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

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.

guns Intelwars Jefferson gun store Louisiana Second Amendment Shooting

Louisiana gunman learns the hard way not to open fire at people inside gun store

Armed citizens are being credited with saving lives after they engaged a gunman who opened fire on customers inside a Louisiana gun store on Saturday.

The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office said a gunman opened fire inside the Jefferson Gun Outlet — a combination gun store and indoor shooting range located in Metairie, Louisiana — before being engaged by armed bystanders outside the store.

The gunman shot four people, killing two and leaving two others injured. The gunman was killed by the armed citizens.

The Jefferson Gun Outlet in Metairie, Louisiana. (Michael DeMocker/Getty Images)

“Arriving deputies located several victims suffering from gunshot wounds,” the JPSO said in a statement, Fox News reported. “Three individuals were pronounced dead on the scene, and two more were transported to a local hospital for treatment. The two transported victims are in stable condition.”

“At this time, it appears a suspect shot two victims inside the location, then was engaged and shot outside the location by multiple other individuals,” the statement continued. “The suspect is one of the deceased on scene.”

The incident happened shortly before 3 p.m. on Saturday.

What did witnesses say?

Michael Mayer, an executive at the Jefferson Gun Outlet, told the New York Times the gunman opened fire after becoming enraged by a request to unload his firearm before entering the store.

“He became agitated by the request and pulled his gun out of his pants and started firing,” Mayer told the Times. “Our armed and trained employees, as well as some armed permitted customers, returned fire and eliminated the threat.”

Tyrone Russell told the newspaper that he was taking a concealed carry permit class at the gun store when the shots rang out.

“All of a sudden, all I hear is a whole lot of gunshots,” Russell said, adding that “everybody started panicking” and “it was like a real shootout.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the agency’s New Orleans office is assisting with the investigation.

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.

2nd Amend. gun rights guns Intelwars Second Amendment utah

Utah kills requirement that citizens get a permit to carry concealed guns

The people of Utah are about to see a layer of restrictions on their Second Amendment rights lifted.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that he would sign legislation this week to eliminate the permit requirement for residents of the Beehive State who want to carry concealed guns.

The new law, which passed both chambers of the Utah Legislature overwhelmingly, will allow any law-abiding Utahn 21 or older to carry concealed in the state. Naturally, people already prohibited from owning a gun, including convicted felons and the mentally ill, are not covered by the new policy.

Advocates for the bill called it a victory for gun owners and said it will be another layer of protection for people who are in danger because the current permitting process can take as long as 90 days, the Beacon said.

Pro-gun groups celebrated the soon-to-be law as evidence of the growing influence of Second Amendment advocates. More from the Beacon:

The repeal of permit requirements for concealed gun carry has accelerated over the past decade in a show of the increasing influence of gun owners and Second Amendment groups, especially at the state level. Utah is the 17th state to adopt a permitless carry system. While Vermont has used a permitless system since its founding, most states effectively banned any form of concealed gun carry until the mid-1990s. As recently as 1986, 16 states banned concealed gun carry while another 25 had laws allowing state officials to reject permit applications for any.

Now, no states outright ban concealed carry, and only eight states still allow officials to reject permit applicants who otherwise comply with training and background-check requirements.

Experts said the relaxation of concealed gun carry restrictions in recent years after concerted efforts from groups such as the National Rifle Association is proof of how influential politically active gun owners can be.

Of course, anti-gun groups claimed that loosening any gun laws will lead to increased gun violence.

But the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. David Hinkins (R), countered those typical talking points, noting that the safest states in the union — Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine — all have permit-less carry laws, the Beacon noted.

The law will go into effect on May 5.

Constitution constitutional republic Intelwars Sanctuary counties Second Amendment

Horowitz: Missouri county authorizes arrest of feds who violate Second Amendment

What is our recourse when our own government criminalizes our most basic rights while it allows Black Lives Matter and Antifa to rampage through our streets with impunity? Is there no Plan B when the federal or state governments treat all conservatives like terrorists, business owners like pariahs, and those who yearn to breathe unmasked air like murderers? Well, one Missouri county is demonstrating the importance of sheriffs and county officials returning to self-government and interposing between the governmental usurpers and the most sacred rights of the people.

On Feb. 3, the Newton County, Missouri, Commission passed a bill that will not only block federal enforcement of unconstitutional gun policies, but criminalize their implantation thereof within the jurisdiction of the county. The “Second Amendment Preservation Act of Newton County Missouri” declares that “all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations passed by the federal government and specifically any Presidential Administration whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in the county.”

That section of the Missouri constitution reads as follows:

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

Specifically, the ordinance targets federal policies that order the tracking or registering of firearms of ammunition, an idea that Democrats have been floating recently. It also bars the enforcement of any effort to confiscate guns except from those who are “suspected criminals.”

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement has been growing throughout the country, with hundreds of counties passing some form of a declaration protecting gun rights from encroachments perpetrated by higher levels of government. The sanctuary movement has only recently come to the state of Missouri, with several counties recently declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and the state legislature pushing similar bills. But Newton County might have adopted the strongest language in the entire country – going so far as to criminalize enforcement or cooperation with federal law enforcement who seek to enforce such policies.

This is a takeoff of what states like New York did when they criminalized the cooperation between state and county government officials and Immigration and Customs Enforcement with regard to enforcement of federal immigration laws, even against illegal aliens with criminal records. The difference, of course, is that the Second Amendment sanctuary movement seeks to protect legitimate constitutional rights for Americans and, unlike the illegal alien sanctuary movement, does not harbor suspected criminals.

Specifically, section 4a of the Newton County ordinance grants the sheriff’s department “full authority to make an arrest of any and all federal agents that violate state laws and enforce regulations” that violate the Second Amendment. Finally, the ordinance bars anyone “who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance” from “being hired as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in the county.”

