Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Why Saudi Arabia is Gladly Helping Russia

With friends like this who needs enemies right? Grumpy

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns

Gun Boom Continues: FBI Ran 192,749 Background Checks on Black Friday by AWR HAWKINS

Rifles for sale sit on display at the firearms department inside a Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC store on Black Friday in Tampa, Florida, U.S., on Friday, Nov. 23, 2018. Deloitte expects sales from November to January to rise as much as 5.6 percent, to more than $1.1 trillion, marking …

Numbers released Monday show that the FBI ran 192,749 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks on Black Friday 2022.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) noted that the 192,749 NICS checks on Black Friday 2022 “[rank] it third in the Top 10 Highest Days for NICS checks and…[represent] a 2.8 percent increase from Black Friday 2021.”

The FBI conducted 187,585 NICS checks on Black Friday 2021 and 186,645 checks on Black Friday 2020, Breitbart News reported.

The NSSF observed that there were 711,372 NICS checks “during the week leading up to and including Black Friday.”

The strong Black Friday NICS check numbers come after surges in gun sales during recent years.

For example, on October 6, 2022, Breitbart News reported retailers had sold over one million guns a month for 38 consecutive months.

Mark Oliva, NSSF managing director for public affairs, spoke to Breitbart News about the gun sales, noting the “38 continuous months of when background checks for firearm sales have exceeded 1 million” and added, “That’s a remarkable sustained trend and demonstrates that the firearm industry is meeting this continued increased demand for firearm ownership.”

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

WW2 Weapons Used in Ukraine War

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns

Law Banning Gun Possession Due to Restraining Order is Unconstitutional by Dean Weingarten

 

Ban on Second Amendment rights by Restraining Order Unconstitutional

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Federal District Judge David  Counts in the Western District of Texas has ruled the controversial federal law banning gun possession by a person who has been served with a restraining order for domestic violence is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). This statute makes it a crime to possess a firearm if the person is subject to a court issued restraining order about domestic violence.  The maximum term of imprisonment for violation of the statue is up to 10 years in prison. The actual wording of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) is this:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; 

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and 

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

The person subject to a restraining order alone has not been convicted of any crime.

Restraining orders do not have the protections afforded suspects in an actual trial.  Restraining orders have historically been obtained from judges with little effort.

A restraining order does not show the person restrained is guilty of domestic violence. 

A restraining order shows a judge was willing to accommodate a person who claimed they feared domestic violence by restraining the accused person from harassing, threatening, or stalking the person or persons.

Judge Counts, in his opinion, starts with a description of the state of Second Amendment law today:

From the opinion:

Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.

Several appellate courts have upheld the restraining order ban before the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. Those courts used the discredited “collective rights” approach to the Second Amendment.

Judge Counts suggests the entire ban on the possession of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence may be unconstitutional. However, he stops short of that conclusion, ruling only on the precise case before him:

Is banning the possession of firearms because of a restraining order showing fear of domestic violence constitutionally allowed under the Second Amendment?

Judge Counts finds the obvious:

The State has not shown any historical precedent for removing the right to keep and bear arms because of a restraining order for domestic violence. 

Judge Counts concludes with this:

That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.

Before and after the passage of the controversial Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, many commentators noted several constitutional problems with the law.

  • It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a misdemeanor;
  • It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a restraining order;
  • The amendment punished people for past behavior, thus, it was an ex-post-facto law.

When courts were presented with these arguments, the counterarguments were:

  • The Second Amendment is not an individual right;
  • People are not being punished for past acts, but for acts in the present; if they possess firearms in the present, they are violating the law (this presumes removing a constitutional right is not punishment)

Judge Counts’ opinion sweeps away those excuses. As Bruen shows the Second Amendment as a fundamental right on par with the First Amendment, those arguments no longer apply.

The Supreme Court has held a person whose constitutional rights are violated, even for a moment, suffers irreparable harm.

The current argument in support of historical analogs for removing the right to keep and bear arms from those convicted of domestic violence is: an act of violence is similar to other acts of violence which are used to remove the right to keep and bear arms for felonies.

Opinion:

This correspondent has seen the Lautenberg Amendment, especially the restraining order section, used as a cudgel by attorneys in many cases.

Often, its use has little to do with actual domestic violence, and it is used to punish those accused with little or no evidence.

It is used in divorce cases, custody cases, and contrived “domestic violence” cases. The purpose is to dishearten the accused and to make it more difficult to muster the resources for an effective defense. Many attorneys in divorce cases insist that a request for a restraining order be filed in order to take the case. Removal of fundamental constitutional rights for a mere restraining order is an outrage to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Domestic homicides were on a steep downward trend before the Lautenberg Amendment was passed. After it was passed, the number of domestic homicides leveled off.  (FBI -UCR)


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Categories
A Victory! Art

The Red Army Victory Celebration of the Fall of Berlin 1945

Victory, 1948 by Petr Aleksandrovich Krivonogov: History, Analysis & Facts | Arthive

Petr Aleksandrovich Krivonogov. Surrender

Pity that this was not Patton’s 3rd Army but it turned out okay in the long run! (Except for all the German women that were raped by the Russians as their “reward” given by Stalin)  Grumpy

Categories
A Victory! Manly Stuff Our Great Kids Paint me surprised by this Real men

Boy, 11, rushes back into burning apartment to save 2-year-old sister By FOX TV Digital Staff (What a Stud!!!!!!!!! Grumpy)

Salisbury Fire Department photo

Firefighters in Maryland say an 11-year-old boy suffered minor burns after racing back into a burning apartment building to rescue his 2-year-old sister.

The blaze broke out Tuesday evening on the second floor of a two-story apartment building in Salisbury, which is in Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

According to the state fire marshal’s office, the boy fled the building when smoke alarms started going off, but then he realized his sister was still inside. That’s when he went back up to the burning second floor to rescue her, suffering a minor burn to his arm in the process.

316801579_442034208118644_2288023325924632088_n.jpg

Salisbury Fire Department photo

The boy’s injuries were so minor that he did not need to be treated at the scene. His sister, meanwhile, was not hurt.

The children’s names were not released.

316808067_442034218118643_3144583475325877309_n.jpg

Salisbury Fire Department photo

Salisbury firefighters had the blaze under control within 10 minutes, but two of the eight apartments were left uninhabitable as a result of the fire. The Red Cross was helping the displaced residents.

Investigators ruled the fire accidental, blaming an “unspecified electrical event” in a second-floor bedroom outlet.

Categories
California You have to be kidding, right!?!

But of course!

Categories
A Victory!

Resident Opens Fire, Kills One Alleged Intruder, Wounds 3 Others

Shooting from a pistol. Reloading the gun
iStock / Getty Images Plus
1:42

The resident of a home in DeKalb County, Georgia, opened fire on four alleged robbery suspects, killing one and wounding three, around 5 p.m. Friday.

The Associated Press reports that one of the four suspects allegedly had a gun and “exchanged gunfire” with the resident.

FOX 5 notes that police arrived on scene and found three wounded individuals outside the home. Those individuals were “23-year-old Jacqueze Grier, 18-year-old Taneaious McCune and a 15-year-old boy.”

McCune later died a short time later at the hospital.

A fourth robbery suspect, 30-year-old Telvin Thomas, was apprehended later in the night when he showed up at a hospital.

Investigators believe the shooting was “justified” and are not pursuing charges against the resident.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a PhD in Military History, with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at [email protected]

Categories
If I was in Charge Some Sick Puppies! You have to be kidding, right!?!

Time to give it up and get on with your pathetic lives!

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Your back & knee problems are not service related! VA quote

Draw a special forces