Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

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

NY Congressman Reveals Anti-Gun Bias in Propaganda Letter to Constituent by Dan Wos

Second Circuits Review of Cases Challenging New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act iStock-1421061908

When it comes to unconstitutional gun legislation, it is crucial to hold our representatives accountable. It’s even more important to call them out when they attempt to circumvent the Constitution with politically biased propaganda.

With the recent push for H.R. 38 (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act), gun owners across America have been demanding that their elected officials support the bill.

Democrat representative Paul D. Tonko from the 20th district in New York State not only made it clear he will not be supporting H.R. 38, but his response letter was extremely revealing. Radical leftists like Tonko seem to have no idea what the Constitution represents and what the 2nd Amendment actually means. Upon instructing Tonko to support H.R. 38, he responded in the following way.

Tonko started his anti-gun lecture with, “As you well know, in recent years, our nation has witnessed an unprecedented spate of gun related acts of violence.” The reason this sentence is so damaging to our State of New York and the Country in general is that Democrat representatives seem to be either blind to, or purposefully ignorant of, the real causes of violence. Blaming the gun and ignoring human behavior has always been a Democrat strategy, and using the word “unprecedented” is out of place and used purely for effect in this case.

Next, Tonko would use an emotional ploy in his letter. In the following sentence, Tonko said, “These horrific events, shocked and saddened the nation,” when referring to violence. I am sure he is aware that this type of emotional fear-inducing rhetoric works with liberal voters, but in this case, Tonko seems to be trying this strategy on conservatives, who know better.

In typical left-wing fashion, Tonko used the old faithful, “we cannot afford to do nothing.” The ignorance of this comment is especially aggravating because radical Democrats like Tonko are referring to more gun regulations when they say things like this. Unfortunately, their focus is never on the criminal and what causes them to act violently, but rather always on more gun regulations as the solution to human violence. It has become ingrained in the anti-gun mindset that “doing something” always means more gun regulations.

Tonko went on to say, “H.R. 38 would allow individuals with concealed carry permits in any state to carry a concealed weapon in any other state. The bill would also allow qualified individuals to carry concealed firearms in school zones and on federal public lands.”

When I first read this, I thought to myself, “Yes, that’s exactly the way it should be.” But of course, Tonko has a different perspective. Tonko followed up his statement with, “this legislation would effectively negate any commonsense safeguards States wanted to put in place to protect their citizens.” In other words, they want more control and always leave room for restrictions.

Of course, being a true radical anti-gunner, Tonko threw in the statement “commonsense,” implying that anyone who supports H.R. 38 has no common sense.

It’s frustrating to watch politicians drunk on the anti-gun Kool-Aid support this type of legislation because we know that over 95% of mass killings occur in gun free zones, exactly what Tonko is promoting here.

How many children must die before politicians like Paul Tonko stop supporting deadly gun free school zones? Ever since Joe Biden introduced the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act, the killing of innocent children and teachers has increased because defensive gun use has been essentially eliminated, giving all the leverage to the bad guys. Is Tonko perpetuating the killing of innocent children in support of his Democrat party’s failed policies? It appears that way.

In what appeared to be an attempt at patronizing those in support of H.R. 38, (because of course an electable politician must appear to be for all the people they represent) Tonko acknowledged the fact that “families have the right to protect themselves and sportsmen have the right to own guns for hunting and target shooting purposes.” The problem with this belief is that it completely negates the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment in favor of activities that Democrats believe they can regulate. It appears that Paul Tonko believes the 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of people protecting themselves and hunting. Does he not understand the reason our Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment?

In typical anti-gun form, Tonko followed up his arrogant statement with, “However, we must also be sure to keep illegal guns out of the hands of those who intend to do harm to others.”

This seemed like a typical left-wing talking point for a couple of reasons. First, anti-gunners like Tonko can never support a pro-gun policy without having a counteracting qualifier. This is the typical, “I support the second amendment, but….” strategy. By saying they support a Constitutional right while simultaneously offering up a law that violates that very right, left-wingers reveal themselves. The truth is, they do not support the Constitution, but they need you to think they do. Their arrogance always causes them to insert some sort of qualifier when being forced to declare their support for the 2nd Amendment. They must look good in the eyes of their voters.

