president vowed long before taking office that he would take action on firearms once in the White House.

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. Burgess owens gun control gun rights guns Intelwars Second Amendment

GOP Rep. Burgess Owens blasts Democrats’ push for ‘racist’ gun control laws

Former NFL star Burgess Owens, who is now serving as a U.S. representative from Utah, took to the House floor this week to rip two gun control measures being pushed by the Democratic majority.

The two bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, have the full backing of the Biden administration and are opposed by pro-Second Amendment groups.

H.R. 8 will expand universal background check requirements to include all private firearm transactions, require private gun sales to go through a licensed dealer, and effectively ban adults age 18 to 20 years old from buying handguns.

H.R. 1446 will extend the time the FBI has to perform an “instant” background check from three business days to at least 10 business days, Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reported. The bill “could extend the waiting period indefinitely,” Edwards added.

Rep. Owens had a big problem with both of these bills — and he noted that this kind of gun control was often used to keep blacks in check.

What did he say?

In a floor speech Wednesday, Owens cited concerns his constituents expressed that the bills will “make it impossible to sell or loan guns” to relatives or trusted friends and will “impose restrictions on natural rights.”

Owens vowed to fight the bills with “every tool in my grasp” in his stand for “rights to protect my life, liberty and property” that “were granted to me by God and cannot be taken from me by D.C. bureaucrats.”

Then the former defensive back explained why Americans — especially minorities — should not allow the government to curb their Second Amendment rights: It was the government that kept blacks down with discriminatory laws, including gun proscription.

“I grew up in the Deep South at a time when black Americans were unable to defend themselves,” he said. “After the Civil War, Black Codes and Jim Crow laws prohibited people of color from owning firearms.”

Owens then reminded lawmakers that “racist gun control laws” kept Martin Luther King Jr. from being able to fully protect himself.

“In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. kept firearms for self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapons permit was denied because of racist gun control laws in his state,” Owens said.

And then he got personal, sharing the story of how important guns were in his family to protect against attacks from whites in the South:

As a child, my dad witnessed an altercation between his father and a southern white man who thought my grandfather was being disrespectful and threatened to teach him a lesson. Later that night, he drove up to my grandfather’s home with a bunch of his friends standing on the forerunner of a Model-T Ford.

My grandfather was prepared — he and his brothers hid around his front porch. As these bullies and cowards approached the house, they heard the click of rifles and left just as fast as they came.

Without ever firing his gun on another human being, my grandfather’s right to own a firearm ensured his rights to protect his life, liberty, and property.

Unfortunately, Owens’ words fell on deaf congressional ears. The Democratic House majority passed both measures Wednesday evening.


GOP lawmaker invokes Martin Luther King Jr. in opposition to gun control bill

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Congress gun control Hr 8 Intelwars Second Amendment Universal background checks Us house

US House passes bill to criminalize all unlicensed private firearm transfers

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an expansive gun control bill that would criminalize firearm sales, gifts, or loans between unlicensed private persons.

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” a bill that expands universal background checks for private firearm transactions, requires all private firearms transactions to go through a licensed dealer, effectively bans persons age 18-20 from purchasing handguns, and contains only limited exemptions for self-defense. The bill passed 227 to 203, with eight Republicans voting with the Democratic majority in favor.

Democrats and gun control advocates praised the bill’s passage, arguing the expanded background checks will help save lives.

“As a mother who lost her child to the very gun violence that every one of us have been fighting to eradicate, thank you. Thank you to all who have been fighting,” Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), vice chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and original co-sponsor of the legislation, said. In 2012, McBath’s son Jordan Davis was murdered by a gunman after an argument over loud music outside a convenience store.

“WE DID IT! At the urging of thousands of our volunteers and other gun safety advocates, the U.S. House just passed #HR8, a bill to require background checks on ALL gun sales in America with bipartisan support!” Moms Demand Action said, before urging the Senate to act.

“Background checks save lives, and during the last year, the need for them has only become clearer. Loopholes in the background check laws have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning more guns sold to people without a background check, and more guns in the hands of people who should not have them,” Everytown for Gun Safety said in a call to action campaign published after the bill passed the House.

However, opponents of the bill warn it would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms and criminalize lending or gifting a firearm to family members or friends without government approval.

“This bill would criminalize every transfer of a firearm unless it first goes through a government screening process — aka, gun owner registration — or unless the transfer fulfills one of the very few exemptions in the legislation,” Gun Owners of America said. “NOTE: Because ‘transfer’ is not defined, even handing a gun to a neighbor could be severely punished.”

H.R. 8 requires that all loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer. An individual who wanted to buy a handgun from his cousin, for example, would have to go to the gun store and have a federal background check completed before the sale is finalized. The individuals engaged in the private firearm transaction must pay the same fees, file the same paperwork, and have the same records kept as if they were buying a new gun from a licensed dealer. While the transaction is being processed, the licensed dealer will take possession of the firearm.

Under the bill, unlawful gun transfers would be a felony. David Kopel, writing for Reason, explained: “If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.”

Kopel also described how the bill would ban handgun sales to any adult ages 18 to 20:

Since 1968, federal law has said that gun stores may not sell handguns to persons under 21. 18 U.S.C. § 922(c)(1). Congress has not chosen to prohibit persons aged 18-20 from acquiring handguns elsewhere. The large majority of states allow handgun possession by persons 18-20.

Some legislators have forthrightly introduced bills to impose a ban on young adults. HR8 prohibits young adults from acquiring handguns, but does so with a clever subterfuge.

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

Further, the bill empowers the attorney general to promulgate regulations setting the minimum fees licensed gun dealers may charge to facilitate a gun transfer and explicitly prohibits the government from capping those fees. So for example, the amount a man must pay to give his brother-in-law ownership of a firearm is only limited by the discretion of the current attorney general at the direction of whoever is president of the United States.

Loans or gifts to family members are permitted only for direct relatives and only if there is no payment of any form involved.

A partial self-defense exemption to proposed gun transfer laws exists for “a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.”

There is also an exemption for “hunting, trapping, or fishing,” but no such exemption for gun loans on farms or ranches, unless the gun owner is physically present for the entirety of the transfer.

The bill now heads to the United States Senate, where it is unlikely to receive enough support to overcome a filibuster from the Republican minority.

Share
Categories
gun control guns Intelwars Joe Biden Merrick Garland mike lee Second Amendment

Merrick Garland admits his DOJ would ‘advance’ Joe Biden’s gun control agenda: ‘Entitled to pursue’

Merrick Garland, the nominee for attorney general, admitted Monday that the Department of Justice would most likely enforce President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda.

