Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
As I was reading transcripts of oral arguments presented to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases, I found myself laughing frequently at the mental gymnastics on display and the idea that such an easy answer seemed so far out of the state’s intellectual grasp.
I know, I know. So, what is the answer? We’ll get to that, but first, let’s mock some anti-Second Amendment clowns whose lack of wit begs the question, how does this individual eat a bowl of cereal without accidentally drowning?
For those who actually live in America, the idea of a waiting period to take home a newly purchased firearm may seem foreign and absurd, and it is, but for those living in territories masquerading as American states, it’s just another day in authoritarian paradise.
Fortunately, attorneys representing Maine have been keen to point out their own corrupt attempts to pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to keep and bear arms does not implicitly protect the right to purchase them.
If there was ever a slimy, sleazy, and repugnant excuse for an individual, meet Christopher C. Taub, Maine’s chief deputy attorney general, whose arguments read like a brightly lit neon sign screaming, “I am not credible!” I wonder if he even noticed.
As I continued reading the transcript, I thought this line of abject stupidity might be reigned in after U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson objected to the notion, pointing out that “you gotta be able to get a firearm in some fashion.”
And she is correct, especially during a time when the government is working hard to eliminate homemade firearms. Who would have bet an Obama appointee could make such a precise and cogent statement? I certainly didn’t see it coming.
Thankfully, Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy in Washington, D.C., representing plaintiffs in the matter, was there to throw fuel on the fire in the form of superior reasoning.
“The only thing this law is doing is restricting possession … The state doesn’t care about the transaction. Or the legal title. They care about possession.”
Great point. The transaction being complete, this has nothing to do with the purchase, only possession. Taub walked right into that like a hyena into the lion’s den.
But Taub wasn’t about to give up trashing his credibility at the mere sign of logic and reason. He argued the Second Amendment would only factor in if a waiting period “meaningfully impairs” the right to keep and bear arms.
I didn’t catch the “meaningfully impairs” section of the Second Amendment, Chrissy, but I am familiar with the term “shall not be infringed,” and like most Americans, I don’t need to litigate the simple text into absurdity.
I wish I could tell you that Chrissy walked away with his tail between his legs at this point, but the clown show wasn’t complete. Taub next argued that the right is not applicable to all Americans, as “the Second Amendment applies to people who are law-abiding and responsible.”
But this time it was a Biden appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, who intervened to inform Taub that he was an idiot, but in a non-pejorative “judgy” manner that my direct to abrasive lack of patience does not afford me.
“Your argument is the waiting period is checking on whether people are law-abiding, and I don’t see that,” said Montecalvo.
First of all, this is absolutely correct, as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is, well, INSTANT! In most cases, a background check yields a result while the customer is still in the store. Strike three on this gun controller.
You would think it was time for Taub to hang up the scales of justice and seek employment in a more fitting environment for his personal intellect, especially after getting beaten up by both Obama and Biden judicial appointees on matters of the Second Amendment, but you’d be wrong.
Taub then chose to pivot, arguing that waiting periods save lives. But do they? When this argument is made, gun controllers are generally talking about those who seek to obtain a firearm to commit suicide.
Judge Thompson aptly pointed out, however, that such a provision would do nothing for those who already own a gun. I will expand on this by saying that those who don’t own a firearm typically have an alternative means of obtaining one, and the legality of doing so isn’t of much concern to them, all things considered.
Further, a firearm is not necessary to commit suicide, and a waiting period does nothing to protect from the litany of other methods available to those who have their minds set. The idea of violating the Constitutional rights of so many Americans in light of these facts is unconscionable, and U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, another Biden appointee, agrees with me.
“If I have an impulse problem, there are other ways I can get a gun. You’re taking a sledgehammer to a lot of people who are law-abiding and responsible but not necessarily solving for other people. You’re creating a lot of problems without a solution,” said Aframe.
Now, before we go giving these judges too much credit, let’s look at where they may have stepped in it themselves.
“Maine’s science says that waiting three days has indicia of proving responsibility, just like a safety class proves responsibility,” according to Aframe.
