Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.
When SCOTUS tossed the ATF’s unconstitutional bump-stock ban, they called out the ATF for attempting to take the legislative power of Congress. I thought it was a good start, and I looked forward to the Loper Bright ruling.
This decision doesn’t specifically mention “Cheveron deference” (the idea that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law over that of the challenger), but they certainly did not give the ATF deference here. So that’s a good precedent for gun owners challenging other ATF abuses.
The ATF lives for CHEVRON deference. That’s how two copies of the exact same model of semiauto pistol could be a semiauto, while one assembled the very next day is a machinegun. Or 37 mm projectiles are either not destructive devices (loaded with a black powder pyrotechnic charge) or are destructive devices (loaded with a bean bag). Or the magical way Desert Eagle .50s became destructive devices when they changed the method of measuring the bore. Or…
For too long, the ATF has relied on Just take our word for it, Your Honor. No more; now they have to prove their psychotic re-interpretations really are Congressional intent. And presumed innocence returns.
On the downside, just as has happened post-BRUEN, it’s going to take a lot of effort to get lower courts to pay attention, and stop granting unconstitutional deference to unelected DC swampcrawlers.
I hope the good attorneys at the Firearms Policy Coalition take a look at this decision and that white paper, and see if they can right some very old wrongs.
UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI is in the news with a Supreme Court ruling a few days ago. And the victim disarmament crowd is all over it.
You see, SCOTUS found that someone never convicted of a crime can still lose his Second Amendment rights via a domestic violent prevention order. Associate Justice Thomas dissented. For very good reasons.
Michigan’s Attorney General is one of the people eyeing this ruling with glee.
Rahimi was charged with unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8). An important part of that is this:
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
That’s a problem with Michigan’s ERPO law (“red flag”). Michigan’s law allows ex parte proceedings in which the accused does not receive “actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate.”
So, no, RAHIMI does not support your unconstitutional “red flag” law.
A lower court had dismissed the charge against Rahimi, based on the BRUEN test of general, historical legal tradition; the court found no early laws analogous to firearm possession bans via protective order. But — compromised? — Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, claims to have found not one, but two such laws.
By the 1700s and early 1800s, though, two distinct legal regimes had developed that specifically addressed firearms violence: the surety laws and the “going armed” laws. Surety laws were a form of “preventive justice,” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 251 (10th ed. 1787), which authorized magistrates to require individuals suspected of future misbehavior to post a bond
[…]
Surety laws could be invoked to prevent all forms of violence, including spousal abuse, and also targeted the misuse of firearms.
Can you spot the subtle difference between a surety bond to prevent a person performing an actual violent act, and a protective order that bans possession of a tool regardless of whether it was used?
Dolly-influenced(?) Roberts couldn’t.
His other example law similarly misses the mark.
The “going armed” laws—a particular subset of the ancient common law prohibition on affrays, or fighting in public provided a mechanism for punishing those who had menaced others with firearms. Under these laws, individuals were prohibited from “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.”
The “going armed” laws were specific to threatening and menacing actions using guns (and other weapons), not the simple possession of those implements.
Roberts missed it by this ……………….. […] ………………….. much. I’m not sure how he missed it, since I figured it out two years ago. Yes, I examined historical surety bonds and such in this very light. Maybe the Fifth Circuit read it, even if Roberts didn’t.
Thomas, dissenting, gets it right, as usual.
To trigger §922(g)(8)’s prohibition, a restraining must bear three characteristics. First, the order issues after a hearing where the accused “received actual notice” and had “an opportunity to participate.”
No ex parte proceedings allowed.
Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections.
And Thomas correctly notes that this is a deprivation of rights not triggered by a criminal conviction. Plus…
In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process. Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders.
The bans firearm possession, not just threatening or menacing actions. Sometimes it’s like Thomas reads my work as much as I read his. (That’s a joke; I’d be dumbfounded if Thomas knows who I am even if prompted with my name.)
And what does Clarence Thomas think of Roberts’ surety laws argument?
Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment— possessing firearms. Second, the Government failed to produce any evidence that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To the contrary, the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as §922(g)(8) through the “materially different means” of surety laws.
Aha! the outright ban on mere constitutionally protected possession is not analogous, it is a “materially different means.”
Thomas notes that even the prosecution didn’t try to present surety and going armed laws as analagous to 8 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8).
Despite canvassing laws before, during, and after our Nation’s founding, the Government does not identify even a single regulation with an analogous burden and justification.
The Government couldn’t come up with even one, so Roberts invented one for them.
That opening sentence explains much: a three judge (2 Dubya appointees, and a Trump appointee) panel, not en banc. I’ve no doubt that the state is preparing a motion for en banc review.
The decision, United States v. Duarte, is here. The majority based this ruling on BRUEN, with a dash of HELLER: there is no national “historical tradition of” barring felons who have completed their sentences from possessing firearms. Some readers may recall that such a bar never existed until the Gun Control Act of 1968, less than 50 years ago.
Almost two years ago, I pointed out that, “Much of the GCA ’68 is on very thin ice.”
The dissent, by Dubya appointee Judge Milan Smith Jr., is interesting in a morbid way.
The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), did not overrule Vongxay. Instead, Bruen reiterates that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.