What did Garland say?

Garland revealed his philosophy toward the Second Amendment during questioning from Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R).

Lee asked, “Do you support banning of certain types of firearms?”

“Well, as I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all his professional life on this question,” Garland responded.

“The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law,” he continued. “Where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

Garland, however, conceded the Supreme Court has given “a little indication” about the extent of the Second Amendment, a reference to
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, two landmark Supreme Court cases affirming the fundamental nature of Second Amendment rights.

Garland later said his view is “totally controlled” by those Supreme Court precedents.


Senate holds Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing

youtu.be

What about Biden’s gun goals?

Biden has made gun control a central concern of his political agenda, both throughout his presidential campaign and since taking office last month.

Biden’s aggressive gun control agenda includes, among other promises:

  • Banning the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” which Biden calls “weapons of war”
  • Restricting Americans to one firearm purchase per month
  • Ending online firearm and ammunition sale
  • Putting “America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns”
  • Requiring “gun owners to safely store their weapons”

While the constitutionality of assault weapons bans have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court — the high court rejected hearing 10 gun-related cases last year, which included cases involving assault weapons bans — the court has already ruled on at-home safety restrictions.

While many states require gun owners to keep firearms out of access for minors, there is no federal law mandating the safe storage of firearms.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that a portion of D.C.’s firearm regulations that required all firearms in a home be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” was unconstitutional.

Still, the Supreme Court has affirmed that some restrictions on the Second Amendment are not unreasonable, and therefore permissible. Where the proverbial line in the sand exists, though, has not been made clear, and will likely be established in due time.

Anything else?

The White House confirmed last week that Biden may use executive action to enact his gun control agenda.

Biden earlier used the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, tragedy to push for gun control.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden said on Feb. 14.

Share
Categories
gun control gun registry gun rights guns Intelwars Sheila Jackson Lee

Democratic bill would create public registry of gun owners, their guns, and where they keep them

A Democratic bill introduced in the House of Representatives this year aims to create a mandatory and publicly accessible registry listing the names of gun owners, how many guns they have, and even where they keep their firearms.

Additionally, the bill, H.R. 127, would ban several types of commonly used ammunition .50 caliber or greater, require gun owners to purchase firearm insurance costing $800 per year, and force those seeking to buy a gun to complete a psychological evaluation and a government training course prior to the purchase.

Should gun owners fail to adhere to the new restrictions, they could face an harsh penalty of 10 years in prison and fines of $50,000 to $150,000.

Sponsored by Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), the bill is one of the most aggressive attempts yet by progressive lawmakers to curb Americans’ Second Amendment rights and is already drawing intense scrutiny from gun rights groups.

“All gun control bills share the same basic goal: a world in which fewer people own firearms,” the National Rifle Association wrote about the legislation. “Some bills simply ban certain types of firearms or ammunition outright. Others place obstacles in the path of owning firearms or ammunition to make them more difficult and expensive to obtain, thereby shrinking the market for them … H.R. 127 combines both failed approaches.”

“It bans common types of ammunition and original equipment magazines for most self-defense firearms. And, it makes all firearms more difficult to obtain and possess through a punitive licensing and registration scheme,” the group continued.

Speaking with the Washington Times, the leaders of several retired police officer groups also slammed the bill as a brazen attempt to curtail Second Amendment rights — and a hazardous one at that. Under the legislation, retired officers would not be exempt from the public registry.

“This is very dangerous, especially for retirees,” Kevin Hassett, president of the New York’s Retired Police Association, told the outlet. “Things have gone so downhill with this level of hostility towards cops and we are out there with the label that we are no longer cops. Retired cops don’t have partners or backup. We are out there on our own.”

Association of Retired Police Officers president Gerald G. Neill Jr. expressed concern that a registry would lead to the targeting of former cops.

“There is danger in having this as part of the public record,” he said.

While the bill has a long way to go before becoming law — it has no co-sponsors and has yet to be scheduled for a committee hearing — its mere introduction demonstrates the confidence of anti-gun lawmakers under the Biden administration and in a Democratic Party-controlled Congress.

“H.R. 127 is so outrageous, persecutory, and unworkable that its main function is simply to display the hostility of its author and supporters toward firearms, those who own them, and those who want to own them,” the NRA added in its blistering writeup.

Biden has yet to comment on Jackson Lee’s bill, but he appears set to make gun control a major issue of his presidency, as this week he called on Congress to enact “commonsense” reforms such as banning “assault weapons.” The White House has not ruled out using executive authority to push Biden’s gun control agenda.

Share
Categories
Americans basic rights David hogg draconian laws Florida government is slavery gun control Headline News human rights Intelwars Joe Biden Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Nikolas Cruz Parkland shooting propaganda PSYCHOPATHS school un laws wake up

Biden Shamelessly Exploits Parkland Shooting to Push Draconian Gun Ban

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project. 

Pulling on the heartstrings of Americans on Valentine’s Day, President Joe Biden urged Congress to implement unprecedented gun bans, magazine bans, ammo bans, and going after gun manufacturers. He pushed for these draconian measures by evoking an emotional reaction, through the exploitation of the Parkland shooting.

“The Parkland students and so many other young people across the country who have experienced gun violence are carrying forward the history of the American journey. It is a history written by young people in each generation who challenged prevailing dogma to demand a simple truth: we can do better. And we will,” Biden said in a statement.

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

For those who remember, this was a tactic employed by Donald Trump as well, who took to his pulpit after Parkland to call for removing due process.

“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers after the shooting.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

In the afternoon on Feb. 14, 2018, a man identified by authorities as Nikolas Cruz, now 22, walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire with an AR-15 rifle. The shooting left 17 dead, including 14 students. Since then, this tragedy has been exploited by the anti-gun crowd as a means of removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Dozens upon dozens of “red flag” gun laws and other such bills have been passed and are being used across the country.

Although the ostensible intention of these laws is to stop a future tragedy, it is important to point out that there were already laws on the books that should’ve stopped Nikolas Cruz from ever getting a gun. This is a fact that is ignored by Biden and the rest of the anti-second amendment ilk.

Citing Cruz as the reason for advocating the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, the anti-gun activists are claiming he should’ve had his guns taken which would have prevented the tragedy. Sadly, however, they are ignoring the fact that he was accused of multiple feloniesand should’ve never been able to purchase a gun in the first place—but law enforcement failed to act on any of it.