This isn’t about Maine’s science. It is about the Constitution of the United States of America. But one must also consider the source, and let’s face it, Democrats will lie, manipulate, and sell their souls to eviscerate freedom. So what do we know about the source? We know they either can not or will not understand the concise plain text of the Second Amendment. That’s enough for me. If you are either too stupid or too corrupt to seize its meaning, don’t even begin to speak to me about science.
Judge Thompson, as if looking to belong to both reasonable and incompetent sides of the argument, provided this nugget of mindlessness to the debate.
“[P]eople need safety classes in order to be responsible. In order for us to tease out who has a crisis, we wait three days; that’s how you tease it out,” Thomson said.
This prompted a response from Erin Murphy, demonstrating that the idea of “teasing it out” is speculative at best.
“At the end of three days, everyone gets the firearm. They don’t know. The state has not assured itself. They haven’t done anything,” Murphy said.
She also took a moment to remind the judges of a 2022 Supreme Court case that they may have heard of, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, pointing out that a waiting period “doesn’t fit with the historical tradition of doing something to ensure” responsibility.
Remember, this isn’t about what one might subjectively feel is a good or effective policy. This is about the law, and even though both federal and state governments have all but thrown out the Constitution, certainly a 2022 Supreme Court ruling should be fresh in their minds.
At the end of the day, the judges seemed largely confused on the subject, perhaps suggesting they should seek a job application at the local McDonalds alongside Taub, where they would be safe from having to interpret simple text, not to mention I’m not going to show up to their workplace and slap the frier basket out of their hand like I’m doing today. Aframe even questioned whether or not the right to bear arms meant that Americans have the right to bear them immediately, or if “meaningfully impaired” was some sort of standard by which there is any metric to measure. Really?
Alright. I promised a solution to the debacle, and I’m a man of my word. Are you ready for it? Apply the same standard to all the other liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights.
Start with the First Amendment. Could some sort of waiting period protect individuals from saying things that are perhaps offensive or capable of inciting conflict? It is the left, after all, that championed the “words are violence” movement. If so, would making people wait to exercise their free speech pass Constitutional muster? There’s your answer.
If there’s a big loser in Second Amendment-related court proceedings over the past few months, it has to be California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In fact, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 24 that the state’s ammunition background check law violated the Second Amendment and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, Newsom shared some harsh words with the media.
“Strong gun laws save lives—and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a released statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”
Newsom’s frustration isn’t just with the decision on ammo background checks, however. To be sure, Newsom’s and California’s anti-gun regime have seen plenty of court losses as of late, and they have been dealt with especially harshly by the 9th Circuit Court—historically a bastion of anti-gun advocacy—in recent weeks.
For one, on June 20, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the California law limiting firearm purchases to just one every 30 days. This gun-rationing scheme, the court said, not only violated the Second Amendment but had no historic precedent as required by the Bruen doctrine.
“The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm,” the 9th Circuit ruling stated. “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment, and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Less than a month later, the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision and upheld an earlier ruling that the Golden State’s law prohibiting advertising of any “firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors” is also unconstitutional.
“California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth,” the ruling stated. “But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.”
Note that the big losses haven’t just been in the 9th Circuit Court, but also at the district court level. On July 1, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the state’s law banning nonresident carry permits is unconstitutional.
“Although California identifies a regulatory burden from potentially tens of thousands of new applications, the constitutional infringement pushes the balance of equities in Plaintiffs’ favor,” the ruling stated.
Ultimately, his recent court losses might have something to do with Newsom’s recent lie proclaiming he’s now a Second Amendment advocate.
“I’m not anti-gun at all,” Newsom said at the time. “I’m for just some gun safety common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity magazine clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms, and I’ve got no ideological opposition to that at all.”
Hopefully, pretending not to be anti-gun made him feel a little better about all the bad beatings he’s been taking in court recently. He’s going to need it, as more lawsuits in the pipeline will continue to dismantle the state’s tangle of anti-gun laws.