It is to be hoped that this will spawn a debate in the country over what citizens should do when the higher levels of government violate the very essence of the social compact by wielding one executive power after another to confiscate the most foundational of natural rights, including self-defense, free speech, property rights, and the right to breathe free air unrestrained, which absolutely is a natural right that predated any government.

The Newton ordinance was signed by commissioners Bill Reiboldt, Alan Cook, and David Osborn on Feb. 3 and is effective immediately.

While most sanctuary ordinances have thus far targeted Second Amendment violations, some counties have begun to pass sanctuary resolutions protecting local business owners and citizens from COVID restrictions that violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. is a website that tracks the growing list of these sanctuary counties. Also, a group of listeners of my podcast have organized a network (Constitution Action Network) for people of the same state and county to meet, collaborate, and raise awareness of the power of state and local government to interpose against the growing list of blatant constitutional violations and extra-lawful lawmaking at the stroke of Biden’s executive pen.

The left-wing sanctuary city politicians, while wrong on the policy and legal merits of their arguments, will likely rue the day they created this monster that will now serve as the only remaining beacon for patriots to protect legitimate rights of American citizens.

Censorship Facebook bans gun group facebook censorship gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment

Facebook permanently bans pro-gun group without explanation: Report

In another concerning example of Big Tech censorship of conservatives, Facebook reportedly removed a pro-Second Amendment group’s page from its platform this week without providing an explanation.

What are the details?

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an active gun-rights advocacy group in the commonwealth, told the Washington Free Beacon that the group’s page suddenly disappeared on Tuesday without any note from the tech giant.

In a statement, Facebook acknowledged the removal, calling its decision final, but made no mention as to why the action was taken.

“This was correctly actioned and we will not be republishing,” Facebook spokeswoman Kristen Morea said. According to the Free Beacon, Morea “declined to elaborate on the decision.”

Facebook confirmed the action to TheBlaze, noting that the page was removed and administrators were disabled for violating the company’s Community Standards. A Facebook “group” operated by VCDL remains active on the platform. Facebook added that its removal of the page came after employees re-reviewed their original action to remove violating content found on the page.

According to Van Cleave, the group reportedly used its Facebook page primarily to organize events and communicate with members about legislative initiatives, such as to raise awareness about Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s controversial 2020 gun control agenda and to mobilize efforts for “Lobby Day,” an annual pro-gun driving demonstration.

What else?

However, the group’s resistance efforts may have been interpreted much differently by some in the media. In a recent article published by the Guardian, VCDL appeared to be lumped into a large group of guns rights supporters that the news outlet said were “openly discussing violent resistance and civil war.”

In the article, VCDL was characterized as “a local pro-gun group that’s politically to the right of the National Rifle Association” that served as “the main driver” of the state’s the sanctuary movement. The movement pushes for local municipalities to act as sanctuaries for gun owners from national or state laws that are thought to impede upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Van Cleave was quoted in the article as saying, “I’m telling you, people that have never committed a crime, that are law-abiding, and pay their taxes, do everything right, don’t even have a speeding ticket, are saying, ‘I’m not giving up my guns.'”

Anything else?

The no-explanation ban issued by Facebook against VCDL may foreshadow similar bans against other conservative organizations, Van Cleave told the Free Beacon.

“If they did this to us, it’s just a matter of time,” he said. “I think we’re a high-profile group and that’s why we got singled out. Those who aren’t as high profile as we are, I’m sure they’re on the chopping block next.”

Van Cleave claimed neither he nor the group ever advocated violence or were involved with protesting the 2020 election results.

Capitol building guns Intelwars Lauren boebert Rep boebert Rep lauren boebert Second Amendment

After triggering Democrats, Rep. Lauren Boebert appears to notch win on gun debate at the Capitol

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is making quite the impression with her new colleagues on Capitol Hill, and she wasn’t sworn in until Sunday. Boebert, a gun rights advocate, pushed for bringing her own firearm to work with her in Washington, D.C. It appears that she may have won her first battle in the nation’s capital.

After she won her election in November, Boebert has discussed bringing her gun to the Capitol building. Boebert and any other member of congress can carry a firearm into their office thanks to a 1967 regulation that makes lawmakers exempt from the ban on firearms inside the Capitol building.

The rule states that no federal or District of Columbia laws restricting firearms “shall prohibit any Member of Congress from maintaining firearms within the confines of his office” or “from transporting within Capitol grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.” However, the politicians are prohibited from carrying weapons into the House chamber and other nearby areas.

Boebert’s desire to utilize her Second Amendment right has triggered some Democrats. A letter was signed by 21 Democrats, who were led by Reps. Jared Huffman, Robin Kelly, and Jackie Speier. The Dec. 15 letter addressed to House Leadership requested a “change in House Rules for the 117th Congress to ensure that Members of Congress are held to the same firearm safety rules as the public while they are on Capitol grounds.”

“Ultimately, the current regulations create needless risk for Members of Congress, their staff, members of the Capitol Police, and visitors to the Capitol grounds,” the Democrats wrote.

Boebert, 34, responded with her own letter, which was signed by “83 members and member-elects of Congress in an effort to block a gun grab recently proposed by House Democrats.”

“I refuse to give up my Second Amendment rights,” Boebert wrote. “I’m a 5-foot tall, 100-pound mom with four children and will be walking to work and serving in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. I choose to defend my family and my life with all of the force the Constitution provides. I will not let a bunch of gun-grabbing House Democrats take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.”

The rules for the 117th Congress were unveiled on Friday by Rules Committee Chairman James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) and newly re-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who on Sunday afternoon narrowly edged Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) – 216 votes to 209.

The new rules for the 117th Congress did not appear to include the Democrats’ proposed ban on lawmakers carrying firearms inside the U.S. Capitol building — giving the House freshman Rep. Boebert a win on her first day on the job.