Tonko also said he “swore to uphold the Constitution,” while following it up with, “it is also my duty to promote the interests of public safety and common sense.” in other words, like most radical left-wing politicians, they will swear on the Bible to get into office and then violate the Constitutional rights of the very people they represent.

Paul, you’re so-called “duty to promote the interests of public safety and common sense” does not give you authority to violate the rights of American citizens in the process. Your job is to uphold the Constitution.

In closing, Paul Tonko couldn’t resist making another final comment about passing “commonsense legislation,” which frankly is getting tired and overused by the gun-grabbers. They use it to serve their own righteousness and recruit those who are afraid of looking “senseless.”

Although Paul Tonko claims that he remains “open and committed to the best ideas out there,” I doubt he will entertain the pro-gun position. If Paul truly wants to understand the risks gun restrictions present to the safety of New Yorkers, I am here to discuss the “best ideas out there” with him.

If you want to experience the most shameful, Constitution-violating human beings on the planet, come to New York. You may get the pleasure of meeting Paul D. Tonko.

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

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

Why the Supreme Court Fight Over Nationwide Injunctions Matters for Gun Owners by Ammoland Editors & Staff

Opinion
H/T Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel.

 

If you’re someone who values the Second Amendment, you should be paying close attention to a Supreme Court case that—on the surface—has nothing to do with guns. But dig deeper, and you’ll see why the fight over nationwide injunctions is a backdoor battle that could seriously affect our right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s the quick breakdown—and why this case might change the legal battlefield for good.

What’s This Case Really About?

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a case tied to the birthright citizenship loophole, allowing the theft of our national heritage. But that’s not the headline for us.

What really matters here is a challenge to nationwide or universal injunctions—court orders from one judge that stop the government from enforcing a law everywhere in America, even for people who aren’t part of the lawsuit.

In recent years, anti-gun, anti-Trump, anti-liberty districts—think places like California, New York, and D.C.—have used this tactic to block federal policies they don’t like. These aren’t class actions with real representation of the whole country.

They’re legal grenades tossed by activist judges to freeze Trump-era and pro-2A policies coast-to-coast.

Why Should Gun Owners Even Care?

Let’s say the ATF tries to enforce some insane new regulation—like calling semi-auto rifles “machine guns” again. Normally, you’d expect gun rights groups to fight that in court, win, and have the rule stopped for their members.

But in the current system, one anti-gun judge can issue a nationwide ban that stops your rights even if you weren’t part of the case.

Even worse? These emergency rulings are flooding the Supreme Court’s docket, forcing them to deal with messy, rushed legal chaos instead of working through proper cases with clear facts and full records.

But What If They Try to Ban Guns Nationwide?

Justice Sotomayor actually floated this fear: “What if a new president tries to confiscate all guns? Wouldn’t we need a nationwide injunction to stop him?”

Sounds dramatic—but it’s a distraction.

As Mark Smith from the Four Boxes Diner explains, the proper way to stop unconstitutional executive actions is through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That’s how groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, and FPC have crushed illegal ATF rules before.

Using vacatur—a legal term that cancels a regulation—a judge can shut down an overreaching gun ban without needing to apply that ruling to every citizen instantly. Gun owners and pro-2A groups would still win in court, just through the proper legal channels.

So What’s the Problem With Nationwide Injunctions?

Here’s the real issue:

  • They give one judge the power to affect everyone’s rights.
  • They bypass the hard work of building real class-action lawsuits.
  • They let left-wing groups “forum shop” for friendly judges in places like San Francisco or D.C.
  • They weaponize the courts against lawful executive action and constitutional gun policy.

That’s not the rule of law. That’s rule by activist decree.

What Happens Next?

Most observers think the Supreme Court is going to shut this scheme down—likely in a 7–2 decision. That would mean:

  • No more coast-to-coast bans from one rogue judge.
  • More power to local and state-level legal battles.
  • A cleaner path for gun rights groups to strategically fight anti-gun laws—without getting bogged down in politically driven injunctions. This may seem like a courtroom technicality, but don’t be fooled—it’s a power struggle over how federal laws are challenged and who gets to speak for America.

Gun owners have always played by the rules—filing smart lawsuits, sticking to the Constitution, and winning fair and square. These universal injunctions? They’re shortcuts for people who lose in the court of public opinion and try to win in backroom courtrooms.

