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

Poor OZ !

May be an image of text

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

Victorian (Canada) shooters to face 10 year gun bans for stepping out of line BY NEIL JENKINS

The Andrews Government is making more bad changes to Victoria’s gun laws.

The latest changes will allow police down to the rank of inspector to ban shooters from holding firearm licences for at least 10 years – for getting nothing more than a speeding fine.

People hit with a ban will also be subjected to warrantless searches of their homes or cars at any time, and barred from going to any place where guns may be stored or used.

This is a major backward step for shooters – but the good news is that the NSC is well placed to fight this, which is why we need your help.

Who will be able to impose the bans?

The legislation that was introduced into the Victorian State Parliament by the state’s Police Minister, Lisa Neville (pictured above), is called the Firearms and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021.

As it stands, the bill proposes that the bans will be able to be put in place by officers at inspector level.

This includes inspectors in the firearms registry.

Ban includes warrantless searches and other restrictions

Once a ban is in place, the laws will allow any police officer to search the shooter, their home, their car or any person with the shooter, without a warrant.

How it would work

Imagine if you received a COVID or speeding fine.

From previous experience, Victoria Police has seen these as being sufficient to suspend firearms licences.

The new bans would permit bad ‘behaviour‘ – potentially simply having an argument over the fine or suspension – to be sufficient for an inspector to hit you with a ban.

This would subject you to searches until 2032 – and you would not be able to appeal the ban until 2027.

All for copping a simple fine.
Or for no reason at all.

It also means you can’t go anywhere firearms are used or stored – which may be your local range, gunshop or even a friend’s or relative’s home where firearms are stored.

You also cannot change address without risking a year in jail if you don’t notify the police within 24 hours of moving.

You will also have no right of appeal for at least the first five years of the 10 year ban.

Could you get a ban?

The bill before Parliament will allow officers to impose bans for any of the following reasons

  • “because of the behaviour of the individual” – the legislation does not define what ‘behaviour’ means, and so comes down to the officer’s personal opinion. What is clear from the legislation is that this behaviour does not need to relate to anything illegal.
  • “because of the people with whom the individual associates” – which means people Victoria Police do not like. Again, this does not need to relate to anything illegal.
  • “because of the criminal history of the individual” – which sounds ok but again the lack of definition means it could apply to very old history – such as minor offences conducted as a teenager; and
  • “because, on the basis of information known to the Chief Commissioner about the individual, the individual may pose a threat or risk to public safety.” – again, this is vague and open to abuse.

It means if an officer of Victoria Police does not like your ‘behaviour’, you could easily find yourself getting one of Lisa Neville’s new bans.

Copping a COVID fine, for instance.

Key questions you might have about this

Here’s what you can do

There are two things you can do to help us fight this, especially with a state election in Victoria due next year.

The first is you can make our voice stronger by becoming a member. In fact if you are a Victorian who wants these laws scrapped, then you really don’t have any other options.

HELP US GET CHANGE

Let Victoria’s Police Minister know that the changes to the state’s gun laws are not on. Click the orange box to send her an email now!

(This should open your email program, if you have one. It might take a couple of seconds to open for you)

We’ve FOI’d the government about consultation

The NSC has already put a Freedom of Information request into the Government to see which shooting organisations may have supported these laws – or alternatively if there was no consultation at all.

We’ll let you know what the result is.

Extension of recent laws

The bans are an extension of laws the government introduced in 2018 but were limited to being put in place by superintendents. Called Firearm Prohibition Orders, they were originally touted as being aimed at criminals, and bikie gangs.

At the time, Liberties Victoria expressed real concern over how the laws would be applied.

However those concerns were ignored – and the proposal is to delegate the laws further down in VicPol, making it easier for them to be used against almost anyone.

It’s why shooters who supported Labor at the last election need to change their vote.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Well I thought that this is interesting thinking!

The recent decision by a Florida judge upholding the power of school districts to impose mask mandates on students is no anomaly. Nor, for that matter, was the decision by Justice Barrett upholding a vaccine mandate at Indiana University, or that by Justice Thomas upholding the federal mask mandate on public transport.

Over the past year and a half, judges of all ideological bents have proven themselves startlingly willing to affirm pandemic-based restrictions on personal liberty. As Jacob Gershman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, most legal challenges to lockdowns have failed, and even those that have succeeded were decided on relatively narrow grounds.