Gun defense Intelwars Port arthur armed burglary Port arthur home invasion Port arthur lethal home invasion port arthur texas Second Amendment Self-Defense

Father shoots and kills armed burglar threatening his family during home invasion in Texas

A Texas father foiled a home invasion when he shot and killed one of three armed burglars who allegedly broke into his home and threatened his family at gunpoint, including two young children.

The alarming incident unfolded in Port Arthur, a city east of Houston, on Sunday.

Port Arthur police said that they were called to the home at about 8:30 p.m. and found a deceased 27-year-old who had been shot by the homeowner and father of the family.

The victims said that three armed burglars forced their way into the home as a female resident arrived at the house. The suspects allegedly demanded that the woman hand over her belongings.

From a separate room, the 29-year-old father of the home heard the commotion from the home invasion and confronted the intruders with his rifle. He says that he shot one of the intruders and the other two fled. Police are seeking the two suspects who escaped.

The father was trying to protect his two young children, who where also in the house at the time. Port Arthur Detective Mike Hebert told KBMT-TV that the suspect who was killed was not a stranger to the homeowner who killed him.

“We know that the individual who defended himself inside the house was an acquaintance of the suspect that was shot and killed within the house,” said Hebert.

Police said two other suspicious incidents occurred at the same residence.

Hours after the lethal shooting, the home was subject to a drive-by shooting, but no one was at the home at the time. Then, a day later, the home was engulfed in flames. Police are investigating whether the three incidents are connected.

The mother of the children, who doesn’t live at the house, said that her 5-year-old child was shaken up by the incident because one of the suspects pointed a gun at his face.

The deceased suspect was later identified and KBMT reported that he had been previously arrested for assault, numerous times for deadly conduct, and for making terroristic threats.

Here’s a local news report about the incident:

Deadly home invasion followed by shots fired call, house fire in Port Arthur

Armed carjacking attempt Armed carjacking attempt foiled Good guy with a gun Gun foils carjacking attempt Guns used for good Intelwars Missouri carjacking Second Amendment

Armed woman foils alleged carjacking attempt by three teens, and an 11-year-old

A woman foiled an alleged carjacking attempt when she pulled her own gun against the suspects, which included three teens and an 11-year-old.

The alarming incident unfolded about 7:30 a.m. Saturday in Wentzville, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri.

The victim said that she was sitting in her vehicle when she was approached by a young man who was with three other youths. He asked her for directions but then produced a gun and demanded that she give him her vehicle, according to police.

She refused to leave the vehicle, and instead produced a gun of her own.

“Her actions caused the male subject with the firearm and the three other subjects to flee on foot,” the police report said, according to the St. Louis Dispatch.

Wentzville Police were called to the scene and were able to later apprehend three teenage suspects and an 11-year-old suspect. Two of the teens were 15 and the other one was 17.

Police said they recovered a firearm from one of the 15-year-olds, and they charged him with armed criminal action and attempted robbery. He was charged as an adult and remained under custody with a bond set at $50,000.

The other three suspects face charges of conspiracy to commit robbery. The minor is also charged with possession of alcohol.

Rochelle Harris told KSDK-TV that she believes she encountered the four youths in the parking lot of a convenience store on that same morning.

Harris said that one of the males asked her a question but that she got into her car and drove away.

“What happened to her was exactly what my fear was, from the moment I stepped out of my car,” Harris said.

Here’s more about the alarming incident from KSDK:

Carjacking foiled when victim pulls gun, 4 children arrested in Wentzville

Chainsaw attack hate crimes Intelwars Nebraska racial attack Norma nimox Second Amendment Tieesha essex Tiemonex

Racist chainsaw attack spurs on viral pro-Second Amendment video: ‘Oh hell no, not today!’

Business owner Tieesha Essex, a military veteran and police officer, filmed a viral video for her firearms accessory company, Tiemonex, after the attempted attack on 25-year-old Lincoln, Nebraska, black woman Norma Nimox.

What’s a very brief history?

According to a report from PJ Media, Essex was moved to film the ad following an apparent racially motivated attack on Nimox.

Authorities charged 41-year-old Daniel Stueck with a hate crime after he allegedly armed himself with a chainsaw and chased his neighbor, Nimox, while shouting racial slurs at her during a November incident.

Nimox, who is mother to a 5-year-old son, was able to outrun Steuck, and authorities captured the suspect and placed him under arrest for the bizarre crime.

A White Man Almost Chopped Up A Black Woman With A Chainsaw While Calling Her A Naker

What are the details of Essex’s video?

Essex’s company, Tiemonex, sells firearms accessories online.

In a now-viral message, Essex posed as Nimox in a parody video of the original incident and took a decidedly pro-Second Amendment slant on the incident. In the video, Essex claims that she was armed at the time of the incident and shot the suspect as he chased her with his chainsaw.

“I’m going out the steps of my apartment and I see this dude with a chainsaw,” Essex says in the video. “I’m like, who the hell does he think he is, Leatherface?”

Essex — as Nimox — describes how she saw the man give chase and begin using racial slurs to speak to her.

“Oh hell no, not today! Remember, I was wearing my Tiemonix belly band holster, I took out my gun and as soon as he started charging down them steps at me with that chainsaw, I shot his ass,” she said, showcasing how she would have handled the frightening incident if she were Nimox.

At the time of this reporting, the spoof video, shared to social media, has been viewed nearly 1 million times.

What else?

After Essex’s video went viral, she spoke with Nimox for an interview shared on her YouTube channel.

During the exchange, Essex offered to pay for any firearms training Nimox might consider taking in order to safely and legally use firearms in order to protect herself in the future.

#LivingWhileBlack The Norma Nimox Story | Surviving a HATE CRIME

Gov. cuomo covid Gov. cuomo covid restrictions for religious gatherings Intelwars religious liberty Second Amendment Supreme court slaps down cuomo

SCOTUS sides with 1st Amdt., slaps down Cuomo’s COVID restrictions on religious gatherings

The Supreme Court slapped down New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings Wednesday, arguing that strict limitations on the number of people in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship — while liquor stores, bike shops, and many other non-religious places face few or no restrictions at all — are in violation of the First Amendment.