That’s a two-fer. First, the referenced Vongxay is a 2010 Ninth Circuit opinion. Smith is asserting that d 2022 BRUEN, by the lowly Supreme Court of the United States — you know; that one above the Ninth — does not override the majestic Ninth’s precedent. His rationale is that BRUEN didn’t specifically mention and overturn Vongxay by name.
Mommy! Timmy won’t stop poking me!</i?
Stop poking your sister, Timmy.
Mommy, he’s poking me again!
Timmy! I told you stop that!
But that was when I poked her with my index finger. You didn’t say I couldn’t use my middle finger, Mama.
Second, BRUEN does not reiterate “that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.” On the contrary, in BRUEN Associate Justice Breyer, in his dissent admitted:
Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.
BRUEN determined that law-abiding people do have Second Amendment protected rights, but it does not specifically exclude convicted felons who have completed their sentences, and presumptively reformed and now law-abiding people, whom it’s also presumptively safe to let walk our streets.
Rather like recognizing the right of a convicted felon, who has completed his sentence, to vote.
The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Cargill v. Garland, the challenge to Trump’s (yeah, he still owns it) bump-stock ban.
Now, it’s true that we still have Clarence Thomas, who is intelligent and willing to study facts at issue. But we also have Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”
That was after the government claimed that a semiauto rifle with a bump-stock can fire 600 rounds per minute. But Brown, with firearm knowledge exceeding that of John Moses Browning, knows better: 800 rounds per second.
Probably theoretically, higher, once you account for those magazine changes in that one second.
Just for comparison, the GAU-8/A Avenger seven-barreled, Gatling-style autocannon in the A-10 attack aircraft — the beloved “Warthog” — has a measly rate of fire of just 3,900 rounds per minute; twelve times slower that Jackson’s magical bump-stocked gun.
But back to bitter reality. We’re stuck with ignorant high court judges, who when even the banners inflated claims fall short, simply make up their own “facts” to rationalize the infringement of allegedly protected rights.
Oh, well; however SCOTUS rules, Thomas’ takedown of Jackson’s idiocy should be amusing.
Understanding use of force law is pretty important if you’re going to carry a gun, whether lawfully or unlawfully. And we’ve identified another attorney you really don’t to defend you in court because defense attorneys should know that, too.
KC parade shooting suspects may pursue ‘stand your ground’ defense
The man accused of firing the first shots at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl rally told authorities he felt threatened, while a second man said he pulled the trigger because someone was shooting at him, according to court documents.
[…]
Trial attorney Daniel Ross described the stand your ground law as a “formidable defense” that he and many other Kansas City defense attorneys anticipate will be used in Mays’ and Miller’s cases. He said the law puts the onus on the prosecution to disprove claims that a shooting is lawful self-defense.
Ross needs to, you know, actually read563.031, Missouri’s “Stand Your Ground” law. “Felt threatened” is not sufficient.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
Reasonably believes the use of force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat. The problem with that appears to be this:
When interviewed by law enforcement in the hospital, Mays said he drew his gun first and began firing first. When asked why he advanced on the group of people to begin with, Mays said, “Stupid, man. Just pulled a gun out and started shooting. I shouldn’t have done that. Just being stupid.” He claimed that someone in the group had told him “I’m going to get you,” which he took as meaning “I’m going to kill you.”
So Mays approached them first, drew first (if his opponent hadn’t drawn, that seems to leech some of the “imminent” from the situation), and shot first. Let’s look at the first exception to the 563.031 defense.
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor
Mays’ own words seem to indicate that he was the initial aggressor. Mean words don’t necessarily count. For a SYG defense, Mays would have to explain why he reasonably believed that “I’m going to get you,” was both a credible death threat and imminent. And why those words from an unknown “someone” justified targeting Miller, or was it the whole group. We really don’t know that part yet.
And that would only justify the use of force against the second shooter, Miller, or possibly the two unnamed minors arrested, if they were shooting at Mays. It would not be a defense for the innocent parade attendees who were not involved to the alleged dispute who were also shot (with one killed).
Miller might have a SYG defense for shooting at Mays; but again that doesn’t apply to the bystanders shot.
Even when the use of deadly force is appropriate, you have a legal obligation not to kill innocent bystanders; that’s at least manslaughter. Merely wounding the innocent is assault.
As yet, we’re only seeing a couple of second degree murder charges. I think those are just placeholders while the forensics folks sort which of the 23 people were each shot by whom. I expect Mays, at least will be facing multiple attempted murder charges (for the group he seemed to be firing on). At best, whoever killed the DJ will see a manslaughter charge, and everyone who wounded the others will see assault charges.
There were at least four guns located, and quite a few rounds fired, so sorting that out is going to take a while.
Federal Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of the Middle District of Florida, ruled that the ban on firearm possession in post offices is unconstitutional, in US v. Ayala. She cites the BRUEN test of general, historical legal tradition.
Mizelle gave the government multiple chances to present some evidence of such historical tradition. The best they could do?
the United States fails to point to sufficient historical evidence supporting § 930(a)’s application here. (providing only two paragraphs listing potential historical analogues without any analysis of how they are relevantly similar).