The justification for all this, cited repeatedly by judges and legal scholars, is the broad power of governmental authorities to implement restrictions in the name of “public health,” a term which, as currently understood, is so vague that it can be used to serve virtually any agenda. This indefiniteness was in evidence when thousands of health professionals deemed “racism” a public health crisis sufficient to loosen social distancing protocol for Black Lives Matter protests in mid-2020, while specifically excluding “protests against stay-home orders” from this exemption.

If the pretense of public health can be used to circumvent the First Amendment guarantee of viewpoint neutrality for public demonstrations, then there is nothing it cannot do. Further demonstrating the elasticity of the public health framework, “misinformation” (that is to say, free speech) has been declared by government officials and experts to be a public health crisis, as has climate change. With this logic, our freedoms are mere putty in the hands of public health bureaucrats.

This very danger was once recognized by the ACLU, when it said in a 2008 policy brief on pandemic preparedness:

The law enforcement approach to public health offers a rationale for the endless suspension of civil liberties…the war on disease will continue until the end of the human race. There will always be a new disease, always the threat of a new pandemic. If that fear justifies the suspension of liberties and the institution of an emergency state, then freedom and the rule of law will be permanently suspended.

Disturbingly, however, there are few actual legal safeguards against the abuse of public health power.

The Framers of the Constitution were not omniscient. They did not know, for instance, that the quartering of troops in private homes, which they considered important enough to place ahead of due process in the Bill of Rights, would quickly become a virtual non-issue. Nor could they have foreseen all the threats to liberty that might eventually emerge.

While measures like quarantines date back to before the founding of the country, our current lockdown regime is historically unprecedented. The Framers took no provisions against public health excess because they simply did not imagine that such a shortcut to tyranny might ever be blazed. That is why there is no anti-lockdown amendment in the Bill of Rights, not because the founding fathers, who fought a revolution over a tea tax, would have approved of our current state of affairs.

Like a vaccine, our Constitution has inoculated Americans against most of the common strains of tyranny. We have, however, little natural immunity to the tyranny of public health, a dangerous new variant of the totalitarian pathogen which has cleverly evolved to bypass our immune defenses, allowing politicians a workaround by which they might violate our civil liberties at will while nominally upholding the Constitution.

Nor do opponents of lockdowns have much in the way of legal precedent to fall back on. The case law on the matter is surprisingly scanty; lockdown supporters tend to rest their arguments primarily on a single 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law mandating smallpox vaccinations.

Jacobson was decided at a time before our modern understanding of civil liberties had developed, less than a decade after Plessy v. Ferguson and scarcely a decade before the Court would uphold the imprisonment of an antiwar leafleteer in Schenck v. United States. It has also inspired one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court: the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explicitly cited Jacobson as a direct precedent for forced sterilization, ruling that “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

There are also clear differences between the facts of the Jacobson case and our current situation. Smallpox had a historical fatality rate of around 30 percent. It is simply not reasonable to treat a disease with a fatality rate that is well below 1 percent for most demographics in the same way. Similarly, arguments for lockdowns based on George Washington’s decision to inoculate his soldiers against smallpox, or the response to a yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia in 1793, or cholera, or bubonic plague, or tuberculosis, or polio, completely ignore their relative dangers and the degree to which we have become increasingly risk-averse regarding infectious disease.

Yet this past year, the Jacobson precedent has been exponentially strengthened by the number of judges who have cited it in upholding lockdown orders, cementing it irrevocably into our case law.

Although few explicitly limiting principles on the public health power have been established, it must be remembered that even the Jacobson Court recognized the dangers of unchecked public health authority, writing that it “may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.” It is difficult to imagine a better test of this principle than that which we currently face.

While the failure of many of our era’s most respected jurists to take a stand against this madness will resound to their ignominy for generations to come, any sensible legal scholars remaining should direct their energies to closing this loophole before matters grow worse. To amend the Constitution—as may ultimately be necessary—is a great undertaking. But the costs of not doing so, in this case, may be far greater. Aspiring future tyrants should not rest with the reassurance that they need only stir up fear of a pandemic in order to render null and void the hard-won liberties of the citizenry.

Jason Garshfield is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Townhall, RealClearPolitics, and numerous other publications.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

Canadian-born political commentator and George W. Bush-era speechwriter David Frum has taken a break from promoting actual wars in the Middle East to advocate for a culture war on gun ownership here at home.