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere applauded Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 ruling, as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch who took specific aim at Gov. Cuomo for limiting religious gatherings to as few as 10 people in some areas, while imposing “no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers ‘essential’.”

“It turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores,” Gorsuch said. “Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too.”

“Government is not free to disregard the 1st Amendment in times of crisis,” Gorsuch wrote in a separate opinion.

Gov. Cuomo has since called the Supreme Court ruling “moot” and “irrelevant” because he had recently lifted restrictions in most of the affected areas.

“This is a trick they play all the time. They’ve done this with Second Amendment cases as well,” Stu noted. “They’ll put a ridiculous restriction in that’s obviously not constitutional, keep it in place for a year while it goes through the courts, and right before it gets to the Supreme Court they withdraw the rule. So then the case gets thrown out because it’s moot.”

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Conservative sanctuary Conservatives Intelwars Oklahoma legislature Oklahoma second amendment Second Amendment

Horowitz: When conservatives can’t even guarantee Second Amendment protection in Oklahoma …

When Donald Trump became president and it was widely assumed that there would be a crackdown on illegal immigration, Democrats swiftly moved to create a sanctuary for illegal aliens in every state they fully controlled. Well, if Democrats could create a sanctuary for people who have no right to be in the country, most certainly one would expect Republicans to create sanctuaries for Americans and constitutional rights in the states they control, right?

Think again.

Following this election in Oklahoma, Republicans will hold an 82-19 majority in the state House and a 39-9 majority in the Senate. Those are greater supermajorities than what Democrats hold in California. One would think that this state would be a sanctuary for freedom during coronavirus fascism, for self-defense during the era of BLM and gun confiscation, and all-around fiscal and social conservatism in an era of ubiquitous socialism and cultural Marxism. The problem with that assumption, though, is that conservatives don’t really have any majority, much less a supermajority. Liberal Republicans, who, by and large, are the less attractive side of the tyranny coin from the Democrats, are the ones who hold that majority.

In the days following the election, News 9 reported that Oklahoma state Sen. Nathan Dahm is drafting legislation to make the Sooner State a sanctuary from any potential unconstitutional violations of the First and Second Amendments in pursuit of a gun control agenda under a Joe Biden administration.

“A lot of how the feds try to implement these things is through local law enforcement, whether it’s county sheriffs, local police departments, and they try to attach funding to that to force those cities and counties to do that,” Dahm told News 9 in explaining the logic behind his proposal. “So what we could do is make sure that those cities and counties don’t accept any federal funding to implement any gun control measures.”

So why hasn’t this bill become law, given the GOP’s dominance in the legislature and the fact that such legislation has already been introduced in some form for several years?

“The Republicans have killed it in the state Senate each time,” said Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, in an interview with Personal Defense World. “The Republicans are the problem of why you cannot get pro-Second Amendment legislation done in the state of Oklahoma. We have a supermajority in the Senate, a supermajority in the House and we have the Governor’s office, so there is no one else to blame.”

Across the country, Republicans are disenfranchising conservatives on nearly every issue of our time. If illegal aliens have states where they can go and claim sanctuary, why can’t Americans find a constitutional sanctuary against gun-grabbing and coronavirus fascism in any state?

What about morals and values? Despite Republicans controlling the trifecta of government in Oklahoma, conservatives have failed for years to pass meaningful legislation protecting life for the unborn. The only successful measures they seem to pass are jailbreak provisions to weaken sentencing and deterrent for criminals.

Obviously, issues pertaining to foreign policy and national security are controlled by the federal government. But for conservatives, if they actually had a party representing them, there is no reason why they couldn’t enjoy a sanctuary from coronavirus fascism, gun-grabbing, and violent crime and rioting in a substantial portion of the country. Trump likely won over 80% of the nation’s counties, and Republicans control the trifecta of government in 24 states. So why is it that there seems to be no place that is an asylum for civil and religious liberty as well as for law and order? Because we refuse to look beyond the wretched Republican Party for our representation.

Putting aside the obvious election fraud for a moment, let’s just say Trump lost the election. The reason why the base refuses to let go of Trump is because they don’t see anyone else in the party fighting for them. Everyone is focused like a laser beam on the Senate elections in Georgia as if the world hangs in the balance based on their outcome. But we all know that the Left will continue to enact its policies administratively (as they are successfully doing now in the states even under Trump) and Republicans will do nothing meaningful with control of the Senate to stop that through budget fights.

Again, just look at all the states where Republicans hold supermajorities – and we still have tyranny. Why should a slim RINO majority in the Senate matter at all if Republicans already have robust majorities on the state level and refuse to govern in accordance with constitutional values? If 82-19 majorities are not enough for us to acquire our own version of California, it is quite evident that there is nothing worth salvaging in this party.

2nd Amend. gun rights guns handguns Intelwars Second Amendment

Support for stricter gun laws falls to lowest point since 2016; backing for handgun ban falls to near record low

With all the civil unrest that plagued the country over the last year, support for instituting stricter gun laws has dropped, while support for making gun laws less strict has seen a bump. And support for a ban on handguns has fallen to nearly record-low levels.

As Americans watched neighborhoods burn, business suffer looting, protesters demand that we “defund the police,” and fellow citizens hit with violence from rioters and other criminals, they made their way to gun stores, hoping to add another level of security for themselves and their families.

And as a result, the nation has seen a surge in gun sales the last few months, with gun sales shattering records this summer.

In early October, Rasmussen revealed that 22% of gun-owning households said they had added at least one firearm to their arsenal since the start of violent anti-police and Black Lives Matter protests.

When those factors are combined with the absence of a mass shooting in the U.S. this year, it likely comes as no surprise that Americans have grown significantly less supportive of imposing stricter gun laws.