Yesterday, Governor John Carney signed all of the anti-gun bills that the General Assembly sent to his desk. This surprised no one, as he announced his support for these schemes early on. They include a ban on many commonly-owned firearms, a ban on many standard-capacity magazines, discriminating against young adults, and allowing lawsuits to bankrupt the firearm industry regardless of whether there is a violation of the law. To read more about the bills that were signed, click here and here.
We thank all of the NRA members and Second Amendment supporters who came together to repeatedly express their opposition to their elected officials throughout the whole legislative process. Though the anti-gun majorities in the General Assembly were determined to pass these bills from the start, this opposition helped amend some of the bills to alleviate the impact on law-abiding citizens.
The General Assembly has adjourned. NRA will be back in Dover for the 2023 legislative session. In the meantime, please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox.
I posted this a while back and now I can just smile while old age & death are becoming a close friends of mine.
As we got the bastards on the run! So when are we going to fire up the helicopters? Grumpy
I saw this rant from some one on Farcebook and it was an epic rant and I can’t locate the owner to give the props. This statue is a statue of Robert E Lee. I have a quick post of U.S Grant that we had discussed a couple days ago that I will put up in a couple of days.
Apparently I and people like me are “dinosaurs” and she and her”allies” are wanting me and mine to hurry up and “die” or they will encourage us into the boxcars for the gulag ride to the “reeducation camps” to either be re educated or die” for our new overlords”
I guess that is their plan…….Well I really don’t see that happening.
Another point, You see her and the soy boy next to her smiling, they thing that they will be pardoned by the new overlords because they were such “good allies” shoot, they will find themselves along with the other palefaces off to the gulags for “re-education and death like the other dinosaurs to the great plan” and the fact that they are woke ain’t going to matter . stupid idiots.
Somehow they think that we dinosaurs will just roll along with the great plan to fade away, the problem is that we are getting pretty pissed and they want to keep playing games and to us in middle America, we keep seeing our ways under attack, our traditions under attack, who we are under attack and they keep pushing and it will come to a point and one day…
One day the folks we will just get tired of the incessant pushing, insults, assaults, murders, and the government doing nothing, but mouthing platitudes and being impotent,and allowing the left to run amuck, but charge anybody from the conservative side and you wonder if the government supports the riots and the protestors and we will realize the age of the vigilante is back and it will be on like donkey Kong.
Do I want to see it…..No…but do I fear it will happen….possible if the left keep pushing like they do, the people on the right will get tired, if it and it will be on. You will have the media clutching at pearls right now, but if someone on the right does something, the media will condemn them whereas they have not condemned the fruitcakes on the left for the same behavior first.
And most people on the right will see the double standard of the media and tune them out and the media will lose even more credibility.
I normally take “infowars” with a huge grains of salt but Matt Bracken did a great job explaining how Antifa operates and how they work the riots and chaos and how they formed up from the initial training and more training. the video is 48 minutes long and well worth the watch and explains how they operate and overwhelm the police and cause the destruction they do. Also he explains what most likely will happen next.
I stole this from My Daily Kona – Thanks by the way as you have a great Blog! Grumpy
Let’s get this out of the way first. No, the Constitution wasn’t officially suspended in 1933. But it was gagged, blindfolded, and tied to a chair while the federal government handed itself sweeping emergency powers and redefined “freedom” into a kind of bureaucratic improv comedy routine. They didn’t declare martial law on paper because that would have looked bad. Instead, they declared it in practice and gave it a haircut, a press pass, and a desk job. Most Americans never noticed. Most still don’t.
The story begins with a “banking emergency.” On March 6, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 2039, effectively closing the banks. This wasn’t a request—it was a national lockdown of the financial system.
Within days, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which amended the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to allow the president to seize private property and control commerce even in peacetime. You read that right. The original act was intended for use against foreign enemies during wartime.
Roosevelt’s administration simply redefined the term “enemy” to include American citizens. That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s a matter of historical record. You can read it here and here. This wasn’t martial law with tanks in the streets. It was something more insidious: the silent transfer of authority from constitutional governance to executive fiat, wrapped in the language of patriotic crisis management.
Then came House Joint Resolution 192 in June of that same year. This little piece of legal sorcery declared that debts could no longer be paid in gold. Instead, all gold was to be surrendered to the Federal Reserve, and the American public would now transact in fiat currency—Federal Reserve Notes.