Now a staff writer at the stultifyingly establishment Atlantic magazine, Frum authored a piece for the October 2021 issue titled, “How to Persuade Americans to Give Up Their Guns.” Frum’s thesis is that Americans own too many guns and that more guns leads to more death and crime. In order to combat this situation, Frum urges gun control advocates to convince gun owners to forfeit their firearms by making gun ownership socially unacceptable. In the commentator’s mind, there needs to be a “moral reckoning” whereby gun ownership is treated as something akin to drunk driving.

There’s nothing novel about Frum’s approach. As with most of the Atlantic’s content, Frum’s piece is mostly warmed-over regime talking points.

The CDC’s chief anti-gun advocate, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Director Mark Rosenberg, pushed for a cultural anti-gun campaign in the early 1990s. In a 1994 interview with the New York Times, Rosenberg said, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes.” The taxpayer-funded activist added, “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”

In 1995, then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder gave a speech in which he stated, “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.” The future Attorney General went on to add, “We have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Likening gun control and the gun control effort to anti-drunk driving policies and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign is a similarly tired bit. Gun control activists from Donna Dees-Thomases of the inaccurately-named Million Mom March to Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts have cited MADD as inspiration. Conversely, the vast majority of Americans seem to intuitively understand that exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms isn’t analogous to recklessly traversing the public roadways.

As noted, Frum’s chief contention is that more guns leads to more death and crime. For instance, Frum attempted to connect the historic gun sales in 2020 with the recent spike in violent crime. The commentator wrote,

When the coronavirus pandemic struck last year, people throughout the developed world raced to buy toilet paper, bottled water, yeast for baking bread, and other basic necessities. Americans also stocked up on guns. They bought more than 23 million firearms in 2020, up 65 percent from 2019. First-time gun purchases were notably high. The surge has not abated in 2021. In January, Americans bought 4.3 million guns, a monthly record.

Last year was also a high-water mark for gun violence—more people were shot dead than at any time since the 1990s—though 2021 is shaping up to be even worse.

This lazy inference, also advanced by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, runs contrary to even anti-gun researchers’ findings.

In July, the journal Injury Epidemiology published “Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study.” The paper concluded, “Nationwide, firearm purchasing and firearm violence increased substantially during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing was not associated with the magnitude of the increase in firearm violence.” This acknowledgement is notable, given that paper was funded by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation (which also funds handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center) and California’s gun control factoid factory at UC Davis.

While its refreshing for gun control supporters to make such an admission, the UC Davis findings won’t surprise anyone who didn’t sleep through the last three decades.

Since the early 1990s, the number of privately-owned firearms has more than doubled, from about 192 million to more than 405 million – including more than 167 million handguns. Moreover, thanks to the diligent work of gun rights supporters, more Americans than ever before can exercise their Right-to-Carry outside the home for self-defense. Until Florida passed a “shall issue” permitting process in 1987, less than 10 percent of the American public lived in a Right-to-Carry state. Today, 42 states, accounting for 74 percent of the U.S. population, respect the Right-to-Carry – with 21 states respecting the right to do so without a permit.

According to FBI data, the homicide and violent crime rates fell by roughly 50 percent between 1991 and 2019.

Frum also pointed to what he perceives as a problem with unintended shootings. Again, these unfortunate incidents have fallen precipitously as the number of firearms Americans own has increased.

The rate of fatal firearm accidents involving children (ages 0-14) decreased 91 percent from 1975 to 2019. The rate of fatal firearm accidents among all ages has decreased 96 percent from the recorded high in 1904 to 2019.

In another lame throwback, the Bush-era speechwriter rehashed tired arguments about the purported dangers of a firearm in the home. The pundit stated, “In virtually every way that can be measured, owning a firearm makes the owner, the owner’s family, and the people around them less safe,” and that “The gun you trust against your fears is itself the thing you should fear. The gun is a lie.” Further stoking suspicion of everyday gun owners, Frum wrote,

Drawing a bright line between the supposedly vast majority of “responsible,” “law abiding” gun owners and those shadowy others who cause all the trouble is a prudent approach for politicians, but it obscures the true nature of the problem. We need to stop deceiving ourselves about the importance of this distinction.