According to a report by CNN, records obtained from the sheriff’s office by CNN show the law enforcement agency received at least 45 calls for service relating to Cruz or his brother from 2008 to 2017.

As TFTP previously reported, Cruz warned that he was going to shoot up a school and kill people and the FBI did nothing. “I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” A YouTube user named Nikolas Cruz commented on a video on Sept. 24, 2017. The video was posted on the channel “Ben The Bondsman,” and the owner, Ben Bennight, immediately took a screenshot and submitted it to the FBI. Nothing happened.

While this is bad enough, the Sheriff’s department records show that police were given this exact same warning—a year before—because Cruz had been declaring his wishes to shoot up the school publicly.

According to the records, in 2016, a neighbor warned police that Cruz posted on Instagram that he said he “planned to shoot up the school.” The person who made that call came forward in March and said that she begged the sheriff’s office to intervene. Instead of intervening though, police told her that they couldn’t act until Cruz actually did something.

The incompetence is staggering, especially given the fact that making a direct threat of violence is illegal.

A few months after he said he wanted to shoot up the school on Instagram—because the police failed to heed this warning and the dozens of other ones—Cruz bought the rifle he would use in the shooting—none of the gun control laws or the actual laws on the books designed to stop him from getting a gun worked.

In Florida, if a person making death threats intends for the victim to fear for his or her safety, specifically fearful of death or bodily harm, it is considered a credible threat under the law, which changes the crime from stalking, a first-degree misdemeanor, to aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree. Cruz was reported at least 4 times for this very crime before he bought his AR-15 — and police did nothing.

The reactionary nature of disarming Americans because deranged psychopaths kill people is dangerous and only serves to keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Moreover, deranged psychopaths don’t even need guns to cause mass death.

Biden has been outspoken about his desires to disarm Americans and gun-control advocacy groups are pushing both executive orders and legislative packages to make sure this happens. As Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, these actions have an even better chance of getting rammed through.

The post Biden Shamelessly Exploits Parkland Shooting to Push Draconian Gun Ban first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Biden gun control Biden guns executive action Executive Orders gun control Intelwars

White House: Biden considering using executive action to push gun control agenda

President Biden has not ruled out using executive action to push through his gun control agenda, White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Tuesday.

The news followed a meeting between gun control group leaders and top White House officials last week which left the leaders feeling confident that the Biden administration would enact gun reform via executive order, if necessary.

When asked by a reporter during Tuesday’s press briefing whether or not the administration was still considering bypassing Congress to force action on guns, Psaki said that Biden “has a range of actions at his disposal” and added that he “hasn’t ruled out” using executive power to address the issue.


White House Holds Press Briefing: February 16 | NBC News

youtu.be

Biden, who made weakening Second Amendment rights a major theme of his campaign, issued a statement this week on the anniversary of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, urging Congress to get moving on what he called “commonsense” gun laws — which includes the outright ban of so-called assault weapons.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” he said.

During the news conference, Psaki was also asked about Biden’s statement and, specifically, the chances that such an aggressive gun control plan has to pass in Congress.

In response, Psaki noted that the administration hadn’t put together a legislative package yet, perhaps signaling that executive action is the administration’s preferred route.

“Well, we haven’t proposed a package at this point, so it’s hard for me to make a prediction about its likelihood of passing,” she said. “But I will say that the president is somebody throughout his career who has advocated for smart gun safety measures. He has not afraid of standing up to the [National Rifle Association]. He’s done it multiple times and won on background checks and a range of issues. And it is a priority to him on a personal level, but I don’t have a prediction for you, or preview for you on a timeline of a package, and certainly not what it will look like and how it goes through Congress.”

(H/T: Daily Wire)

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Biden administration gun control guns Intelwars Joe Biden Nancy Pelosi Parkland shooting Second Amendment

Biden uses Parkland anniversary to call on Congress to enact gun reforms: ban ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’

On the third anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, President Joe Biden called on Congress to implement “commonsense gun law reforms.”

On Sunday, Biden made remarks about the horrific 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

“Three years ago today, a lone gunman took the lives of 14 students and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida,” Biden said in a statement. “In seconds, the lives of dozens of families, and the life of an American community, were changed forever.”

Biden called for gun control.

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call,” the president stated. “We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer.”

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden declared. “We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also marked the anniversary of the tragedy by detailing how Democrats would enact gun control measures in Congress.

Pelosi proclaimed, “Today, we continue to grieve and work with the Parkland families and survivors who have turned their pain into courageous action, inspiring a movement across the country to say, ‘Enough is enough!’

“Last Congress, moved by the daily epidemic of gun violence and guided by the millions of young people marching for their lives, House Democrats took bold action to save lives and end the bloodshed by passing H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act,” Pelosi said in a statement on Sunday.

“Now, working with the Democratic Senate and Biden-Harris Administration, we will enact these and other life-saving bills and deliver the progress that the Parkland community and the American people deserve and demand,” Pelosi claimed.

To commemorate the lives lost from the Parkland shooting, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered flags to be flown at half-mast on Sunday. The Republican governor also implored Floridians to join him in a “moment of silence” at 3 p.m. in remembrance of the lives lost in the shooting.

DeSantis asked the country to mourn the lives of the victims, “Whereas, our state and nation continue to mourn and will always remember the lives of Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, Martin Duque Anguiano, Nicholas Dworet, Aaron Feis, Jaime Guttenberg, Chris Hixon, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Alex Schachter, Carmen Schentrup and Peter Wang.”

The Parkland school shooting perpetrator is still awaiting trial.

“The case could have been all over by now. [The alleged shooter’s] lawyers have repeatedly said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. But prosecutors won’t budge on seeking the death penalty at trial,” the Associated Press reported.

Share
Categories
Company David hogg gun control Intelwars Mike lindell Mypillow

Gun control activist David Hogg announces launch of pillow company to take on MyPillow

Gun control activist David Hogg announced Thursday that he and a partner are starting a company that will “prove that progressives can make a better pillow,” promising to take on MyPillow, founded by conservative Trump supporter Mike Lindell.

What are the details?

Hogg tweeted that he and software developer William LeGate “are going to prove that progressives can make a better pillow, run a better business and help make the world a better place while doing it.”

He added, “We will have the name announced soon but we need to get through the legal process of trademarking as (sic) so on.”

Hogg, who became famous for co-founding activist organization “March for Our Lives” after surviving the Parkland, Fla., mass murder at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, confirmed to Axios that taking on Lindell is his goal.

“Mike isn’t going to know what hit him,” Hogg told the outlet, saying, “this pillow fight is just getting started.” The teen noted that his new venture is expected to launch in six months or so with the goal of selling “$1 million in product within our first year.”