Mizelle herself did much more. Using USPS documents, she demonstrated that there has been a longstanding tradition of mail robberies and assaults; in a postal system itself of longstanding — pre-Revolutionary War — tradition. Yet never, until 1964 were firearms banned from any federal facility. The first specific post office gun ban was 1972. 18 U.S. Code § 930, the law under which Defendant Ayala was charged, didn’t come about until just 1988.
Mizelle took the government on a tour through American history, giving specific examples of the post office allowing clerks to arm themselves, and (again citing a USPS reference) “the Postmaster General armed railway mail clerks with “government-issued pistols” from World War I.” (emphasis in the original)
This is a lady who clearly read and understood Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ BRUEN decision. In fact, in a conversation I mentioned that this decision reads like she was a Thomas protégé. Which prompted me to look up Judge Mizelle
She clerked for Clarence Thomas. I think he can be proud.
By the way, for those interested, Mizelle was the same federal judge who struck down the fed ChinCOVID mask mandates.
Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. Ancient philosophers’ descriptions of the tyrannies of Greece and Sicily go far toward characterizing modern dictatorships. Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.
I look at today’s political climate and I can’t escape the idea that this is where we are. Small group? Politicians and activist judges are trying to keep former President Trump off the ballot. Whether or not you love or hate him, people should have the chance to vote for the candidate they want to lead the country. That’s how it is suppose to work in a Constitutional Republic. Demoncratic policies are yielding the results one would expect from policies created and implemented by a bunch of college educated/indoctrinated marxists. Lower standards of living, shortages, poverty and crime are common in those sorts of 3rd world countries run by the left. The left is the left is the left, the world over. Now I think many people suspected on day one that Biden wasn’t really the President when he was signing all those executive orders and he said he didn’t even know what he was signing and an aide snapped at him “Just sign it”. Really? That’s how you talk to the President of the United States of America? No, this is Obama’s third term.
Extraordinary powers, like the power to force people into dangerous medical experiments. Like the power to shut down business. Except for the demoncratic politicians of course. Like the power to shut down free speech of those who tried to warn about the danger. Like the power to persecute those who question anything the government doesn’t want to answer for. Say, for example the validity of an election. Now demoncrats have been contesting elections for years. Stacy Abrams still claims she’s governor. A gaggle of them object every time a Republican wins the Presidency. Nothing ever happens to them, but they do deny the election.
Uses force or fraud to gain power? Goodness knows there was plenty of evidence that the elections of 2020 were not clean, and people attempted to make that knowledge known at the time it was happening the media #FakeNews either ignored it or lied about it. Then came the Georgia runoff election for two senators. As nothing had been done to fix the voting problem in Georgia, predictably the communists won. The group that documented multiple cases of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election even made a documentary. True The Vote recently won their case in Georgia about the senatorial runoff race against Stacy Abrams, video about 8 minutes https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/judge-issues-2020-election-challenge-ruling-facts-matter-5558563
Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote and Greg Phillips were the leads in the documentary 2000 Mules that did extensive documentation on the voter fraud of the 2020 election. It’s well worth watching, they explain their search techniques and have mountains of video proving their point. And they have been persecuted by the government for doing that. We’ll revisit this in a minutes.
But onto the propaganda aspect. The marxist talking heads called the “media” are having kittens by the batch about how if President Trump wins the election he will shoot demoncrats that don’t clap at his inaugural speech. Why democracy (rule of mob) won’t be safe! The only way to save democracy is by demoncrats destroying it. At least according to them. They can only save democracy by preventing a large swath of the public from voting for the candidate of their choice. They have equally pearl clutching guests on who solemnly intone that former President Trump can’t possibly hold office because of the 14th Amendment. An Amendment created to keep the members of the former confederacy from holding office after the civil war ended. But I don’t believe it was ever actually enforced. Since the mass formation psychosis operation known as “covid” the media has a successful playbook and they are sticking to it. But the establishment media has possibly overplayed their hand this time as they cover for the Obiden crime junta. People see that the costs of living are soaring, the Obiden junta is redistributing money from Americans to illegal invaders, crime is going up and the ever present attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans has not abated one whit. Many of “We the people” don’t like living under a marxist regime. Not one bit. But perhaps the lame-stream media is losing it’s credibility. People, I don’t think, believe them much anymore. Although msnbc’s loyal 7 listeners still tune in and hang on every word, and cnn’s 12 are still showing up to hear whoever hasn’t been arrested for some indecent act yet.
So what to do to win an election with an unpopular, corrupt, incompetent, demented candidate?
Going to the part of a dictatorship about terror, intimidation and removal of civil right, that brings us back to January 6th. A day the left loves, loves to talk about, loves to celebrate, a day made just for them. And it was.
Representative Clay Higgins, I just love this guy. Former military, former law-enforcement officer he has a no nonsense style and doesn’t let up. He’s sort of like a pitbull with glasses. Plus I like to listen to him talk.
I’ve mentioned before the documentary done by the Epoch Times that extensively covered the day with film obtained from people who were there as well as independent journalists. They interview people that were there and tell their stories, they have video of the murder of Ashli Babbitt and Roseann Boyland, killed in cold blood by Michael Boyd and Lila Harris. Things demented Joe Biden still lies about. I don’t know if it’s free to watch or not. After all this time it may be. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary-4596670
It’s pretty recently released so it may or not be free to watch.