It’s time to put an end to that game.

Stay informed. Stay armed—with knowledge and your rights. —A proud member of the well-informed, liberty-loving 2A generation

Note: If you want more in-depth legal analysis, check out Mark Smith’s full breakdown on the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel.

Handcuffs

Arresting a Judge? About Time Or a Mistake by the FED ~ VIDEO

Without notice, this judge was stopped on a public street, handcuffed behind her back — a technique reserved for the most dangerous individuals — and within minutes, the FBI Director himself had posted still photos of this event on X…

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
 98Comments
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Well I thought it was funny!

Liberal Goes Back In Time To Fix The 2nd Amendment

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

Schiff Show: CA Sen. Pushes Assault Weapons Ban BY Larry Z

Sen. Adam Schiff just inherited Dianne Feinstein’s torch—and immediately used it to light his credibility on fire.

In a now-laughed-off social media video, Schiff reintroduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025,” a recycled gun control fever dream that’s already been dunked on by the facts—and even by his own platform.

What’s your take on Schiff’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025”?

 

Within hours, the post got slapped with a brutal community note pointing out that his claim—that the 1994 ban “held crime and mass shootings at bay for 10 years”—is flat-out false. The Department of Justice’s own research says it had no measurable effect on gun violence.

Oops.

That didn’t stop Schiff from repeating the tired old talking point about “weapons of war,” a term cooked up by people who clearly haven’t fired anything louder than a Nerf gun.

Never mind the over 30 million modern sporting rifles (MSRs) in circulation across America—used daily by law-abiding citizens for hunting, home defense, competition shooting, and plinking pop cans in the backyard.

That’s more MSRs than there are Ford F-150s, and nobody’s trying to ban those.

Let’s be clear: this bill has no chance of passing. Even with Democrats controlling Congress in 2021-2022, the ban never made it to a vote.

Now, with Republicans holding both chambers, it’s dead on arrival. That’s the nicest way to say “laughably doomed.”

But the circus must go on. Schiff trotted out the usual suspects—Padilla, Murphy, Blumenthal, and the Brady/Giffords crew—for a press conference nobody watched, to push polling numbers nobody believes.

Murphy had the gall to call this bill “popular,” even though Gallup shows support for an AWB dropping steadily, from 61% in 2019 to just 52% in 2024. Meanwhile, opposition keeps climbing, as NSSF’s Larry Keane noted in a brilliant op-ed.

Here’s the truth: Schiff’s Assault Weapons Ban isn’t about safety. It’s about control, headlines, and cash for gun control PACs. Schiff’s political theater may excite donors and D.C. interns, but in the real world, Americans aren’t buying it—and they’re not giving up their rights.

Nice try, Senator. Maybe next time, bring facts instead of fiction.

—————————————————————————————- I am so ashamed that this thing is one of my Senators!! Grumpy

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

South Africa’s Collapse Finally Exposed | Rob Hersov

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Blessed with some of the worst luck

Oh hell yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Donald Trump’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget would cut $486 million in funding from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

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

FPC Trashes DOJ’s “Horrifically Flawed” Brief In Machine Gun Ban Appeal by Mark Chesnut

A brief filed by the federal government in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving the constitutionality of banning machine guns has one pro-gun rights group seeing red.

The case United States v. Justin Bryce Brown revolves around the federal government charging Justice Bryce Brown with knowingly possessing a machine gun in violation of federal law. Brown’s attorney argued that under the landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.

A district court dismissed the charge against Brown in January, holding that the ban violated the Second Amendment as it applied to him. The government then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

A brief filed April 24 by Patrick Lemon, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, argued that “machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” and that America’s “history of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons confirms [the federal machine gun ban’s] constitutionality.” The brief drew quick condemnation from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which called the brief both “horribly flawed” and “insanely offensive.”

One portion of the brief that really set the gun-rights group off was when Lemon cited The Trace, a rabidly anti-gun instrument of Michael Bloomberg’s so-called Everytown for Gun Safety, as his source of information.