“[W]e would like to do it sooner but we have strict guidelines on sustainability and [U.S.] based Union producers,” Hogg explained.

Lindell did not appear phased by the news, telling Axios in response, “Good for them….nothing wrong with competition that does not infringe on someone’s patent.”

The MyPillow founder and CEO has become a target of the left for years over his outspoken support of President Donald Trump, but Lindell has faced additional heat and legal threats in recent months over his yet-unsubstantiated insistence that voting machines in the U.S. were manipulated by foreign countries to steal the election from Trump.

Lindell has was issued a cease and desist letter over his claims by Dominion Voting Systems, one of the companies he has accused of being involved in an election fraud scheme. Dominion has already sued pro-Trump attorneys Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani over similar claims.

But Lindell issued a defiant response to the threat, telling Axios last month, “I want Dominion to put up their lawsuit because we have 100% evidence that China and other countries used their machines to steal the election.”

Lindell has also seen several major retailers drop his products in recent weeks, and he has been issued a permanent ban from Twitter for “repeated violations” of the platform’s “Civic Integrity Policy.”

Editorial note: In the interest of full disclosure, MyPillow is a current advertiser on a program that appears on BlazeTV.

Share
Categories
5G rollout big oil Big Pharma Chelsea Manning Donald Trump Drain the swamp establishment Executive Orders expansion government is slavery Great Divider gun control Headline News Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein Joe Biden Julian Assange left vs. right paradigm lie power presidential kill list ruling class The Swamp WikiLeaks

Here Are 18 Ways Trump Supported The Swamp During His Presidency

This article was originally published by Derrick Broze at The Last American Vagabond. 

*They are all on the same side, and that side is against us. It is time to face reality.

On January 19, Donald Trump said farewell to America as he acknowledged “this week, we inaugurate a new administration.” Trump is yet to officially concede – a point which his most hardcore followers still believe indicates he will remain president – however, he finally spoke about handing over the reins of power to the Biden administration. “Now, as I prepare to hand power over to a new administration at noon on Wednesday, I want you to know that the movement we started is only just beginning,” Trump stated during his farewell address.

While he might not have mentioned Biden or Harris by name, it is clear that Joe Biden is going to be sworn in as the next President of the United States. Before America races to forget the Trump years we owe it to ourselves to pause and reflect on the facts of the Trump era. First, Donald Trump did not drain the swamp. As I illustrate below, Trump used his position of power to continue to empower the same industries and figures which have benefitted from every Democratic and Republican president before him. Indeed, I stand by my assessment of Trump made in November 2016: Donald Trump’s role was to be The Great Divider. He used his position to stoke the flames of division and chaos, all the while playing the role of the “anti-establishment” President (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

In 2018 I asked, “When Will Trump Supporters in The Freedom Movement Realize They Were Duped?”. I didn’t have much faith at the time, stating, “Now, of course, there are the diehards who will inevitably stick with Trump through his entire presidential career no matter what policy he takes, even when in contradiction with not only his own words but with the principles previously espoused by these die-hard followers.” Now, as Biden is about to wield the Presidential powers, Trump’s most diehard followers still claim Trump is going to stop Biden from being president.

My concern is that folks who previously supported many of the actions taken by Trump will not recover the principles they once held, and instead, further entrench themselves in the false left/right paradigm, convincing themselves that Trump represented the fight against the “Deep State” and Biden is the Swamp incarnate. The problem with this belief is that it reinforces the idea that one party is actually better than the other when in reality they both play for the same masters. Most importantly, this belief that Trump was fighting the Deep State is not backed up by the facts. Allow me to present a partial list of the evidence showing Trump’s relationship with the swamp.

1. Nominating Industry Insiders

From the moment he took office it was clear that Donald Trump was going to continue the practice of his predecessors and continue the revolving door relationship between government and corporations. As I wrote in March 2018:

“President Donald Trump nominated Peter C. Wright to be the assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). The nomination of Wright is another indication that the Trump administration will continue the practice of nominating industry insiders and corporate lawyers to positions of power.

In addition to his work with Dow, Wright’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Environmental Attorney for Monsanto from 1989 to 1996. Wright’s association with The Dow Chemical Company and Monsanto— corporations known for producing hazardous chemicals and pesticides along with genetically engineered seeds— could be an indication that the Trump Administration may have a sympathetic ear for these industries. If so, it would be the continuation of a trend that has extended through the last few American presidencies.”

2. Cozy with Big Oil

One of the most obvious areas where Trump was in bed with the corporations is the oil industry. In his first week in office Trump issued an Executive Order to fast track the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, a project that has a legacy of oil leaks and militarized police. Additionally, Trump passed Executive Orders which said the pipelines, roads, and railways along the border will take no more than 60 days to be approved or denied and that the decision will now come directly from the President himself, effectively giving the president unilateral powers for approving oil projects.

In March 2019 further evidence was revealed after conversations between Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and oil executives were leaked. In a secret recording obtained by Reveal, oil executives can be heard discussing David Bernhardt and celebrating the access they currently have to the Trump Administration. The recording took place during a 2017 Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPPA) meeting in Southern California.

3. Cozy with Big Pharma

Another massive indicator that Trump continued the practice of allowing the corporations to regulate themselves was his appointment of various cronies of Big Pharma. In 2017, Trump chose Alex Azar for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The nominee immediately came under scrutiny for his former connections to the pharmaceutical industry.

Azar formerly served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services under George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007. In June 2007, Azar began working as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company. Azar also served as Eli Lilly’s spokesman as its Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications. Beginning January 1, 2012, Azar was promoted to President of Lilly USA, LLC, the largest division of Eli Lilly and Company – a position which put him in charge of Eli Lilly’s entire U.S. operation.

This trend continued into 2020, when Trump appointed Dr. Moncef Slaoui to the head of his Operation Warp Speed – itself an example of the worst kinds of public private partnerships. Slaoui has extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As I reported in May 2020:

“Following his education, Slaoui joined the pharmaceutical industry, serving on the board of Directors of GlaxoSmithKline between 2006 through 2015. Slaoui served in several senior research & development (R&D) roles with GlaxoSmithKline during his time with the company, including Chairman of Global Vaccines. GSK has a history of working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on projects such as the development of a malaria vaccine and anti-HIV compounds used as microbicides. In fact, Dr. Slaoui worked for 27 years on the malaria vaccine, ultimately partnering with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop a $600 million malaria vaccine. When Slaoui took over at GSK, his predecessor, Tachi Yamada, joined the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

More recently, Slaoui sits on the boards of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology organizations. He is also partner at MediciX investment firm,chairman of the board at Galvani Bioelectronics, chairman of the board at SutroVax and sits on the boards of Artisan Biosciences, Human Vaccines Project and Moderna Therapeutics. Each of these companies is involved in vaccine development and the emerging field of bioelectronics.”

