Categories
All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" You have to be kidding, right!?!

U.S. First Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Assault Weapon Ban Constitutional by Darwin Nercesian

The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.

I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.

Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges. Who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.

Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.

To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.

The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.

Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.”

However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.

In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?

Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”

While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.

Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.

Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind.

Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Germany Is Revoking Gun Rights from AfD Supporters—and It’s a Warning Shot for the West by Scott Witner

In Germany, owning guns is a privilege that can be taken away—not for breaking the law, but for holding the wrong political opinion.

Members and supporters of the right-leaning Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party are now facing mass gun license revocations. The reason? The German government has labeled the AfD a “right-wing extremist” group—a political designation that suddenly makes its members “unreliable” under the country’s gun laws. And just like that, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed.

If that sounds outrageous, it should. But it’s not surprising.

Here in the U.S., we’ve already seen our own political establishment flirt with these kinds of tactics. Remember when New York’s then-Governor Andrew Cuomo said pro-gun conservatives “have no place” in his state? Or when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”? Label first. Punish later.

That’s the playbook being used in Germany right now. And it’s worth paying attention to.

Government Labels a Popular Opposition Party “Extremist”—Then Comes the Crackdown

In 2021, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), designated the entire AfD as a “suspected threat to democracy.” That move allowed the government to surveil, wiretap, and investigate the party and its members.

It didn’t stop there.

Courts have now upheld revoking gun licenses from AfD members, based solely on their political affiliation. In one case, a couple in North Rhine-Westphalia lost legal ownership of over 200 firearms. They weren’t criminals. They weren’t accused of wrongdoing. They were just AfD members.

Another court in Thuringia blocked a blanket gun ban for all AfD members—but left the door wide open for revocations on a case-by-case basis.

In Saxony-Anhalt, officials are reviewing the gun licenses of 109 AfD members. As of last fall, 72 had already been targeted for revocation, with the rest under active review. The justification? Supporting a party the state now claims is “working against the constitutional order.”

And the courts are backing it up. According to a March 2024 ruling, former or current AfD supporters “lack the reliability” required to legally own firearms.

Why the AfD’s Platform Sounds Familiar to American Ears

You don’t have to support the AfD to see the dangerous precedent here. In fact, many of their stated positions would be right at home in American politics:

  • Support for limited government and individual liberty
  • Stronger penalties for violent crime
  • Calls for unbiased law enforcement and judicial independence
  • Opposition to political censorship
  • A demand for simple, fair taxes for middle- and low-income citizens

On gun rights, their platform is clear: “A liberal and constitutional state has to trust its citizens… The AfD opposes any form of restrictions of civil rights by tightening firearms legislation.”

Sound extreme to you? Or does that sound like something a lot of Americans already believe?

European Values, or Political Weaponization?

At the 2024 Munich Security Conference, U.S. Senator J.D. Vance warned European leaders that the real threat to democracy wasn’t external—it was internal. He cited censorship, election manipulation, and silencing dissent as signs that Western democracies are losing their way.

Vance specifically called out the Munich organizers for banning populist parties from the event, not because they were violent or criminal, but because their views didn’t align with the ruling class.

What we’re seeing in Germany today proves his point.

Label a political opponent “dangerous.” Use that label to strip them of rights. Target their supporters. Marginalize them from public life. And if they own guns? Take those, too.

This isn’t some far-off dystopian future. It’s happening now. In a Western democracy.

This Could Happen Here—And Some Already Want It To

Before you dismiss this as a uniquely European issue, remember this: the Biden administration has repeatedly warned that “domestic extremism” is the greatest threat to national security. Not China. Not cyberattacks. Not narco-terrorists. American citizens.

If you think that political language won’t eventually be used to push disarmament here at home, think again. The blueprint has already been written.

In Germany, they didn’t need new laws. They just reinterpreted existing ones through the lens of “extremism” and used that to silence—and disarm—the opposition.

They redefined lawful gun owners as threats to democracy. Then they acted accordingly.

The Bottom Line

When the state decides your political affiliation makes you “unreliable,” your rights are already gone.

This isn’t just a German problem. It’s a warning for all of us.

Whether you vote left, right, or something else entirely, the right to speak your mind, defend your life, and participate in your nation’s political life should never depend on who’s in charge—or what party you support.

Today it’s AfD members in Germany. Tomorrow? It could be you.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

ATF targeting old men in rural Missouri ATF charges two suspects — ages 75 and 81 — for selling guns without a license. by Lee Williams

The entire State of Missouri can rest much easier now. The ATF has made the Show-Me State a much safer place. Two rule breakers from small Missouri towns were indicted by a federal grand jury last week. Their crimes? They’re accused of selling guns without a federal license. Their ages? One was 75 and the other was 81 years old.

This, friends, is not a sick joke. The ATF actually publicized the arrests in a press release, which was sent out last week.

“According to an indictment returned this week, Aubrey Foxworthy, 81, of California, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan and Moniteau Counties from approximately June 2, 2023, through September 9, 2024.