A new Gallup survey posted Monday showed that a shrinking majority — 57% — of Americans support calls for stricter gun laws, which is down seven points from last year and down 10 points from 2018.

The share of U.S. citizens who want guns laws to be made less strict moved up from 4% in 2018 and 7% in 2019 to 9% today.

The percentage of voters who believe gun laws should be left untouched grew from 28% last year to 34% this year.

When broken down by demographics, the widest difference of opinion is found, unsurprisingly, between political parties, with the gap between gun owners and non-gun owners coming in second.

  • 85% of Democrats want to see stricter gun laws imposed, while 22% of Republicans feel the same.
  • 72% of non-gun owners support stricter gun laws, while just 26% of current gun support such a move.

Gallup also reported that support for a ban on handguns in the U.S. has fallen to a near record low of just 25%. The previous record low was 23% in 2016.

Florida Intelwars looting Rioting Ron DeSantis Second Amendment stand your ground

Report: Florida governor pushes bill that would allow armed citizens to use deadly force against looters, rioters

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is pushing “anti-mob” legislation that would reportedly allow citizens to confront looters with firepower.

The bill, which comes after months of civil unrest in the wake of George Floyd’s death, would broaden Florida’s Stand Your Ground law by expanding the “forcible felonies” list to justify the use of deadly force against individuals engaged in criminal activity resulting in “interruption or impairment” to a business, according to the Miami Herald.

That legislation would also justify deadly force used against individuals engaged in looting businesses within 500 feet of a “violent or disorderly assembly.”

Currently, Florida state law declares:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

“Forcible felonies” in Florida include: murder, manslaughter, sexual battery, robbery, kidnapping, assault, battery, aggravated stalking, carjacking, among others, and “any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

Also, the bill DeSantis is promoting would give immunity to motorists who “unintentionally killed or injured protesters who block traffic,” the Herald reported.

The bill would also withhold state funding from local governments if they make “disproportionate funding reductions” to police budgets.

What was the reaction?

Although the legislation has not yet been filed with the Florida Legislature, legal experts are concerned the bill would encourage vigilantism and result in unnecessary deaths over mere property crimes.

“It allows for vigilantes to justify their actions,” Denise Georges, a former Miami-Dade County prosecutor, told the Herald.

She added, “It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime — and that is cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.”

Former Miami-Dade prosecutor Aubrey Webb agreed that the proposed bill “dangerously gives armed private citizens power to kill as they subjectively determine what constitutes ‘criminal mischief’ that interferes with a business.”

“The Boston Tea Party members would have been lawfully shot under Florida’s law by the British East India Tea Company,” Webb told the Herald.

Added guns Black lives matter riots guns Intelwars Rasmussen guns Second Amendment

Arming up: 1 in 5 gun-owning households have added another firearm since start of Black Lives Matter protests, survey finds

Gun-owning Americans are purchasing additional firearms in response to the violent Black Lives Matter protests that have taken place in many cities and communities across the country in recent months.

What are the details?

A Rasmussen survey published this week found that 22% of Americans who already have a gun in their household have added another since the start of protests and that a large majority feel safer having done so.

In all, 43% of those surveyed told the polling group that they or someone in their household owns a gun. Slightly over half (54%) of those adults who live in a gun-owning household said that they feel safer with a gun in the house, while only 7% said they feel less safe, and 38% said the gun’s presence doesn’t affect their feelings of personal safety.

But among the roughly 1 in 5 people whose households have added another firearm in recent months, a whopping 90% reported feeling safer.

The households who have added guns since late May have predominantly been minority households, Rasmussen noted.

The phone interview survey of 1,000 adults was conducted October 4-5.

Additionally, the polling group reported in September that 42% of likely U.S. voters have had anti-police protests in their communities, and nearly half of those respondents said that those protests became violent.

What else?

This year has been a record-breaking year for gun sales as uncertainty around the coronavirus pandemic and violence at Black Lives Matter protests have left many Americans concerned for their safety.

Despite continued calls for gun control and warnings about the dangers of firearms from Democratic politicians, the numbers prove that Americans have en masse turned to firearms to protect themselves and their families.

More guns were purchased in March 2020 than any other month on record, and every month since then has experienced year-over-year increases.

By August, 2020 gun sales had already topped 2019 sales — and there are four months still to go. Of the nearly 15 million gun sales recorded by that time this year, an estimated 5 million had come from first-time gun buyers.

Intelwars La pay nra Los angeles nra national rifle association NRA Second Amendment

Judge rules Los Angeles must pay $150K to the NRA after violating group’s First Amendment rights

A federal judge ruled this week that city officials in Los Angeles must pay the National Rifle Association a six-figure settlement after violating the gun-rights group’s First Amendment rights.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Judge Stephen Wilson blocked an ordinance late last year that would have forced companies to disclose connections with the NRA in order to receive government contracts.

Now he has ordered city officials to pay for the Second Amendment group’s attorney fees, reportedly totaling nearly $150,000.

In December 2019, Wilson ruled that “the text of the Ordinance, the Ordinance’s legislative history, and the concurrent public statements made by the Ordinance’s primary legislative sponsor evince a strong intent to suppress the speech of the NRA.”

“Even though the Ordinance only forces disclosure of activity that may not be expressive, the clear purpose of the disclosure is to undermine the NRA’s explicitly political speech,” Wilson added.

“The City has no interest in the suppression of political advocacy — regardless of how distasteful it finds the content,” he concluded. “The Ordinance is therefore incompatible with the Constitution, and Plaintiffs are likely to be successful on the merits of their First Amendment speech claims.”

At the time, the NRA, who filed the lawsuit against the city after the ordinance’s implementation last April, celebrated the ruling as a First Amendment win.

“This is an important win for the NRA, our members, and all who believe in America’s constitutional freedoms,” the NRA’s managing director of public affairs, Andrew Arulanandam, told the Free Beacon. “The ruling sends a powerful message to those government officials who would take any actions that are adverse to the NRA because they dislike its political speech.”