4. Support for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Dr. Slaoui was not the only connection to the Gates Foundation we saw from the Trump administration. In October, the NIH signed contracts with companies connected to DARPA, Big Tech, and the Gates Foundation.

Additionally, the Trump administration signed off on giving billions of taxpayer dollars to the Gates founded and funded GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance.

5. Ending Investigations Into Pesticide Dangers

The Trump admin faced lawsuits from activist groups for ending ongoing investigations into the dangers of pesticides.

6. Making GMO’s Easier To Enter the Food Supply

On June 11, 2019, Trump quietly issued an executive order to “streamline” GMO regulations in the United States. The order, titled Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products, is the latest move by the Trump administration aimed at promoting the use of genetically engineered or modified crops. In his executive order, Trump called on federal agencies to fix what he called a “regulatory maze” related to the farming and selling of GMO products.

Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Associated Press that the impact of the order depends on how the federal government responds. “There needs to be an assurance of safety for those products,” Jaffe said.

7. Bad on Gun Rights

Depending on your political view this issue might not matter much, but for Trump’s base, gun rights are an issue close to their hearts. During his administration, Trump supported calls for controversial Red Flag Laws – government-approved removal of weapons based on spurious claims – and a bump stock ban on firearms.

8. Support of and Expansion of the 5G Roll Out

Despite opposition by thousands of scientists, doctors, researchers, activists, and health professionals, Donald Trump pushed for the expansion of 5G networks, at one time calling for 6G. In April 2019, Trump issued an executive order stating that local and state bodies must now approve new 5G infrastructure within 90 days. The Trump administration also initiated a cap on the fees local governments can charge telecom companies wanting to install 5G technology.

9. Support of the Syria False Flag Narrative

In April 2018, the United States and some of the international community claimed that Syria President Bashar al Assad had gassed his own people in Douma, Syria. This alleged gas attack was immediately called into question by neutral observers. Even a former investigator with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) testified to the United Nations about attempts to suppress evidence that contradicted the OPCW’s final report. The report claimed Syrian President Bashar al Assad was responsible for an alleged gas attack in April 2018.

Despite the fact that many journalists have pointed out the flaws in the story, Donald Trump bombed Syria based on this false flag attack. The media has continued to prevent the public from finding out the truth, including firing journalists who question the mainstream narrative. 

10. The Drone Emperor

While Obama was known as the “Drone King” for his reliance on drone technology for taking out accused terrorists – and killing their innocent families – Trump took it to a new level. First, Trump removed rules which required reporting on drone deaths that were put in place by Obama, once he decided he had his turn with drone murder. In fact, in 2019, airstrikes from the US and its allies in Afghanistan killed 700 civilians, more than in any other year since the beginning of the war in 2001 and 2002, according to new research from Brown University’s Cost of War project. The report stated that “the number of civilians killed by international airstrikes increased about 330 percent from 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, to 2019, the most recent year for which there is complete data from the United Nations”. 

11. Fighting to Keep Presidential Kill List Secret

In December 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in an attempt to force the release of newly established rules related to the U.S. military’s secret program of killing. The program was established during the Obama Administration and expanded under Donald Trump.

12. Lying to the 9/11 Victims’ Families

Despite making vague statements about “finding out the truth” about 9/11, Donald Trump never used his position to challenge the official narrative surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Even worse, Trump actually lied to the victims’ family members when he promised he would get to the bottom of the Saudi involvement in 9/11. Despite the family’s efforts to have Trump investigate Saudi Arabia, he failed to do any meaningful investigation of one of the American government’s favorite partners.

13. Imprisoned an American Citizen Without Trial or Charge

In a story that received way less attention than it deserves, the Trump administration held an American citizen without trial or charge for over a year. An American man had reportedly traveled to research and document the ongoing conflict in Syria when he was seized by Kurdish forces and handed over to the U.S. military. The Trump administration labeled him an “enemy combatant” and held him without charges for more than a year without officially charging him with a crime. After help from the American Civil Liberties Union, that unidentified American was freed. Unfortunately, he was set free and forced to go live in an unidentified country that is not his home.

“My case has shown the worst and the best of my country,” the man said in a statement issued by his lawyers to the Washington Post. “No one, no matter what they are suspected of, should be treated the way my government treated me. Once I got the chance to stand up for my rights, the Constitution and the courts protected me.”

14. Continued Support of the NDAA Indefinite Detention Clause

Speaking of detention, another product of the War on Terror (aka the War on Freedom) is a provision contained in the NDAA which was originally included in the 2011 version of the bill. Some readers may recall that since 2011 the NDAA has included a provision that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial. The bill was signed into law by former President Obama and the indefinite detention provision is still contained in the NDAA, having been approved by Trump every year since it first passed.

15. Attempted to Block Testimony on CIA Torture

The Trump admin invoked states secrets privilege in an effort to prevent the two psychologists who created the CIA’s torture program from testifying in court.

16. Empowering and Expanding the Police State

The expansion of the police and surveillance states has happened under the Trump administration in a variety of forms. Specifically, the Trump admin expanded the militarization of law enforcement and surveillance tools under the guise of fighting illegal immigration. As Trump discussed building a wall along the southern border of the United States – a wall which American taxpayers paid for – he was also working with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to increase surveillance.

During the Trump admin, ICE faced lawsuits for using secret surveillance tools which they refuse to release details about. In January 2020, CBP and ICE released a Privacy Impact Assessment detailing plans to collect DNA from individuals temporarily detained at border crossings. This was the first attempt to collect the DNA of individuals who are detained but not charged with a crime.

The Border Patrol also launched a program to scan the face of every person flying out of the U.S., and a program to scan the faces of everyone inside vehicles that are driving across international borders.

17. Supporting the Persecution and Prosecution of Julian Assange & Chelsea Manning

During his campaign for President, Donald Trump famously said he loved Wikileaks, but after he was elected he began singing a different tune. Trump eventually called for the prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and the Trump admin put pressure on the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to turn Assange over to the United States. Now, as Trump’s presidency slips away Assange’s supporters are desperately hoping for a pardon that does not seem to be coming.