Frum doesn’t cite an actual study to support his claim, but this anti-gun talking point is often accompanied by a reference to a 1993 study by Arthur Kellerman titled, “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The notorious work is largely responsible for the anti-gun factoid that a person with a gun in the home is supposedly more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, the study was rife with methodological flaws and reached questionable conclusions. An actual examination of the output of Kellerman’s model shows that renting a home or living alone are both higher risk factors than keeping a firearm in the home.

In a detailed critique of the study in his book “Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control,” Florida State Criminology Professor Gary Kleck noted that Kellerman’ work should be “cited in a statistics textbook as a cautionary example of multiple statistical errors.” Challenging the study’s methodology, which involved sampling atypically high-violence geographic areas, Kleck concluded, “there is no formal research basis for applying any conclusions from this study about the effects of gun ownership to the general population.”

To Frum’s point denigrating law-abiding gun owners, after examining the data on violence perpetrated with firearms Kleck concluded,

It simply isn’t true that previously law-abiding citizens commit most murders or many murders or virtually any murders; and so disarming them could not eliminate most or many or virtually any murders. Homicide studies show that murderers are not ordinary citizens, but extreme aberrants of whom it is unrealistic to assume they will have any more compunction about flouting gun laws than about murder.

While exaggerating the risk posed by normal gun owners, Frum was quick to dismiss evidence showing that Americans use firearms to defend themselves at least hundreds of thousands of times each year. According to the writer, the fact that this evidence is procured from survey data means it is biased. The former speechwriter neglected to acknowledge that data from multiple surveys conducted by different entities, including the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, indicate roughly 1 million defensive firearm uses per year.

According to Frum, “American gun buyers are falling victim to bad risk analysis.” Here the writer exposed his belief that ordinary Americans are too stupid to take stock of their own circumstances and determine how to best defend themselves and their families. Presumably, he would outsource Americans’ personal decisions to media and government elites like himself. In an era where trust in media and the federal government are trending to all-time lows, concerns over crime have surged, and parts of the country have been all but forfeited to criminals, Frum’s new war will be a tough sell.

Categories
Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Trudeau Ramps Up Gun Control Promises, Makes Guns a Wedge Issue

Trudeau Ramps Up Gun Control Promises, Makes Guns a Wedge Issue

With days to go until the September 20 snap election called by Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Party leader and current Prime Minister, face the possibility of losing seats. As of early September, the Conservative Party had overtaken Trudeau’s Liberals as the favored party in polling. For Trudeau himself, opinion polls indicate he has dropped in popularity “with nearly every age and gender group.” Of the five political party leaders covered by the August 30 poll, Trudeau commands the highest “unfavorable” ratings. Forty-one percent of respondents have a “very unfavorable” view of him, and almost two-thirds view him unfavorably overall. Campaign coverage has regularly featured Trudeau being met with furious voters at his public events (like herehere and here).

Perhaps hoping to bolster voter support and boost his poor poll standings, on September 5 Trudeau promised Canadians even more gun control. Trudeau is already responsible for imposing a May 1, 2020 Order in Council that banned over 150,000 types of firearms arbitrarily classified as “assault weapons” with a concomitant confiscation of these previously lawful guns. The new measures Trudeau now promises are a limit on “high capacity” magazines along with CDN$1 billion in funding for provinces and territories to implement handgun bans.

At the same time, Trudeau (who appeared with Bill Blair, the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, whose department is responsible for enforcing the gun ban and confiscation program), attacked his Conservative opponent using a standard tactic of Democrat politicians in the United States, claiming Erin O’Toole, the Conservative Party leader, was making “secret deals” with “the gun lobby.”

As part of its election platform, the Conservative Party promised to repeal the “assault weapon” ban and confiscation law. “Canada’s Conservatives will improve the regulation of legal firearms to ensure that it is evidence-based and focuses on protecting public safety. We will start by repealing C-71 and the May 2020 Order in Council and conducting a review of the Firearms Act with participation by law enforcement, firearms owners, manufacturers, and members of the public…” Earlier, in a policy declaration adopted in March, the Conservatives committed to what one would think are uncontroversial policies of “cost-effective gun control programs designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.”

Regardless of Trudeau’s efforts to deflect and distract, Canadians will likely focus on his last six years in office and the weak economy, the massive federal deficit and government spending, and rising taxes. His unnecessary election alone will cost an estimated CDN$610 million, the most expensive election in Canadian history.