In an updated comment, NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said, “The courts have rightfully imposed those consequences upon Los Angeles. The NRA will continue our fight and, as always, work to hold politicians accountable.”

The Free Beacon noted that neither Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti nor Democratic Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell — both of whom sponsored the ordinance and were named in the lawsuit — responded when requested for comment.

The ordinance, now struck down, explicitly stated its intention was to spotlight city contractors who have done business with the NRA or donated to the organization.

“The City of Los Angeles has enacted ordinances and adopted positions that promote gun safety and sensible gun ownership,” the ordinance stated. “The City’s residents deserve to know if the City’s public funds are spent on contractors that have contractual or sponsorship ties with the NRA. Public funds provided to such contractors undermines the City’s efforts to legislate and promote gun safety.”

Alan Dershowitz BILL OF RIGHTS Criminal defense attorney alan dershowitz Dershowitz on 2a Intelwars Second Amendment

‘I don’t want to change one word of it’: Alan Dershowitz on why the Second Amendment MUST be preserved

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: “A plague on both your houses.” He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He’s a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you’ll probably see him standing in the background. He’s represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It’s made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a “civil libertarian,” and that’s probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week’s podcast, Alan explained that while he’s a strong defender of the Constitution, he’s never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he’s called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn’t have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he’s now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

“I’m now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don’t want to change it. I don’t want to change one word of it, because I’m afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment,” Alan said. “So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words.”

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn’s YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media’s podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck’s channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment Supreme Court supreme court nominee Supreme court vacancy

Horowitz: The biggest potential win for conservatives from the SCOTUS vacancy? Gun rights

Filling the Supreme Court vacancy is of upmost importance to conservatives, but it will not lead us to the promised land of a constitutional paradise. At present, there is only one full-fledged originalist on the court, and in general, until the other GOP appointees get more aggressive in reversing new, malignant precedents in the lower courts, we will continue to suffer from judicial tyranny. However, the most auspicious prospect for a return to constitutional jurisprudence at the court will likely be in cases involving gun rights. Nothing to sneeze at, indeed, especially with the growing violence menacing our safety daily.

Years after discovering many novel pseudo-rights, the Supreme Court finally recognized the Second Amendment’s individual right to self-defense in 2008 in the landmark D.C. v. Heller decision. Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the court ruled that these constitutional constraints on gun control applied to the states as well. Chief Justice Roberts joined both of those decisions, yet over the past decade, he has allowed lower courts to chip away at them to the point that they now only affirm some right to own some sort of gun in one’s home. Everything else — from bans on common weapons and extremely common, almost standard magazines to categorical bans on the right to bear arms outside of one’s home — has been upheld by nearly every appeals court.

What has happened over the past few years is a losing battle of gun rights groups trying to enforce Heller and the Supreme Court turning away their appeals. Chief Justice Roberts clearly has no desire to affirm an individual right to carry, even though it is the logical outcome of Heller, so he has chosen not to take up the appeals. What is so egregious about this practice is that lower courts are literally repealing a Supreme Court opinion.

For example, in Kolbe v. Hogan, 10 of the 14 judges on the radical Fourth Circuit ruled that 45 commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are military weapons and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. The court used Breyer’s dissent to create a state interest-balancing test to limit the Second Amendment, a test explicitly rejected by the Heller majority opinion. For the Supreme Court to deny these appeals was unprecedented. It would be like lower court judges citing Rehnquist’s Roe v. Wade dissent in an abortion case.

While Justice Kennedy was still on the court, it was clear that gun rights advocates didn’t even have the requisite four votes required to grant certiorari and take up the appeals pending before the high court. Thomas and Scalia bitterly dissented from the denial of cert in several cases in 2015. Alito also joined Thomas in voicing his concern about the unwillingness of the high court to enforce its own precedent. In a concurrence in Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts, Justice Alito accused his liberal colleagues of leaving people’s safety “to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

Several months earlier, when Scalia was still alive, Thomas wrote a dissent in the denial of cert of the appeal from the Ninth Circuit in a case involving San Francisco’s law requiring that all guns be locked up even at home. “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense,” wrote Thomas, joined by Scalia in the dissent, “lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.” He noted how justices are always eager to enforce precedent on favored rights, including abortion, but not when it comes to real, foundational rights. “I see no reason that challenges based on Second Amendment rights should be treated differently,” wrote an irate Thomas.

Later in 2015, Thomas wrote another dissent joined by Justice Scalia, when the Supreme Court allowed a Seventh Circuit ruling upholding Chicago’s assault weapons and magazine capacity bans to stand. Thomas noted how the ruling “ignores Heller’s fundamental premise” that the Second Amendment “is an independent, individual right” and lambasted his colleagues on the high court for their “refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents.” He famously charged them with treating “the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right.”

So where does the whip count on gun rights stand in the nation’s highest court today? All evidence shows that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, despite their wobbling on other conservative issues, are solid on the Second Amendment. So why has the Supreme Court still failed to even take up the appeals, despite the presence of four favorable votes?

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to a recent New York City gun control law, in light of the updates that were made post-litigation, was moot. Alito, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, dissented, asserting that the case was not moot and that the city violated the Second Amendment by continuing to ban the transport of guns outside the city under some circumstances and criticizing the lower courts for violating Heller and McDonald.

While Kavanaugh joined the majority (unsigned) opinion throwing out the lawsuit on a technicality of mootness, in a separate concurrence, he wrote, “I share Justice ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.” He opined that SCOTUS “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

Well, if they have the four votes to grant cert in a more appropriate case before them, why not do so? Yet on June 15, the Supreme Court turned down 10 appeals from gun rights groups in cases where lower courts appeared to be in violation of Heller and McDonald. What gives?