The Trump administration has also recently come under fire for the treatment of U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Manning was recently summoned to answer questions as part of a grand jury subpoena. For refusing to participate in the secret grand jury process, she was arrested and has been held in solitary confinement since. It is believed that the questions relate to Manning’s 2010 leaks of U.S. Army documents to Wikileaks.

18. Trump’s Nearly 3 Decade Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

When serial abuser Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in 2019, Donald Trump did not mention his relationship with Epstein. The well-documented relationship goes back to the 1980s and includes extensive ties with Epstein’s partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein had 14 different numbers from Donald Trump in his little black book and numerous videos and pictures show the men spending time together. Despite the attempt by Trump’s base to place distance between him and Epstein, one of Epstein’s earliest victims says Trump, the Clintons, Alan Dershowitz, and the Rothschilds were all involved in the disturbing sex trafficking schemes.

Due to Epstein’s untimely disappearance, we will likely never know the true extent of Trump’s involvement. That is unless Ghislaine Maxwell decides to save her own skin by exposing everyone involved in the Epstein-Intelligence operation.

Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.

The post Here Are 18 Ways Trump Supported The Swamp During His Presidency first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama Donald Trump Executive Orders Force freedom gun control Headline News implement will Intelwars Joe Biden Laws liars mandates no process Politicians Politics registration rights ruling class SLAVERY statism system The Matrix tyranny Violence Vote WHITE HOUSE

One of the First Executive Orders Biden Will Pass is Gun Control — Will You Comply?

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project. 

On Tuesday, Stef Feldman, the national policy director of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, announced in a meeting put on by the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, that gun control is at the top of Biden’s list. There will be no vote or democratic process, and like Trump and Obama before him, Biden will use Execute Orders to implement his will.

Feldman pointed out that when he gets in the White House, Biden is planning to “make big, bold changes through executive action, not just on policing and climate like we talked about previously, but in healthcare and education, on gun violence, on a range of issues,” adding, “there’s really a lot you can do through guidance and executive action.”

This statement should come as no surprise as Biden has been an outspoken gun-grabber and on his campaign website, he’s stated that he will use executive action to enforce gun control.

On the site, Biden states that he will use executive action to “get weapons of war off our streets.” Calling an AR-style weapon a “weapon of war” is laughable given the fact that Biden, under President Obama, aided in the wholesale slaughter of countless innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia — using actual “weapons of war” like drone strikes, hellfire missiles, and sanctions.

Nevertheless, the new boss — who is the same as the old boss, contrary to what many believe — plans to immediately ban the “manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.

Biden also plans to force all legal gun owners to register their firearms with the state, or be forced to turn them in, going so far as to issued an ultimatum.

This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.

Biden also plans on instituting legislation that will limit how many guns you can purchase. On top of that, he plans on telling you how you can purchase them by banning the “sale of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts online.”

Perhaps one of Biden’s most ominous moves in regard to controlling guns is his push for “smart gun technology” that will require biometrics to fire in an ostensible move to “prevent unauthorized use.” In reality, however, this paves the way for bad actors, including the state and hackers, to be able to control, hack, or essentially turn off your gun, making it a paperweight.

Biden also plans to pick up where Trump left off in regard to extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws. Under Biden’s plan, which is similar to the many plans implemented under Trump, family members or law enforcement officials will be able to make claims — many which involve no evidence — allowing a person’s guns to be temporarily taken until that person is declared fit enough to get them back.

But would grabbing guns from people deemed a risk by the state actually have any effect on mass violence? Not likely, nor would the stronger background checks that Biden is also pushing for.

Stronger background checks would have little to no effect on mass shootings as most of the mass shooters acquire their guns legally and pass the background checks. As Reason points out:

The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, “universal background checks,” is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating “strong background checks,” as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.

Citizens who are targeted by these laws will be deemed guilty first and only after their guns are taken, will they have a chance to defend themselves in court. This is the de facto removal of due process.

As Reuters reports, under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.

Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.

In spite of what officials and the media claim when a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process. And, contrary to what Biden wants, it doesn’t work.

We’ve seen this play out before already. Last year, a tragedy unfolded in California as a deranged gunman, Kevin Douglas Limbaugh, walked up on an innocent woman, officer Natalie Corona, pulled out his guns and began shooting her repeatedly until she died. Limbaugh then fired several more shots at others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. Had more people been nearby, Limbaugh would’ve likely carried out a mass shooting.

Limbaugh’s case is important to bring up due to the fact that — before he killed a cop — he was subject to California’s “red flag” laws in 2018. Limbaugh was given a high-risk assessment that ordered him to turn in his registered weapons to police, the only one being a Bushmaster AR-15. On November 9, Limbaugh turned in the weapon.

Despite being banned from possessing a weapon, he still obtained one illegally and used it to commit murder. Laws do not stop those willing to break them.

What’s more, there were already laws on the books that should’ve stopped Nikolas Cruz, the murdering psychopath in Parkland Fl, from ever getting a gun as well. But none of them worked.

Citing Cruz as the reason for advocating the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, the anti-gun activists are claiming he should’ve had his guns taken which would have prevented the tragedy. Sadly, however, they are ignoring the fact that he was accused of multiple felonies by multiple peopleand should’ve never been able to purchase a gun in the first place—but law enforcement failed to act on any of it. These threats included specifically saying he was going to carry out a mass shooting and threatening to kill individual people.

The reactionary nature of disarming law-abiding Americans because deranged psychopaths kill people is dangerous and only serves to keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens as the above two cases illustrate. Moreover, as Biden attacks, guns, he is forgetting that deranged psychopaths don’t even need guns to cause mass death.

According to a 2015 study, even if all guns were removed from America, in a ten year period, 355 people still would’ve been murdered in mass killings. 

From 2006 to 2015, 140 people were murdered by arsonists in mass fires, 104 were stabbed in mass stabbings, and 92 people were beaten to death in mass killings. To reiterate, these are deaths in which four or more people were killed.

“People sufficiently enraged to commit such crimes may also be motivated to find other ways,” criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University points out.

Despite all this information to the contrary, the left led by Biden and the right led by Trump seems hell-bent on further eroding the rights of the 99.9999999 percent of the innocent people who are not murderous psychopaths. And all of it will be and has been “legal” — due process and innocence be damned.

The post One of the First Executive Orders Biden Will Pass is Gun Control — Will You Comply? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
artificial intelligence gun control Intelwars Joaquin oliver Parkland parents Parkland shooting

Parkland parents use artificial intelligence video of their dead son to push gun control

The parents of a student killed during the Feb. 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, recently used an artificial intelligence video of their dead son to promote gun control.