“Acting U.S. Attorney Lemon’s horrifically flawed brief is unprincipled and an incredible affront to the People and our constitutionally protected rights,”  Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a press release about the brief. “Not only does this lemon of a brief expressly advance anti-liberty arguments, it went so far as to cite the radically anti-Second Amendment Everytown propaganda publication, The Trace, in support of its position. This brief could not be less consistent with President Trump’s ‘Protecting Second Amendment Rights’ executive order.”

Since President Trump’s executive order on protecting the Second Amendment does matter—or at least it should to Lemon—Combs said the brief should prompt the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into Lemon’s ability to respect the executive order. After all, the U.S. Attorney filed the poorly thought-out brief on behalf of the federal government, which Trump heads.

“This insanely offensive brief should never have been filed in any court, let alone at the Fifth Circuit,” Combs continued. “It should be immediately withdrawn and thrown into the trash, along with Mr. Lemon’s ability to make these filings in the future.”

Combs added that the Lemon filing is a prime example of why the organization has been asking President Trump to appoint a competent Second Amendment czar to coordinate the administration’s agenda across the government and with stakeholders in Second Amendment litigation.

“Our rights must be protected at all costs and the American people are counting on President Trump and Attorney General Bondi to fulfill their promise to do just that,” he concluded.

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

Meet the man whose lies put an innocent sailor in prison for 20 years ATF Firearm Enforcement Officer Jeffrey R. Bodell had never testified before the trial. Lee Williams

(Photo-illustration from licensed Shutterstock account).

by Lee Williams

The government’s case against Patrick “Tate” Adamiak was led by two Assistant U.S. Attorneys, but their main witness became the real reason why a jury found Adamiak guilty, and a federal judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

To be clear, Adamiak was railroaded by Jeffrey R. Bodell, who works out of a small ATF office in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

According to documents obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation, Bodell is an ATF Firearms Enforcement Officer, or FEO, who has worked in ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division since he was hired in November 2020.

When he took the stand to testify falsely about what he did to Adamiak’s firearms, Bodell had been an ATF employee for less than two years.

Most damning was the fact that this was the first time Bodell had ever testified at any trial.

Bodell’s inexperience was not missed by Adamiak’s defense attorney, Larry Woodward, according to a transcript of the trial:

  • MR. WOODWARD: Good morning, sir. My name is Larry Woodward and I represent Mr. Adamiak. My question is have you ever testified as a witness, expert witness before?
  • THE WITNESS (Bodell): I have not. This is my first time.
  • MR. WOODWARD: This is your first time?
  • THE WITNESS (Bodell): Yes, sir.
  • MR. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you.

Background

According to his Curriculum Vitae, in December 2011 Bodell earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Shippensburg University, which is located in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. However, school officials did not return calls seeking to verify his degree.

Bodell also states he obtained a diploma from a “Master Gunsmithing Program” in May 2017 at the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, which is located in Pittsburgh. However, school officials did not return calls seeking verification.

After earning his gunsmithing degree, Bodell’s CV shows he worked at three gun shops but for short periods of time.

He claims to have worked for Lebo’s Gunsmithing in Shippensburg for 10 months, Legendary Arms Works in Harrisburg for 16 months, and then he ran his own gun shop called Bodell Custom, LLC, for 17 months in Shippensburg. After closing his own gun shop, Bodell went to work for the ATF.

According to a transcript from Adamiak’s trial, Bodell described his career rather quickly.

“I attended Pennsylvania Gunsmith School where I, upon graduation I worked for a small gunsmithing shop for good, a year and a half, conducting general gunsmithing. After that I worked for a semi-custom production bolt-action rifle company making rifles for a year and a half. And then after that I had my own gunsmithing business based out of my house,” the excerpt from the trial states.

It should be noted that Bodell’s six-page Curriculum Vitae is loaded with long lists of the firearms on which he was trained, but it is also chock-full of nonessential information, including legislation he has studied, historic information he received, museums he has toured, and trade shows he attended.

Bodell did not respond to calls or messages left on his cell phone or with his employer. No photo of Bodell could be found.

Problems

Adamiak, who is now 31, was just a 28-year-old E-6 in the U.S. Navy prior to his arrest. He enjoyed firearms and ran a private website that sold gun parts—not guns. He was always extremely careful about what he sold. After all, he had to protect his naval career, which was doing extremely well.

Adamiak was unprepared for Bodell or his incredible deceptions, which have become almost legendary. Bodell actually turned toys into firearms and legal semi-autos into machineguns.