The FIB is ramping up the terror and intimidation as they’ve said now they are going to go after people that weren’t even in the Capitol, but were just there. They’re being very public about it. They want the terror and intimidation, they want U.S. afraid to speak out, to donate to, work for or attend a rally. Their message is don’t even think about it.
Which brings me to this. Greg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht are not only fighters for truth, justice and the American way of life, they are also trying to help the January 6th political prisoners held by the Obiden crime junta. The January 6th political prisoners put together a video, it’s a time line of events that happened that day. Greg says it’s a little rough, but considering they made the video mostly by themselves, it’s amazing. It’s being hosted by open.ink set up by Greg. There is a huge collection of material there, not just this video and it’s well worth checking out. It’s a bit over 1 hour and is free to watch. From open.ink
J6: A True Timeline gives the audience a never-before-seen timestamped blueprint for the events of January 6, 2021, as they unfolded in real time. No other film to date fills the gaps or tells the story chronologically the way this film does. The film is also different from anything produced to date because a small group of protestors, some who are J6 defendants, have been the ones to collect hours of footage to help contextualize the events of the day. The film was funded and produced entirely through small donations and tens of thousands of volunteer man hours. The hope is that the film will provoke all Americans to be more curious about the true timeline of January 6.
I think we can see who is behaving like a dictator and who isn’t. Please pray for America, for many reasons and please pray for our January 6th political prisoners and their families.
For years, I’ve warned about the dangers of precedents; in laws, bureaucratic regulation, and judicial. My personal ball got rolling back inthe 1990s with the passage of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA was passed to “help” LE catch criminals, by making it easier to tap phone calls.
The Communications Assistance for law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a statute enacted by Congress in 1994 to require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information. CALEA is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of the investigation.
Sure. But it morphed into requiring the capability to monitor 10% of switch traffic at the same time; ten percent of all phones in the country. And remotely, so LE doesn’t even have to come to the switch office and physically tap a single line. It was expanded to include Internet traffic.
What could possibly go wrong? Who could have foreseen that someone later would use those tools to monitor thousands of innocent Americans, or even spy on the opposition’s election campaign?
Well… “Who,” other than myself and thousands of other privacy advocates.
The Colorado Supreme Court just gave us a real doozy of a precedent: it just declared Donald Trump to be an “insurrectionist” ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot.
Love Trump or hate him (and I’m no great fan), the “reasoning” and “process” behind this decision is frightening; enough so that I’ll never travel to or through Colorado again.
The CO supreme court majority (there are three dissenters with some self-awareness) simply declared Trump to be guilty of insurrection. They deliberately and specifically denied the need for an actual charge of 18 U.S.C. § 2383 insurrection, a trial, evidence, or conviction. They specifically denied any requirement for Fifth Amendment due process. The accusation — in a civil case that Trump was not a party to — is all it takes for a life sentence of ineligibility to hold office or appear on a ballot.
Because Amendment 14, Section 3 is magically “self-executing.”
There is no Fifth Amendment in Colorado.
If this were to go to the US Supreme Court (and Trump says he’ll appeal), we might well learn there is no Fifth Amendment in the country.
But let’s look at the flip side of this insane precedent, under the almost-worst case scenario*:
Imagine down the road we end up with a hard-core right-wing administration; a Republican president perhaps, with as little respect for the whole Constitution as many current Republicans (don’t forget who saddled us with CALEA, PATRIOT, and bump-stock bans in the first place). Let’s say President Smith ran on a platform plank of doing something about the ATF, winning hearts and minds of American gun owners.
On the one hand, we have an agency whose specific job is to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
On the other hand, we have a precedent that says Constitutional amendments are automatically “self-executing,” and punishments for violation of the 2A don’t require indictment, trial, evidence, facing accusers, or defense. And one day, President Smith Tyrant simply send US Marshals to every ATF office in the country to round up every agent and employee, and drag their sorry asses off to the gulags, never to be heard from again.
Or… Federal Election Commission, meet the self-executing First Amendment.
You can probably think of one or two others that could use a dose of Constitutional self-execution.
So to speak.
* The worst case scenario would be SCOTUS making this a national precedent with the current administration, which proceed to rape the country faster and harder than it already is.
I watch with shock, horror, trepidation, and anger at how fast my beloved country is becoming 1930s Germany. For those that wondered how they would have been, how they would have acted, how they would have chosen, what their character would have been? Yeah, well, I think we’re going to be finding out.
Harassment of Jews, with pending property damage? Check.
The sad irony of the October 7th massacre is that the denizens of Gaza attacked probably the most liberal part of Israel. They killed and raped the people who felt the most compassion for them, who marched for them, who hired them, who drove them to hospitals in Israel.
For example, this is Vivian Silver.
The late Vivian Silver HY”D
The body of Canadian-Israeli Vivian Silver, one of the victims of the October 7th massacre was found.
Vivian (74) was an Israeli peace activist and leader of Women Waging Peace.
She spent years driving Gazans in need of medical care to Israeli hospitals.
They showed up on October 7th and thanked her their way – massacre!