In the aftermath of their 17-year-old son, Joaquin “Guac” Oliver’s death, Manuel and Patricia Oliver founded the nonprofit organization Change The Ref to help empower young people to advance reform on a number of issues, but most notably gun violence, the Associated Press reported.

As a part of an initiative to get-out-the-vote among young people, the Olivers worked with a team of artists to create a video of their son urging viewers to vote for politicians who support gun control.

The upcoming election would have been the first one in which Joaquin could have cast his vote.

“I’ve been gone for two years and nothing’s changed, bro. People are still getting killed by guns … what is that?” he passionately exclaims in the video. “I’m tired of waiting for someone to fix it.

“I’ll never get to choose the kind of world I wanted to live in, so you’ve got to replace my vote,” he continues. “Vote for politicians who care more about people’s lives than the gun lobby’s money. Vote for people not getting shot, bro.”


UnfinishedVotes.com

youtu.be

The Olivers reportedly helped craft every detail of the video, from their son’s wardrobe to his mannerisms to the very words he spoke.

“It’s something where you just put the dots together if you see his posts, the way he thinks, he was still thinking, the way he was expressing his frustration about situations,” Patricia Oliver told the AP in a phone interview.

“We are letting Joaquin grow into his ideas … and how he will be reacting to things that are happening today. We know our son so well and we knew exactly what he wanted from life,” Manuel Oliver added.

The report suggested that Joaquin had been politically active from a young age. When he was 12, he reportedly penned a letter to gunmakers asking why they didn’t support universal background checks.

His mother said the lifelike video was extremely difficult for her to watch.

“I couldn’t even breathe well,” she said. “Of course we know that is not Joaquin, but they did such an amazing job with the technology that you can’t say, ‘Oh my God, how I wish that could be the real Joaquin there talking to everybody.'”

His father, who has been keeping his son’s gun control message alive using his artistic abilities, said of the video: “I wouldn’t describe this as painful but as powerful.”

On his son’s birthday, Manuel Oliver painted a mural outside of the National Rifle Association’s headquarters in Virginia. He painted another mural near the headquarters of major gunmaker, Smith & Wesson, in Massachusetts.

Share
Categories
Bail reform Frank umbrino gun control gun laws Intelwars Rochester Rochester protests Rochester shooting

Rochester police captain blasts Dem’s bail reform and politicians wanting more gun laws: ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about’

There was a tragic mass shooting in Rochester this weekend where 14 people were shot, and two teenagers were killed at a party, where more than 40 rounds were fired. The two people killed were identified by police as Jarvis Alexander and Jaquayla Young, both age 19. All of the shooting victims are between the ages of 17 and 23. Rochester Police Department Captain Frank Umbrino gave a press conference about the mass shooting where he criticized policies by Democrats that he said have made the New York less safe.

Umbrino was asked about enforcing new gun laws to stop shootings, and he responded by saying New York has “some of the toughest gun laws in the country.” He then asked, “Why are we going to create more laws when we don’t enforce the laws that are on the books?”

“But when you have the same people committing the same crimes over and over and over again, new laws aren’t gonna help them,” Umbrino said.

“I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve been involved in hundreds of homicide investigations here in the city of Rochester,” the captain said. “Do you know how many of those homicide investigations involved individuals that owned legally-registered handguns? Honestly, I can’t remember one that wasn’t justified or ruled as justified by a grand jury in which a suspect committed a murder with a legally owned handgun.”

“So again, if these politicians want to get up and spew that we need more gun laws, they’re just lying, they don’t want to answer the real questions that need to be answered,” Umbrino said.

“I’m not surprised by the violence that’s been taking place,” Umbrino said, as reported in The Daily Wire. “You know, I’m going to get in trouble, probably, for this, but if I hear one more politician talk about what we need to do to stop the violence; we need more gun laws, we need this, we need that — quite frankly, I’m going to vomit. These people who say that have no idea what they are talking about.”

“We have a lot of gun laws currently on the books that we don’t enforce. I shouldn’t say we don’t enforce — we enforce them, but you have individuals locked up for illegal handguns, and being released from custody the next day,” the captain said, referring to bail reform. “That’s disgusting. How does that happen?”

“So, if anybody is surprised that there’s been an uptick in violence, since we don’t enforce the current gun laws that we have, I don’t know what to tell ya. But those are the facts,” Umbrino added. “These politicians that wanna say we need more gun laws, we need this, we need that, do me a favor: just stop talking, because you really don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Captain Umbrino then lambasted bail reform, a policy that Democrats have recently embraced.

“Bail reform, in my opinion — as a 30-year veteran in law enforcement, and working in the city of Rochester for the last 30 years — bail reform has a significant impact on the amount of crime and the uptick in crime that’s been occurring in our community and throughout New York state,” he claimed. “Look at the numbers. … the numbers are terrible. And anybody that says bail reform is not part of the blame in that is fooling themselves. And stop telling us that.”

Umbrino said he has been talking to local residents who have been “getting frustrated” in the last three weeks. This when the anti-police brutality protests regarding the death of Daniel Prude, who died in police custody, started. The captain said local residents were getting upset with outsiders and they told him they wanted these people to “get the hell out of our city and let us take care of our problems the way we need to take care of them.”

“It’s a tragedy, unfortunately, it’s another innocent person that’s gunned down for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, it’s heart-wrenching when you have innocent people getting killed,” Umbrino stated. “I just hope, a month from now, everybody remembers their names.”

No suspects in the mass shooting are in custody. The police investigation is ongoing.

Umbrino’s comments about gun control and bail reform begin at the 11-minute mark.


RAW: Frank Umbrino updates Rochester media on mass shooting

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment gun control History Intelwars james madison right to keep and bear arms Second Amendment Thomas Jefferson

Did Jefferson and Madison Believe in Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? No.

Ever since we ran our report outlining how President Trump has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control for three straight years, I’ve been inundated by excuses. They range from “he has to enforce the law” to “Hillary would have been worse.”

One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”

This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.

And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

One reader tried to back up his assertion by pointing out that even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed the Second Amendment had its limits. His proof? Both men were present at a University of Virginia Board of Visitors meeting that banned firearms on the university grounds.

We’ve heard this exact argument before from people on the left supporting this or that federal gun control, and it reveals a gross misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.

It is true Madison and Jefferson were present at the board meeting in October of 1824, along with James Breckenridge, John H. Cocke, George Loyall and Joseph C. Cabell. It’s also true that the board banned students from possessing firearms on the university campus. The ban was part of a long list of rules for student conduct approved by the board.