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

California: Registration for “Assault Weapons” to Re-Open Posted on September 13, 2021 by NRAHQ

AR-15 NRA-ILA
California to re-open so-called “Assault Weapon’ registration. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The California Department of Justice has announced that they will reopen the registration period of “bullet button assault weapons” from January 13, 2022, until April 12, 2022, due to a federal court order. This time period is reserved for gun owners who had wished to comply with the original registration period that ended in 2018 but were unable to do so due to technical difficulties.

Click here to view the official announcement.

An individual’s firearms will only be registered if all of the following requirements are met:

    1. The person would have been eligible to register an assault weapon under subdivision (b) of Penal Code § 30900;   
    2. The person lawfully possessed each assault weapon they seek to register before January 1, 2017;
    3. The person verifies under penalty of perjury that they attempted to register the assault weapon prior to the original registration deadline of midnight on July 1, 2018, but they were unable to do so because of technical difficulties during the registration process; and 
    4. The person timely registers the assault weapon between 9 a.m. on January 13, 2022, and 9 a.m. on April 12, 2022.”

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.​


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Categories
Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Trudeau Touts Gun Confiscation As Part of Liberal Party’s Campaign Promise by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

Federal election season is underway in Canada and Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau wants to make sure citizens know where he and his Lefty cohorts stand on guns.

“One Canadian killed by gun violence is one too many,” said Trudeau in a recent press release obtained by GunsAmerica.

“That’s why we made our communities safer by banning more than 1,500 types of military-style assault weapons, and we’re going to continue to strengthen our gun laws across the country. Keeping our kids and communities safe from gun violence should be an issue that we all agree on – but Erin O’Toole doesn’t,” the prime minister continued.  “He wants to repeal our ban on these dangerous weapons and weaken our gun laws. Canadians can’t let that happen.”

O’Toole leads the Conservative party.  While Trudeau accused O’Toole of wanting to repeal the 2020 confiscatory ban on many commonly owned firearms (see graph below), O’Toole said Sunday that he has no plans on changing the law.

SEE ALSO: Biden Should Look to Canada to See the Mess of Confiscating Guns

“It’s critically important for me to say to Canadians today that we are going to maintain the ban on assault weapons, we’re going to maintain the restrictions that were put in place in 2020,” O’Toole said.

In other words, whether one votes Conservative or Liberal — Canadians are not going to be allowed to buy, sell or possess modern sporting rifles.

Trudeau also vowed to continue to put the screws to the country’s law-abiding gun owners via the following:

  • Toughening our laws on banned assault weapons by making it mandatory for owners to either sell the firearm back to the government or have it rendered permanently inoperable;
  • Cracking down on high-capacity magazines to limit the number of rounds guns can hold, and ban the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than the legal number of bullets; and
  • Helping provinces and territories who implement a ban on handguns across their jurisdiction.

“These guns have no place in our communities and have no place anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said at a press conference, in reference to the ban.

“You can’t buy these guns, you can’t sell these guns, you can’t use these guns. And even if you own one today, no one gets a pass,” Trudeau added.

What Trudeau is saying is a vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for confiscation.  Polls open on Sept. 20, 2021.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Biden Administration Moves to Reinstate UN Small Arms Treaty that Trump Nixed by JORDAN MICHAELS

The U.N. treaty could force the U.S. to keep a record of the “end users” of all firearm imports. (Photo: United Nations)

GunsAmerica readers might remember when former President Donald Trump backed out of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty at the NRA show in 2019. The move was hailed as a reaffirmation of national sovereignty and a commitment to keeping European bureaucrats out of U.S. gun policy.

Now, it looks like the Biden Administration is working to put U.S. gun owners under international control.

William Malzahn, a U.S. State Department official at the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, assured his European counterparts at a recent conference that the Biden Administration remains committed to “strong and effective” controls on conventional arms, according to a transcript obtained by Breitbart News:

I have come from Washington D.C. this week to take the floor on the agenda item Treaty Universalization to underscore the continuing commitment of the United States to responsible international trade in conventional arms.  The United States has long supported strong and effective national controls on the international transfer of conventional arms, and the Arms Trade Treaty is an important tool from promoting those controls internationally.

The National Rifle Association warned back in 2013 that the treaty would impose a registration scheme on imported firearms by requiring each state party to maintain “national records” on the “end users” of imported firearms “for a minimum of ten years.”