Kfar Aza and Be’eri were made up of secular leftist peacenik types. They truly believed they could be friends and co-exist with the denizens of Gaza. So when it came time for the attack here’s how that works out in real life. The nice Gazans they had employed and paid good wages, that they had eaten meals with in their homes repaid their kindness in typical faux falestinian fashion. They had scoped out the Kibbutzim very well. They knew where the men lived, they knew who if any had guns and often where they were kept. They knew how many women and children, where they usually were, who had safe rooms and where. They then passed this intelligence onto the hamanazis.
Like the Jews of Germany that thought they were living peacefully with their neighbors for years, like the Jews living peacefully in 1929 Hevron with their Arab neighbors for years. Until one day they weren’t. Their peaceful neighbors turned into a deranged mob intent on torturing and killing one and all.
This man is a Muslim Arab Israeli who works for ZAKA, what he has to say is worth hearing.
A friend of mine told me there were a couple of religious observant Kibbutzim in the area. They lock their gates on Friday night at the start of Shabbat. They were spared, it seems the terrorists didn’t want to mess with fighting to get into some place when it was easier to go to those they knew would be lax. I’m not casting aspersions, I’m just marveling at small miracles any were spared.
And one of the questions many of us have struggled with is how could this happen?? How could Israel be so caught off guard. Well, short answer is it wasn’t, exactly. You know all those leftists in charge of our military? The ones doing drag queen story hour, and saying they would call China if our former President had been preparing to take action against them? Well, Israel has those kind as well. Caroline Glick is usually very solid. This has some of the answers, but its very painful and a bit of a warning to us as Obiden’s illegal invaders continue to stream across our border.
I’ve gotten the following information from more than one source, and it seems to line up pretty consistently.
Some of the horrors Israeli hostages experienced at the hands of Hamas in Gaza:
*Executed in captivity.
*Denied medical treatment.
*Starvation.
*Women kept in cages.
*Some forced to eat toilet paper.
*Sleep deprivation.
*Forced to watch Oct 7 atrocities.
*Separation from families.
*Children branded with exhaust pipes in case of escape.
*Beatings.
*Deprived of daylight.
*Solitary confinement.
*Elderly women forced to sleep on plastic chairs.
*Children forced to whisper, not allowed to cry.
*Denied basic hygiene.
*Confined to cramped spaces.
*No idea if their families survived.
*Forced to participate in degrading propaganda videos.
*Not a single visit from the Red Cross.
NEVER donate money to the Red Cross. Not only do they have a horrid history going back to WWII, while they certify the hamanazi ambulance service Red Crescent which is used to transport and hide terrorists, they refuse to certify Israel’s Magan David Adom ambulance service. In addition to which in this case the Red Cross did not demand of the hamanazis to be allowed to visit the hostages, and when asked by the family of an elderly hostage to take her medicine (which they had brought with them) to her in captivity, they refused. Yep, the Red Cross refused to take provided medication to an elderly hostage. NEVER give money to the Red Cross.
And this is just what we know about!Prof. Itai Pesach, head of children’s hospital at Sheba, said “When the children will start telling their stories, none of us will be able to sleep at night”.
Eitan was a Hamas hostage. He is 12 years old.
Eitan was brutally beaten on the day he was kidnapped by crowds of “innocent” civilians as he was brought from Israel into Gaza.
He was bullied by Palestinian boys under the instructions of a male teacher.
In captivity, he was forced to watch horrific videos of the massacre and torture of people he knew by the terrorists from October 7th.
He also said that the terrorists threatened them with weapons when the kidnapped Israeli children were crying.
When the Hamanazis said they didn’t know where all the hostages were they may have been telling the truth. Because the “innocent denizens of Gaza” were very actively involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder of the kidnapped Israelis. They also were holding some of them in private homes. Including a UNRWA teacher who held a captive in his attic for around 50 days basically starving the captive. Another Israeli was held captive by a Falestinian “doctor”. Yeah he is suppose to be a real doctor but apparently the Hippocratic oath hasn’t been translated into Falestinian.
This is the truth about Hamas, this is the high moral imperative of the Palestinian majority.
To torment and kill Israelis and Jews. This opinion poll was done around October 7th.
A Falestinian opinion poll
Be sure that Arab leaders are not as enthusiastic about a Palestinian state solution as the US administration does. Why? They have their past to lean on –
In the early 1950s, the Palestinian leadership collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood, terrorizing Egypt, their host country.
In the mid-1960s, the Palestinian leadership terrorized Syria, their host country.
In 1968-70, the Palestinian leadership triggered a civil war in Jordan, attempting to topple their host Hashemite regime.
In 1970-82, the Palestinian leadership instigated a series of civil wars in Lebanon, aiming to take over their host country.
In 1990, the Palestinian leadership collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, which was for decades the most generous Arab host of 400,000 Palestinians.
From 1939, about nine years before the declaration by Israel of statehood,
Nobody wants these flotsom of human kind including other Arab nations which share a language and religion with them. This is Saudi author and media personality Rawaf al-Saeen. It has English subtitles and is pretty enlightening coming from the Arabic side.
Also weighing in for “news sources” that use the information given to them by the falestinian health ministry, is Amjad Taha, Arabic journalist, a real one. As opposed to cnn, msnbc and NYT. You see the falestinian health ministry is hamass. It’s run by hamass and is hamass. If they’re willing to behead babies, they’re willing to lie to a gullible western media and populace about how many are dead and how they got that way.