 

He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms. Foxworthy was also charged with possession of a rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches and that rifle was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,” the press release states.

 

“According to an indictment returned this week, Philip Leroy Rains, 75, of Popular Bluff, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan County from approximately April 1, 2023, through April 4, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms.”

Each man now faces five years in a federal prison and fines of up to a quarter-million dollars for the no-FFL charges, but Foxworthy faces an additional 10 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000 for whatever the ATF considered an unregistered short-barreled rifle.

Nowadays this could be a legal firearm with a brace. Unfortunately, if things go the ATF’s way, Foxworthy could leave federal prison in 2040 at the ripe age of 96.

Foxworthy could lose a lot more than just his freedom. According to his indictment, the ATF also ordered him to turn over all of his guns, and the 81-year-old had a decent collection.

The ATF wants 197 of Foxworthy’s personal firearms, according to a list attached to his indictment. The guns are about what you’d expect a lifelong gun owner to have in his safe.

Almost all are American made: Ruger, Colt, Winchester, Savage, Browning, Remington, Marlin, Mossberg, Henry and Smith & Wesson. The ATF also wants Foxworthy’s ammunition, and the list claims he had more than 16,000 rounds.

Because the ATF prepared the list, there are four firearms identified as “machineguns,” but the type, manufacturer and calibers are listed as “unknown.” Also, Foxworthy was not charged with the illegal possession of any machineguns. This makes sense in a sick way, because experience has shown when the ATF can’t identify a firearm, they usually just consider it a machinegun.

The list also shows that Foxworthy owned a dozen Winchester Model 94 rifles. The serial number of one rifle shows it was manufactured before 1896. Depriving the man of that rifle is a sin, especially since it will likely be kept or even resold by some nameless ATF agent.

Calls to Foxworthy’s defense attorney were not returned.

Takeaways

Who hasn’t seen an old man at a flea market with a couple guns for sale either on a folding table or laying on a blanket in the bed of his pickup?

It’s classic Americana, right? There is certainly no crime or criminal intent.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden robbed us of this for a few years. Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule required anyone who made a profit on a single gun sale to obtain a federal firearm license.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced about a year ago.

The press release shows that both arrestees’ alleged law-breaking occurred while Biden was napping at the White House. Besides, it was easier for the ATF. Their agents are much less likely to be shot or scared if they harass a couple old men, rather than going after big-city gangsters armed with full-auto Glocks with Glock switches.

Truth be known, Attorney General Pam Bondi or her staff should examine all of the ATF’s cases made during Biden’s term. Some were much worse than this one.

I certainly hope that whoever is actually in charge of the ATF today will take this into account and drop all charges against Messrs. Foxworthy and Rains.

The ATF has put each of them through enough. I hope that Foxworthy gets to keep his guns, too, especially the pre-1896 Model 94.

To do anything else would be a real crime.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! You have to be kidding, right!?!

I wonder how many of these were stolen in the first place?

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Lawfare

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

A Major Shakeup at ATF. Is This Good for Gun Owners?

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

So, Where’s the Worst Gun Bill in America Now?

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

9th Circuit Strikes Down 2 Hawaii Gun Restrictions Mark Chesnut

Many gun owners are unaware that Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Now, however, thanks to a recent circuit court decision, two of those restrictions have been overturned.

On March 14, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Yukutake v. Lopez upheld a district court ruling striking down two of the provisions to the Aloha State’s gun laws. One involved the very short time (10 days) a firearms purchaser has to buy a gun after receiving the permit required to make a firearms purchase.

“The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that the short timeframe for completing the purchase of a firearm after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the ruling stated. “The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because § 134-2(e) regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Second Amendment presumptively protects that conduct. The burden, therefore, fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

As the opinion explained, 10 days is a very short period, despite the state arguing otherwise.

“Although the State presumably has a valid interest in ensuring that the background-check results are not stale, the State pointed to no evidence that anything over 10 days or 30 days counts as stale,” the ruling stated. “In Section IV(B)(4) of the opinion, the panel concluded that the temporal limitation was ‘abusive’ within the meaning of Bruen and remanded for the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-2(e) and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”

The other struck-down provision that was upheld by the circuit court was the requirement for gun buyers to bring their new guns to the police station for an in-person inspection. According to the ruling, this restriction is also overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional.

“Even assuming arguendo that Hawaii’s basic system of registering firearms by owner, type, serial number, etc., was valid under Bruen—a point the panel did not decide—Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement could not be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system,” the ruling stated. “The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that the addition of a broadly applicable and burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system.

As with plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-2(e), the panel remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-3 and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”

Lawful Hawaii gun owners shouldn’t begin celebrating too soon, however. It’s likely the state will ask for the entire 9th Circuit to consider the case sometime in the future.

 

Categories
Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Dissent video in 23-55805 Duncan v. Bonta

His buddies on the bench are not amused by this! Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Why Are Open Bolts Illegal? Or Are They?