On July 27, Joan Biskupic, CNN’s legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer who has deep connections within the institution, answered the riddle. In a tell-all article revealing some of the internal hagglings of the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, Biskupic reported that Roberts “sent enough signals during internal deliberations on firearms restrictions, sources said, to convince fellow conservatives he would not provide a critical fifth vote anytime soon to overturn gun control regulations. As a result, the justices in June denied several petitions regarding Second Amendment rights.”

In other words, the four other justices know that the only thing worse than shirking an opportunity to reverse the lower courts on the Second Amendment is to get up to bat and then strike out, with Roberts as the fifth vote upholding gun control measures.

Which leads us to today. So long as Trump appoints anyone even on par with Kavanaugh, at the very least there should be five votes not only to take up these appeals but to reverse the lower court opinions, while stripping Roberts of any ability to manipulate the process.

Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the lead contender for the nomination, has already penned a strong dissent in a gun rights case accusing her colleagues on that panel of treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right. There’s our fifth vote.

Thus, while I don’t have much hope that there will be five votes to uproot some of these bogus rights created by the court from their first-class status in constitutional law, there should at least be enough votes to elevate the Second Amendment from second-class status and let it take a seat right next to the “right to abortion” in first class.

2nd Amendment Arson gun rights Intelwars oregon Oregon wildfires Second Amendment West coast wildfires

Armed Oregon woman holds suspected arsonist at gunpoint until cops arrive

As wildfires rage along the West Coast, law enforcement has nabbed several suspected arsonists, including multiple arrests in Oregon.

One armed Oregonian was ready to defend her property — and her state — from the actions of a suspected would-be arsonist, and now her story is going viral on social media.

What happened?

Kat Cast posted a video to Facebook over the weekend showing her taking action to get a man she believed to be an arsonist off her property, on the ground, and eventually into the back of a police vehicle and the local clink.

In the video, Cast can been seen getting out of her car with gun drawn and approaching a suspicious man who was walking on her property.

According to Cast’s Facebook post, she said she found the man walking on her property as she was driving in. All he was carrying was a book of matches, Cast stated.

Some of you still think we’re not being under attack. I found this individual walking in my property as I was driving in, all he had were some matches in his hand. Walked him out of my property at gunpoint and then when we got to some asphalt ground on the main road made him lay down while the cops arrived.

In the video, the suspect lies down on the road as Cast approaches him, shouting, “Get on the floor. Get on the floor right now — face down.”

Image source: Facebook/Kat Cast video screenshot

“What are you doing on my property?” she asks, to which the suspect replies that he didn’t know it was her property.

“Did you light anything on fire?” she continues.

“No, ma’am,” he replies.

Then she demands to know what he’s doing with the book of matches, and he claims he smokes.

“You smoke? Where are your f***ing cigarettes?” the woman demands to know.

Image source: Facebook/Kat Cast video screenshot

Turns out he didn’t have any cigarettes — just matches he was carrying around in his hand while strolling along her property.

Cast tells the suspect to stay on the ground because the police were on their way: “You can just stay right there. I’ve got the cops coming’.”

Content warning: rough language

Shortly after the video stopped, Cast said, cops did arrive and take the man into custody.

According to Cast’s Facebook post, the suspect has “multiple warrants one of them being assaulting a police officer.”

Cast also made it clear that the suspect should consider himself lucky that she found him and not her husband.

“Had my husband been here he would have been dead,” she wrote.

Blowback and encouragement

In an update to her post, Cast noted that many people, including the media, had been reaching out to her about the story. Many, she said, doubted her story and said it looked staged, but most of the comments were supportive.

Because she did not want more stress put on her family, she said she would not be talking to the media about the incident.

I read all your msgs to me, even the private ones, I can tell you that this truly did happen and there is nothing fake about it, I do not wish to keep private msgs between you and I, not with you or the dozens of people who are reaching out to me. Some with terrifying words, but mostly I am truly humbled by many kind words that have been said to me. I do not wish to speak to anyone, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a journalist who wants to put out on the news, I will not put my family in danger by exposing myself any more than what I have already, besides the media will just twist my words. Feel free to use the pictures that you have obtained if you want but I will not interview with anyone. I will tell you something though if I need to do this again to protect my family and my neighbors, I will in a heartbeat do it again, except this time I will not be as nice as I was. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In all things, may the victory come to us while the glory goes to God. Blessings -Kat.

guns Intelwars Kenosha Kenosha riots Kyle rittenhouse Second Amendment Self-Defense Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse attorneys break silence, give key details in Kenosha shooting: ‘Kyle did nothing wrong’

The attorneys representing Kyle Rittenhouse released a lengthy statement on Saturday defending the 17-year-old from the list of criminal charges against him.

Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters and wounding a third. The incident happened on Aug. 25, the third night of the Kenosha riots. Violence erupted in the southern Wisconsin city after police shot Jacob Blake, a black man, last Sunday.

Rittenhouse has been charged with multiple felonies, including: one count of first-degree reckless homicide, one count of first-degree intentional homicide, one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, as well as charges of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and possession of a dangerous weapon.

However, as TheBlaze reported, the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse reads as though he acted in self-defense.

What did the attorneys say?

The attorneys, from the law firm of Pierce Bainbridge, did not mince words — they said Rittenhouse is innocent of the charges against him on the grounds of self-defense.

“Kyle did nothing wrong. He exercised his God-given, Constitutional, common law and statutory law right to self-defense,” they said.

Their version of events appear to align with video evidence. They said Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect businesses and render medical aid when needed, and that he only discharged his rifle because he was being attacked.

In fact, according to the attorneys, Rittenhouse even attempted to render medical aid to Joseph Rosenbaum after shooting him, but had to flee the scene “for his safety and his survival.” Video evidence shows that Rosenbaum was pursing Rittenhouse before being shot.

The attorneys explained:

As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker.