Taha
And some of the Western Media is very very stupid. Kudos to Elyon Levy.
Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman: There are no innocents in Gaza, he’s not exactly a religiously observant Jew.
There are no innocents in Gaza.
For years, good people with good intentions and it’s safe to say naive, believed in and promoted the idea of peace between us and the Palestinians. People who believed with all their hearts in the idea of two states and thought that normal people who dream the same dream live in Gaza.
A dream that shattered into pieces on October 7, 2023.
After recovering from the initial shock of the terrible massacre and with the revelation of the evidence of the atrocities committed by the Nazi terrorists, there is no shadow of a doubt that those who took part in the attack on the Gaza Strip, provided the intelligence on the homes of the residents and led the mob in the second wave of looting and destruction, were Gazans who worked in the settlements they invaded. They made a living and ate in the homes of the massacred residents, those residents who helped them and their families when they were sick and took care of transporting them from Gaza to Israel for life-saving treatments in hospitals in Israel.
The late Vivian Silver, from Kibbutz Be’eri, was one of those people who worked for peace and for the people of Gaza. She established aid programs for Gazans, made sure the workers were paid fair wages, transported the sick to hospital treatment and a few days before the massacre organized a peace rally in Jerusalem where Israeli women marched alongside women. On the Black Saturday, she was murdered with terrible cruelty by the very people she had worked for over the years, and none of the residents of Gaza condemned the murder or expressed shock.
Some will say that the residents of Gaza are afraid of Hamas and that is why we have not heard any condemnation from them, but the scenes we are witnessing in the last few days every evening when our abductees are transferred to the Red Cross and the testimonies of those who have returned from captivity, leave no room for doubt.
Hamas receives overwhelming support in Gaza.
The enraged crowd that insults and spits on the abductees, our small children who say they were beaten by Gazans of all ages and the demonstrations of joy and support for terrorists throughout Gaza, testify to the cruelty of the population that educates its children to hate the State of Israel and trains a new generation of terrorists and supporters of terrorism whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel for all its citizens.
Gaza is a wasp’s nest of terrorists.
There is complete synchronization between Hamas and “innocent” citizens and the story of Roni Kariboy, who was kidnapped from the music festival by the bad guys, illustrates this. Roni managed to escape from captivity and hide for a few days, until Gazans caught him and returned him to his captors.
This is probably the reason why the terrorists marked the legs of the kidnapped children with the exhaust pipe of a motorcycle in order to make it easy to identify them in case they escape.
Another evidence of the full cooperation of the population can be found in the corridors of Shifa Hospital, where the hospital director and other senior doctors helped the terrorists hide hostages and turned the hospital into a haven for terrorists. But it’s not only in hospitals that you find collaborators, also in private homes of UNRWA medical professionals and teachers where hostages were held in terrible conditions.
These things are also reflected in social networks, in the Arab world and in Gaza. 99.9% of all publications are words of praise and wall-to-wall support for Hamas and the horrible acts of October 7th.
Now someone show me where innocent people who are not involved in terrorism are hiding in the Gaza Strip.
Might there be guidance from the Torah about how such things should be handled? Why, yes indeed. In last weeks Parsha as a matter of fact!
Fifth Reading 34:1 Dinah was the daughter of Leah, whom Leah had borne to Jacob.46 Dinah was Leah’s daughter not only in the biological sense but also in the moral sense: she inherited her mother’s willingness to venture out of the safety of her tent47 for holy and righteous purposes. Confident in her ability to positively influence others—even though she was no more than a girl of ten at the time—she went out to observe the girls of that region in order to convince them to adopt the righteous ways of her family.
2 But Shechem, son of Chamor the Hivite, who was the chief of the region, saw her, took her, raped her, and abused her carnally in other ways, as well.
3 Despite himself, he was strongly drawn to Jacob’s daughter Dinah; he loved the girl, and spoke to the girl in a way he hoped would win over her heart, saying, “Look how many ornate coins your father expended just to purchase a small parcel of land.49 If you marry me, the whole city and its environs will effortlessly and automatically belong to you.”
4 Shechem spoke to his father, Chamor, as follows: “Get me this young girl as a wife.”
5 Now Jacob heard that Shechem had defiled his daughter Dinah. His sons were in the field with his livestock, so Jacob held his peace until they came.
6 Meanwhile, Shechem’s father, Chamor, went out to Jacob to speak with him.
7 Jacob’s sons returned from the field when they heard what Shechem had done to Dinah. The men, her brothers, became aggrieved and were deeply incensed, for Shechem had committed an outrage to their father Israel by raping their sister, Jacob’s daughter. Such a thing was considered socially and legally taboo ever since humanity had collectively foresworn illicit carnal relations in the wake of the Flood50 and made such acts a capital offense. Thus, Shechem’s act made him liable to the death penalty. The other residents of the city were implicated in his offense as well, for not having voiced their protest.51
8 Chamor spoke with them, saying, “My son Shechem deeply desires your daughter. I implore you, give her to him in marriage
9 and intermarry with us: give us your daughters, and take our daughters for yourselves. These marriages between our two peoples shall take place at your sole discretion: you may decide to which of our men you will give your daughters, as well as which of our daughters you will take for your men.
10 You shall live among us, and the land will be open before you; you may settle it, trade in it, and acquire holdings in it.”