In one move, Roosevelt erased the gold standard domestically, outlawed the most stable form of lawful money, and replaced it with an I.O.U. The people didn’t protest. They complied. It was all for the good of the nation, they were told. Never mind that their savings were now denominated in debt-backed paper. Never mind that the Constitution says only gold and silver shall be legal tender. Never mind that the American people’s wealth was effectively nationalized with the stroke of a pen.
By 1938, the Supreme Court put the nail in the coffin. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins may sound like a mundane case about trains and trespass, but the decision fundamentally altered the legal landscape of America.
Prior to Erie, federal courts operated under general common law principles—those ancient foundations rooted in natural law and the rights of man.
After Erie, federal courts were now confined to statutory law. In other words, judges would interpret the rules written by bureaucrats and legislatures, not derive justice from first principles. The Constitution didn’t vanish overnight. It just became irrelevant in practice. What mattered now was what the statute said.
If Congress wrote a law giving an agency the right to inspect your property, seize your earnings, or regulate your behavior, the courts would uphold it, even if it made a mockery of the Bill of Rights.
So no, martial law was never formally declared. But we’ve been living under a continuous state of emergency ever since. Roosevelt’s national emergency was never truly repealed. Instead, it became the precedent for every president that followed.
As of this writing, there are at least 41 ongoing national emergencies in effect, some of them decades old. You can find the full list here. The 9/11 emergency is still active. The COVID emergency was extended multiple times before it was quietly phased out.
New emergencies are declared regularly over foreign sanctions, trade disruptions, and cyber threats. Each declaration unlocks a set of executive powers that bypass the normal constitutional process. Congress almost never intervenes to end them.
The public barely registers their existence. The result is a legal environment in which emergency governance is the norm, not the exception.
Why does this work? The answer lies in psychology. When people feel threatened, they surrender liberty for safety. The fight-or-flight part of the brain takes over. Critical thinking shuts down. This is not speculation. It’s basic neuroscience.
Governments have long known that fear makes citizens more compliant. Tell them the banks are collapsing, the virus is coming, the terrorists are plotting, or the climate is boiling, and they’ll accept almost anything in the name of protection.
Even the erosion of their most sacred rights. Once that pattern is set, it becomes permanent. Americans have been conditioned to believe that constitutional protections are optional—valid only when convenient and subject to immediate cancellation when the sirens start blaring.
Now let’s talk about the legal sleight of hand. Most Americans assume they live under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. But the courts increasingly operate under a hybrid system of statutory and administrative law, often enforced through what is functionally maritime law.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the gold-fringed flag in most courtrooms. That’s not just decoration. It’s a symbol of admiralty jurisdiction, meaning you’re not in a constitutional court. You’re in a corporate tribunal. And speaking of corporations, the United States is defined in 28 U.S. Code § 3002(15)(A) as a federal corporation. You are not a sovereign individual under natural law. You are a legal entity—an asset tracked by a Social Security number and collateralized against the national debt.
From Roosevelt to Biden, every president has expanded these powers. Truman declared emergency powers during the Korean War. Reagan authorized secret continuity of government plans. Bush signed the Patriot Act. Obama embedded indefinite detention into the NDAA. Trump launched Operation Warp Speed and accelerated the surveillance state through Palantir and FISA. Biden renewed and expanded nearly every emergency he inherited. The mechanisms of control don’t change. Only the branding does.
And here we are. The Constitution is still there, printed in pocket-sized booklets and waved around at rallies. But in most courtrooms, classrooms, and government buildings, it has all the force of a museum artifact.
They didn’t suspend it. They just bypassed it. They didn’t tear it up. They just buried it under 90,000 pages of federal regulations. And when someone like you or me points this out, we’re called extremists, radicals, or conspiracy theorists. That’s fine. History is full of people who were slandered for telling the truth too early.
But the Constitution doesn’t give you rights. It recognizes the rights you already have. The paper is not the source. You are. And no act of Congress, no executive order, no foreign or domestic emergency can erase what God has written into your being. They can only convince you to forget it.
Until you remember.