The Obama administration made the treaty a priority, but it remained inoperative because the U.S. Senate never gave its approval.

SEE ALSO: Trump Backs Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty: ‘We are taking our signature back’

Still, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry had signed the treaty, which prompted President Trump to revoke that signature in 2016. “We will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone,” Trump said during his NRAAM address that year. “We are taking our signature back.”

This latest move by the Biden Administration could indicate that Secretary of State Antony Blinken plans to sign it once again.

If that happens, it’s highly unlikely that the Senate will agree to ratify. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate (67 members) to approve any treaty signed by the president or secretary of state. Since Democrats only hold a one-vote majority, they would need 17 Republicans to join them in signing.

SEE ALSO: Rep. Kelly: It’s Time to ‘Tear Up’ the UN Arms Trade Treaty

President Biden has been mostly stymied in his attempts to restrict Second Amendments rights domestically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is set to adopt rules redefining “firearms” and banning arm braces, but the Democrat-controlled Congress has failed to pass any of Biden’s other agenda items.

In his recent weeks, however, the administration has worked to restrict firearms and ammunition imports, a sector where the White House has more power to act unilaterally. Biden’s officials announced last month new sanctions on Russian ammunition, which could dry up supplies from that country if they are not lifted within the next few years.

Categories
A Victory! Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Pro-Gun Student Gets $35K Settlement from School that Infringed on Her 1A Rights by MAX SLOWIK

An Illinois school settled with a former student who wanted to protest in favor of supporting gun rights. (Photo: HCHS)

A former Illinois high school student recently settled a lawsuit against her high school over allegations that the school violated her constitutional right to participate in a counter-protest to her classmates in 2018. Recent reports say that the school agreed to pay her $35,000 as part of a settlement.

Madison Oster, then 16, and her father Jeremy Oster filed the suit in July of 2018 alleging that the Hononegah Community High School violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to demonstrate against an anti-gun protest in March of 2018.

At the time, students were encouraged to protest gun violence and agitate for tougher gun laws following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida on high school grounds. However, Oster along with other pro-gun students wanted to counter-protest and promote the Second Amendment.

The group of students carried pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-law enforcement signs, but were directed to stand on the sidewalk away from the main protest on the high school football field. The lawsuit alleged that the pro-gun group was subjected to verbal abuse from other students and unfair treatment by the school staff.

When Oster asked Executive Associate Principal Chad Dougherty why the group would not be allowed to counter-protest with the other students he said he was afraid that the pro-gun students would “disturb the peace” and “start a fight,” alleged the lawsuit.

“One student yelled at Madison to kill herself. Another student took pictures of Madison’s group, one of which reportedly became an online meme and method of ridicule among the other HCHS students,” stated the lawsuit. “Finally and ironically, before allowing them to return to class, Dougherty warned the small pro-gun-rights group not to bully the students with different views.”

While the pro-gun counter-protesters were eventually allowed back onto the field the staff still separated them from the other protesters. When they asked Principal Eric Flohr why they weren’t allowed to join the others, he allegedly told them “You are the only ones who feel that way,” before walking off.

“It is unconscionable for school officials to allow this sort of thing, much less enable it,” said the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb, who contributed to the lawsuit. “Students with different viewpoints retain their free speech rights. When school officials allow those students to be harassed and bullied, something must be done.”

“First Amendment rights are just as important as Second Amendment rights,” he said, “especially when being used to protect those Second Amendment rights.”

With the lawsuit settled, the Oster’s allegations against the high school along with Superintendent Michael Dugan, Principal Dougherty and retired Principal Eric Flohr have been dismissed.

“Ms. Oster is very glad the matter was resolved,” said the Oster’s attorney David Sigale. “I am very proud that Ms. Oster fought for freedom of speech in this case, and now, as a member of the U.S. military, is helping to protect everyone’s freedoms.”

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

White House To Withdraw Nomination Of Gun-Control Advocate David Chipman To Head ATF BY TYLER DURDEN

The Biden administration’s plan to withdraw gun-control advocate David Chipman’s nomination to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) should be greeted with a huge sigh of relief for gun owners across America.

Two sources with direct knowledge of the decision told WaPo Thursday morning that Chipman’s nomination withdrawal comes amid a bipartisan pushback over his radical gun control advocacy.