11 Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, “Let me find favor in your eyes, and whatever you tell me to give as a dowry, I will give.
12 Go ahead, demand of me an exceedingly high figure for the dowry you will stipulate in the bridal contract, and for gifts, and I will give as much as you tell me; just give me this girl as a wife!”
13 When Jacob’s sons replied to Shechem and his father, Chamor, they spoke cunningly, for he had defiled their sister Dinah.
14 They told them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to an uncircumcised man, for that would be considered a disgrace to us. In fact, when one of our people wishes to insult someone, he calls him ‘uncircumcised’ or ‘the son of an uncircumcised father.’
15 Therefore, will we give our assent only on this condition: that you be like us in that every male among you be circumcised.
16 We will then intermarry with you as you have proposed, i.e., at our sole discretion: We will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live together with you and become a single nation.
17 But if you do not heed us and circumcise yourselves, we will take our daughter and depart.”
18 Their terms were acceptable to Chamor and to Shechem, Chamor’s son.
19 The young man did not delay in carrying out this thing, since he desired Jacob’s daughter, and he was the most respected person in his father’s household.
20 Chamor then came with his son Shechem to the gate of their city, and they spoke to the men of their city as follows:
21 “These men are fully at peace with us. Let them live in the land and trade in it, for the land has ample room for them. Supply in our land exceeds demand, so letting them live here and trade in the land will not adversely affect our economy.” When Chamor and Shechem had proposed intermarriage between the two peoples to Jacob and his sons, they phrased their proposal to Jacob’s family’s advantage, allowing them to select Hivite men for their daughters and take whatever Hivite girls they wished for wives. In contrast, when they now set the proposal of intermarriage before their compatriots, they altered the wording to their compatriot’s advantage in order to induce them to consent to be circumcised: “We will take their daughters as wives, and we will give our daughters to them, both at our discretion.
22 But only on this condition will these men consent to live with us and become one nation: that every male among us be circumcised, just as they are circumcised.
23 After all, when they will dwell among us, their livestock, their possessions, and all their animals will become ours. Let us just agree to their condition and they will live among us.”
24 All the people who came out to the gate of Chamor’s city heeded Chamor and his son Shechem, and all the males who passed through the gate of his city had themselves circumcised.
25 On the third day after their circumcision, when the Hivites were in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, each took up his sword. They acted as Dinah’s loyal brothers, risking their lives for her sake, but without first consulting their father. They fell upon the city, confident in their ability to overcome the men—firstly, because of the Hivites’ weakness and pain due to the circumcision, and secondly, in the merit of their father Jacob—and killed every male.
26 They also killed Chamor and his son Shechem by the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. When they went to rescue Dinah, they found her agonizing in embarrassment over what had been done to her and afraid that, consequentially, no one would want to marry her; Simeon therefore promised that he would marry her, and it was only on this condition that she consented to be rescued.52
When the two brothers attacked the city of Shechem, Jacob took up his sword and bow and stood at the entrance to the city in readiness to protect his sons if any of its allies would come to side with its inhabitants.53
27 Jacob’s sons came to strip the slain of their possessions, and they plundered the city that had defiled their sister.
28 They took the Hivites’ flocks, cattle, donkeys, and whatever else was in the city and the field.
29 They seized all their money and captured all their children and womenfolk, and plundered everything in the houses.
A couple of thoughts, Dinah was TEN, TEN years old when Shechem raped her. I was attempting to explain why the actions of Simeon and Levi were responsible and reasonable. The whole town did nothing to stop the depraved Shechem from brutalizing the child, and after he did so they did nothing to confront him. So will the town continue to behave in such a manner? Yes. Of course.
I thought Lenny Goldberg had a great (if short) show on this very topic this week.
Part of the problem is people look at this situation and actions through the mind set of the mid-west. The middle East is not the mid-west.
Some of the terrorists Israel has released are again calling for the murder of innocent Israeli civilians. Already.
And the hamanazis are saying they intend to repeat October 7th.
And this is the next generation of “innocent Gazans”
We were warned.
Understand this, our country has become so depraved that when those in charge of 3 major schools of higher learning refused to say that calling for the murder of Jews is a violation of their school’s policies you know where we’re at. The best they could manage was if the terrorists actions crossed over from calling for genocide into actually committing genocide then that might maybe be a violation of their schools policies. Situation dependent you understand, of course.
There are many many people stacked against what used to be normalcy and decency. But there are some interesting solutions. I do love this short video.
This woman in Israel is known for cheerleading and supporting Hamas. She got the shock of her life when the Israeli police informed her in person that she would be relocated to Gaza—the ultimate fan experience, right at the heart of the action, the headquarters of Hamas! Israeli Arabs enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, even higher than other Arabic countries usually. But this woman just loves and supports the Hamanazis, and hasn’t been shy about telling everyone. So, Israel is shipping her to Gaza!! What a fabulous idea!! Look at her excitement and the look of pure joy on her face!! They’ve made her dream come true. I’d like to suggest we begin to do the same to some college students and the presidents of Harvaaaaard, MIT and Penn. I’m sure they’d love it!! T
Hanukkah starts tonight. It’s different from some of the other wars, most of them have been like what the current demoncrat party is waging. A fight against a mob and death. <humor alert>
Hanukkah in contrast, the Greeks didn’t care if the people lived, but they wanted to kill the religion and practice of Judaism. Sort of like the Obiden White House.