Kyle stopped to ensure care for the wounded attacker but faced a growing mob gesturing towards him. He realized he needed to flee for his safety and his survival. Another attacker struck Kyle from behind as he fled down the street. Kyle turned as the mob pressed in on him and he fell to the ground. One attacker kicked Kyle on the ground while he was on the ground. Yet another bashed him over the head with a skateboard. Several rioters tried to disarm Kyle. In fear for his life and concerned the crowd would either continue to shoot at him or even use his own weapon against him, Kyle had no choice but to fire multiple rounds towards his immediate attackers, striking two, including one armed attacker. The rest of the mob began to disperse upon hearing the additional gunshots.

The attorneys went on to explain that Rittenhouse attempted to turn himself in to police, but they were concerned with the “wounded attackers,” and instructed Rittenhouse to leave the scene.

The attorneys then turned their attention toward Kenosha prosecutors, whom they alleged “did not engage in any meaningful analysis of the facts, or any in-depth review of available video footage.”

“[T]his was not a serious investigation,” they continued. “Rather, after learning Kyle may have had conservative political viewpoints, they immediately saw him as a convenient target who they could use as a scapegoat to distract from the Jacob Blake shooting and the government’s abject failure to ensure basic law and order to citizens. Within 24-36 hours, he was charged with multiple homicide counts.”

You can read the full attorney statement here.

What does video evidence show?

One angle, showing the moments before Rittenhouse fired his rifle at Rosenbaum, confirms Rosenbaum was in full pursuit of Rittenhouse. The video then shows Rosenbaum throw an object at Rittenhouse before one shot rings out. A New York Times analysis discovered that the first shot did not come from Rittenhouse, but from another person armed with a handgun.

The video then shows Rosenbaum lunge toward Rittenhouse. That’s when the teenager opens fire on Rosenbaum, discharging four rounds.

Approximately 30 seconds later, the video shows Rittenhouse sprinting from the scene. The man who filmed the incident is then heard instructing other protesters to “cranium that boy,” highlighting the hostile and violent nature of the demonstrators.

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?


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.

FBI gun rights guns Intelwars Protests Second Amendment

Gun sales shatter records amid mass protests, ‘defund the police’ movement

As violent crime surges across the United States amid the “defund the police” movement, gun sales have also skyrocketed.

There were an estimated 1,795,602 gun sales in July, the Washington Free Beacon reported, shattering previous records for the same month. The number was an increase of 133% compared to July 2019.

Joe Raedle/Getty Image

FBI statistics confirmed the firearm purchasing boom.

The bureau conducted more than 3.6 million background checks in July, the third-highest month for background checks since the FBI began keeping related statistics more than 20 years ago, according to CNN. The background checks are required for every purchase made from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

By comparison, the FBI conducted about 2 million background checks during the same one-month period last year.

Americans are purchasing firearms at an eye-popping rate during the coronavirus pandemic and racial unrest that has gripped the nation for more than two months.

The only two months that saw more FBI background checks for firearm purchases were in March — when 3.74 million background checks were conducted — and in June when an all-time record of 3.91 million background checks were completed.

According to Fox News, more than 2.5 million firearm purchasers in 2020 were first-time buyers, while the Free Beacon reported that firearm ownership in the black community is setting records.

From the Free Beacon:

Gun dealers reported a 58.2 percent increase in black customers in 2020—the most rapid growth of any ethnic group, according to a survey from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun makers and dealers. More than eight million guns have been sold in 2020, according to background-check records, and many purchasers are first-time gun owners.

The record-setting sales and firearm interest has led to record profits for gun manufactures, like Ruger and Smith & Wesson.

And according to Chris Killoy, chief executive officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, the sales boom shows no sign of slowing down.

“Having been in this industry for 30 years, I saw the surge in 1994 before the assault weapons ban took place,” Killoy told investors last Thursday, the Free Beacon reported. “This is probably the strongest level of demand that I’ve seen. One of the most significant differences is how it has impacted all levels of the channel and the impact on inventory at all levels.”

The boom, Killoy explained, is driven by three factors: the COVID-19 pandemic, mass protests, and the call for reduction of law enforcement.

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







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.

Black Lives Matter Eric Schmitt Intelwars Kim gardner Mccloskeys Mccloskeys charged Mccloskeys vs blm Second Amendment

Missouri AG accuses Kim Gardner of ‘political prosecution’ of McCloskeys, files for dismissal of charges

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt
said that he filed to dismiss the charges against a St. Louis couple who used their firearms in order to ward off Black Lives Matter protesters from their property.

Schmitt posted a lengthy response to the charges from his Twitter account on Monday, where he accused St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner of having a political motivation for the prosecution.

“St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecution. I entered the case seeking a dismissal,” tweeted Schmitt.

“As AG I have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians including the right to keep [and] bear arms in self-defense of one’s person [and] home,” he added.

Gardner announced earlier Monday that Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are both personal injury attorneys, were charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon.

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner,” Gardner
said in a statement, “that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis.”

The McCloskeys became a national story when Black Lives Matter protesters damaged a gate on June 28 and entered onto a private street on their way to the home of the St. Louis mayor. The couple stood outside their home with a handgun and an AR-15 rifle warning the protesters to stay away. Videos of the incident quickly went viral on social media.

Schmitt opined in his Twitter thread that the McCloskeys were justified in their brandishing of firearms to protect themselves and their property.

“The right to defend one’s person, family, home and property has deep roots in Missouri law. Self-defense is the central component of the right to keep & bear arms, which receives the highest protection from the MO Constitution,” he added in a
second tweet.

Schmitt went on to claim that the prosecution of the McCloskeys would undermine the right to self-defense.

“The prosecution sends a powerful message to all Missourians that they exercise their fundamental right to self-defense at their peril. Missourians should not fear exposure to criminal prosecution, even prison time, when they use firearms to defend themselves and their homes,” Schmitt

If the charges are not dismissed and the McCloskeys are found guilty, they could face up to four years in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

Here’s more about the charges against the McCloskeys:

St. Louis prosecutor to charge couple who went viral defending their home