“No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty.” [Emphasis added]

The board also banned students from making “disturbing noises” in their rooms, from making “any festive entertainment within the precincts of the University,” and prohibited “habits of expense.”

It’s important to note that the board did not pass any laws. Violaters could not be charged with a criminal offense. They were only subject to student discipline up to and including expulsion from the university. It was, in effect, nothing more than a student code of conduct. In fact, you could argue that the board didn’t completely ban weapons from campus. It simply prohibited “students” from possessing or using them.

But given that the UVA was a state-funded public university, doesn’t the Second Amendment prohibit this infringement on a student’s right to keep and bear arms?

No.

The Second Amendment was not understood to apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights restricts federal power. The preamble to the document makes this clear. Nobody arguing for the ratification of the Bill of Rights claimed it applied to state or local governments. In fact, if they had, it would never have been ratified. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court invented the “Incorporation Doctrine” out of thin air based on a dubious reading of the 14th Amendment that anybody seriously considered the Bill of Rights as a restriction on the actions of state governments.

Up until the Incorporation Doctrine began to take hold, the actions of state and local governments were only restricted by the bill of rights in the state constitutions. It would have never occurred to Madison or Jefferson that the Second Amendment might be in play when creating a code of conduct for university students. If anything, they would have looked at the Virginia State Constitution of 1776. And the state Bill of Rights did not include any restrictions on regulating firearms.

Based on Jefferson and Madison’s participation on the UVA Board of Visitors and the student weapons ban, you could reasonably conclude that they didn’t believe the right to carry a firearm was absolute. But it does not prove that they believed the Second Amendment has limits. The Second Amendment had no bearing on the UVA’s student code of conduct. Madison and Jefferson’s actions prove nothing about the Second Amendment.

Share
Categories
ATF Donald Trump Firearms gun control Intelwars right to keep and bear arms Second Amendment

Report: Trump Ramps Up Enforcement of Federal Gun Control for Third Straight Year

“At my direction, the DOJ banned bump stocks. Last year we prosecuted a record number of firearms offenses.”

During a public appearance in 2019, President Donald Trump proudly reminded us about his gun control credentials, bragging that his administration implemented new gun control and has conducted more enforcement actions than anyone in history. 

The president didn’t back off his commitment to enforcing gun laws in 2019. For the third straight year, the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control, according to the latest data released by the ATF.

Last year, the ATF investigated 35,790 firearms cases. That was on par with the 35,839 firearms cases the agency investigated in 2018. This after the ATF significantly increased the number of cases it pursued during Trump’s first year in office.

In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That was 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81 percent increase. (See Footnote 1)

Cases Recommended for Prosecution

The big jump we saw in 2019 was in the number of cases recommended for prosecution.

Last year, the ATF  recommended 11,319 cased for prosecution. That compares with 10,691 cases recommended for prosecution in 2018, a 5.9 percent increase year-on-year. This continues an upward trend in prosecutions we’ve seen going back to the Obama years.

  • 2019 – 11,319
  • 2018 – 10,691
  • 2017 – 9,591
  • 2016 – 8,805
  • 2015 – 7,516
  • 2014 – 7,577

Since Trump has been in the White House, the number of cases recommended for prosecution has increased by 28.6 percent.

Indicted cases

The number of cases leading to indictment also went up significantly last year. The ATF got indictments in 8,360 cases last year compared to 7,630 in 2018. In all, the feds indicted 12,441 defendants last year.

  • 2019 – 8,360
  • 2018 – 7,630
  • 2017 – 7,137
  • 2016 – 6,357
  • 2015 – 5,503
  • 2014 – 5,310

Convicted cases

The number of cases leading to a conviction was up 20.4 percent year on year. In 2019, the ATF tallied 6,887 convicted cases compared with 5,485 the year before. In total, the federal government convicted 9,773 defendants in cases brought by the ATF.

  • 2019 – 6,887
  • 2018 – 5,485
  • 2017 – 6,068
  • 2016 – 5,517
  • 2015 – 4,031
  • 2014 – 4,482

The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF have involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90 percent.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump in year one increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term and it has continued at roughly the same pace since. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment has been no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber.

And Trump did something even Obama didn’t do. He instituted new federal gun control with the implementation of a “bump-stock” ban. He has also suggested he might impose a similar ban on firearm “silencers.”

Some might argue it would have been worse if Hillary Clinton had won. Perhaps. But if you support the Second Amendment, don’t you find it problematic that the president who’s supposed to be the good guy continues to ratchet up enforcement of existing unconstitutional federal laws?

A true supporter of the right to keep and bear arms would do better.

And make no mistake; all federal gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Even among the strongest supporters of “gun rights,” most hold the view that the Second Amendment allows for “reasonable” federal regulation of firearms. But as originally understood, the Second Amendment includes no such exceptions. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government should not regulate the manufacture or private ownership of firearms.

At all.

There wasn’t an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply.

The bottom line is we can’t trust Republicans in Washington D.C. to uphold the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it appears we have the same problem with Republicans in state legislatures as well.

When Barack Obama was president, Republicans in state legislatures introduced dozens of bills to nullify federal gun control by refusing to help with federal enforcement. After Trump won the White House, those efforts virtually stopped, even though not one single federal gun control law has been repealed.

During the last two years of the Obama administration, there were more than 50 bills directly pushing back against federal gun control introduced in 22 states. During the four state legislative sessions since the Trump administration took over, the number of bills dropped by more than half and the number of states nearly did too.

Not only that, the bills that were filed after Trump took office didn’t go anywhere. Governors signed five bills into law directly taking on federal gun control during the last two Obama years. Since then – zero.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think there weren’t any more threats the right to keep and bear arms. And yet the federal gun control acts of 1934, 1968 and 1986, along with other various laws violating the Second Amendment, remain on the books. And they’re still being enforced by the feds just as aggressively as they were when Obama was president.

By and large, Republicans use the Second Amendment as a campaign prop, but they do very little to actually stop the federal government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. They barely hold the line on new gun control and they don’t do anything to challenge the unconstitutional laws already on the books.

Footnote 1

All enforcement statistics were taken from the following ATF Fact Sheets

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Footnote 2

These numbers include all cases investigated by the ATF, including arson, explosives, and alcohol and tobacco. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, approximately 92 percent of the ATF cases investigated involved firearms. In 2016, 90 percent of the cases were firearms-related.

Share