“It’s a simple solution,” said historic White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is gay and black. “We have seen a sharp rise in antisemitic behavior, so our best advice to Jewish people in fear for their lives is to stop doing Jewy things and consider not being Jewish altogether.”
If you’re like me, you wonder why? Why is this happening. I really liked the explanation in this short video. It is apparent, the time is upon us, the time for choosing. What kind of people will we be? What kind of people are we? What will we contribute to society, our country and our world?Will we seek out and find why G-d wants us here at this time in this place? All questions for each of us to answer.
And with that, I will wish you all a very safe, joyous and meaningful Hanukkah!
You’ve got to love the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; they’ve been on a roll lately. They shot down the bump-stock ban in Cargill v. Garland. They struck down the ATF’s pistol brace rule in Mock v. Garland (which was the basis for the Northern District of Texas likewise ruling against the ATF.
Now they’ve turned their attention to the odious ATF’s equally odious frame/receiver rule (declaring unfinished, inert lumps of metal to be firearms) in VanDerStok et al v, Garland. A three judge panel ruled against it.
The judges found that the ATF not only exceeded their authority, but directly contradicted statutory law. I generally agree with them; I’ve made many of the same arguments. But I do want to pick one nit.
ATF’s 1978 regulatory definition sufficiently captured most firearms of the era. Modern firearms, however, have developed such that many firearms no longer fall within the definition. In the Final Rule, ATF states that “the majority of firearms in the United States” no longer have a clear frame” or “receiver” that includes all three elements of the prior definition (that is, a hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism). ATF uses the example of an AR-15,6 which does not have a single housing for the bolt (which is part of the “upper assembly”) and the hammer and trigger (which is part of the “lower assembly”).
That’s not something that happened recently, which legislation just hasn’t caught up with as yet. Striker-fired firearms are hardly new. The first striker-fired firearm was invented in 1878; 60 years before the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and 90 years before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Semiautomatic pistols, where no one part of the firearm contained all of the defining parts, date back to at least 1897.
It’s now 2023, and those types of firearms have been around for well over a century. And yet Congress never saw fit to include them.
Their Honors also had issues with the ATF’s thinking processes, such as they might be.
There is also a clear logical flaw in ATF’s proposal. As written, the Final Rule states that the phrase “frame or receiver” includes things that are admittedly not yet frames or receivers but that can easily become frames or receivers—in other words: parts. As the district court put it, under the Final Rule, “ATF may properly regulate a component as a ‘frame or receiver’ even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver.” Such a proposition defies logic: “a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and a receiver at the same time.”
They caught the ATF attempting conflate laws. The ATF’s rule claimed the power to regulate gun “parts” by noting that the National Firearms Act assigns them the authority to regulate separate parts, like full-auto trigger groups and silencer components, so naturally they can do that with non-NFA parts, right?
No. TL;DR: The authority to regulate non-NFA parts was specifically taken away.
The district court correctly held that ATF has no authority whatsoever to regulate parts that might be incorporated into a “firearm” simply because Congress explicitly removed such authority when it enacted the GCA. The GCA’s predecessor statute, the Federal Firearms Act (“FFA”), had specific language that authorized regulation of “any part or parts of” a firearm. However, Congress removed this language when it enacted the GCA, replacing “any part or parts” with just “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Thus, the GCA does not allow for regulation of all weapon parts; rather, it limits regulation to two specific types of weapon parts.
While the main decision was largely boring, for those who don’t read these things for fun, Judge Andrew S. Oldham got a little more entertaining in his concurrence. Clearly, he was less than thrilled with the ATF’s refusal to state a definite, objective standard by which to judge when a lump of metal turns into a receiver.
The Final Rule emphasizes this list is “nonexclusive.” And ATF explicitly disclaimed the need to explain how any of these factors would balance in practice: “It is not the purpose of the rule to provide guidance so that persons may structure transactions to avoid the requirements of the law.” This approach violates the Fifth Amendment and its guarantee of fair notice. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012) (“A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”). The “Government violates this guarantee by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” (emphasis added)
The ATF is whining. “Arbitrary enforcement” is exactly what they wanted. And Oldham caught them. He proceeded to explain in small words for small ATF brains — using pictures — why going from an objective numerical standard of “more than 80% complete” to “we might think it looks like a gun” wasn’t going to cut it. And he wrapped that up with this tidbit.
ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers. A recent Internet fad illustrates the point. Consider the “cakes that look like food” Internet trend. One could make a cake that looks like a hamburger, just as one could make a cake that looks like a gun frame or receiver. One is “clearly identifiable” as a hamburger, just as the other is “clearly identifiable” as a gun part. But that does not make the former taste like a Big Mac, just as it does not make the latter covered by the GCA. (emphasis added)
The Final Rule is limitless. It purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this. I concur in the majority’s opinion holding the Final Rule is unlawful. And I further concur that the matter should be remanded to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs.
I suppose the ATF could appeal this to the en banc Fifth Circuit, but looking at the judges who upheld the Second Amendment in this, Cargill v. Garland, and Mock v. Garland, I don’t think it’ll change.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