Bodell inserted a real STEN action and a real STEN barrel into Adamiak’s toy STEN submachinegun and got it to fire one round, even though the toy’s receiver wouldn’t accept a real STEN magazine. Bodell actually classified the toy, which are very popular, as a machinegun.

Bodell fired five of Adamiak’s very expensive and extremely collectible legal semi-autos, which fire from an open bolt. All the ATF technician could achieve was semi-auto fire, but that didn’t stop him. He classified all five highly sought after firearms as machineguns.

Bodell ruled that several receivers that had been cut in half were actually machineguns. The same parts are still legally sold online and do not require an FFL or any paperwork.

RPGs

The worst thing Bodell told the court were his misconceptions about two inert RPGs.

Bodell took the inert rocket launchers to the ATF’s lab and added missing fire-control components including a firing pin from a functional RPG from the ATF’s collection. The agent also added a sub-caliber training device that resembles a warhead, which can fire 7.62x39mm rounds on its own without even loading it into an RPG.

“He fired a 7.62x39mm rifle cartridge through it utilizing the sub-caliber training device, which is a standalone rifle that can be fired independently on its own,” Adamiak said last week.

Bodell falsely testified that the missing parts didn’t matter, legally.

“It doesn’t matter whether it fires or not, and if it’s missing some component parts, it wouldn’t be relevant to the classification of a destructive device,” Bodell told the court, which is not what the statute or case law state.

Bodell even made a video of him and an assistant firing one rifle round from Adamiak’s heavily converted RPG.

“An RPG is a very simple and crude device,” Adamiak said. “Taking a piece of metal pipe and hose clamping a fire control mechanism to it would effectively duplicate what Bodell did in his testing.”

Takeaways

Because the ATF screwed up, kicked down Adamiak’s door and then created a multitude of fake charges, it proves they would rather prosecute an innocent man and force him to serve two decades behind bars than admit the truth—that their special agents don’t have a clue about what they’re doing. That’s why the ATF was forced to call in their ringer, Bodell, to help make their fake case.

Once the ATF turned the case over to Bodell, Adamiak’s innocence no longer mattered. Bodell would break all the rules.

All of what Bodell insisted were illegal items are still sold legally online: Inert RPGs, toy STENs, submachinegun receivers and especially open-bolt semi-autos. The RPGs, toy STENs and submachinegun receivers don’t require any paperwork to purchase.

Bodell is not alone. His opinions, and those of his colleagues, other Firearm Enforcement Officers, are fed to them by senior ATF officials. That is why Adamiak received such a stiff two-decade sentence, because these FEOs are paid liars. In many cases, it’s like they are the half-educated leading the blind.

Despite Bodell’s and the ATF’s untruths, an anti-gun judge crippled Adamiak’s defense. One of his defense experts, former ATF senior official Daniel G. O’Kelly, wasn’t even allowed to testify much despite his vast knowledge.

O’Kelly joined the ATF as a Special Agent in 1988 after serving 10 years as a police officer. He became a legend within the agency, including a stint as the lead instructor of Firearm Technology on staff at the ATF National Academy. O’Kelly has taught internationally and co-wrote the program establishing the Certified Firearm Specialist for the ATF, while he was at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

After lengthy testimony from both Bodell and O’Kelly on one issue, the judge sided with O’Kelly, and denied the prosecutors’ attempt to penalize Adamiak for 977 additional “machineguns,” which were just flat pieces of metal. The additional 10 years prosecutors wanted for the flats were not added to Adamiak’s 20-year sentence.

O’Kelly, and Adamiak, wishes he could have testified about the other false claims prosecutors made in the case. Even though his testimony was very limited by the court, O’Kelly still wishes Adamiak well.

“The ATF teaches its agents the minimum about guns. If they encounter something they don’t understand, they’re supposed to ask the (Firearms Enforcement Officer), but the answer they get is a directed response from the administration.

 

These FEOs are not allowed to give their opinions,” O’Kelly said Thursday afternoon. “The FEO’s testimony is a substance of the opinion that was forced by official ATF opinion on any firearm issue. That official opinion is based upon what an anti-gun administration has told them is should be. I’ve proven that, in terms of what the ATF has suffered on a number of issues.”

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 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.