Category: First Amendment

Smile! You’re on Coerced Camera!

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have filed their opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging California’s sweeping surveillance mandate on firearm dealers. This appeal is part of the ongoing case against Cal. Penal Code Section 26806, which forces all FFLs—including home-based dealers—to install 24/7 video and audio recording systems to surveil customers, and then retain that data for warrantless inspection by the state. [More]

Democrats to Orwell: Hold our beer.

Hey… any law against putting that poster next to the cameras?

Meanwhile, Over at the Religion of Peace…

Claremont McKenna’s Muslim Student Association had criticized the college’s choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it “disrespectful” and out of line with the college’s commitment to inclusion. [More]

And nothing says inclusion like issuing ideological fatwas.

So much for “an open and welcoming space for everyone“…

Ah well, “misdirecting” on that is supported by history, text, and tradition… and I’m sure the word “rigorous” appplies to all those friendly faces.

[Via Michael G]

And I’m Proud to Be an American Where at Least I Know I’m Free

But last May, police in New Haven, Conn., arrested me — because a parking attendant falsely claimed I had used a racial slur against him nearly a year earlier. [More]

With he said/she said, how was there even probable cause to arrest?

Name everyone involved. Starting with the racist POS parking lot careerist.

And sue.

[Via Michael G]

What Did He THINK Was Going to Happen?

The lawsuit stems from a 2021 Zoom meeting where then-Commissioner Ron Clous briefly displayed a rifle on camera… Four years later, the settlement was finalized with insurance funds, not taxpayer dollars, covering the cost. [More]

Whose dollars pay for the insurance, and did it go up after that?

Yeah, she’s a meddlesome old prohibitionist biddy, but what kind of reaction should this have provoked?

Tell me if an Antifa promoter in government had done this as a response to something you’d said that you wouldn’t take it as the unwarranted chilling of speech and challenge to escalate beyond words that it was. He invited this, a lawsuit response from an indignant community busybody was predictable, he invited it, and the board should have immediately dressed and shut him down, and made him liable for the fallout.

All Hat and No Prattle

A Michigan school did not violate the free-speech rights of a third-grade student who was told to remove a hat that had an image of an AR-15-style rifle and the message “come and take it” in capital letters, a federal court said Friday. [More]

I’m probably going to take the unpopular view here and say the parents knew what the dress code was and let their kid be the one to take the heat for their views by challenging school policy over an issue they’re hardly developed enough to understand beyond a superficial level.

I would not have allowed either of my sons to wear that hat to school for that reason, and also because it was my job as their father to minimize risks where I could, including now the child will have to deal with the fallout from other students and teachers, and it will follow him through the system until he graduates.

There’s a reason I have never named my sons beyond the created-for-effect “feral sons Uday and Qusay,” and never posted current photos of them. Choices I have made carry repercussions and even dangers, and those are mine to bear, not my family’s. That’s also why I deliberately kept a low profile on local politics.

Change my mind.

[Via Jess]

Sounds Like Europe Could Use Some Pre-Rebellion…

Not wearing a black hooded cloak for this, I see…

The same globalists who forced “vaccines” on bodies now demand to do it to minds.

[Via WiscoDave]

Meanwhile, Across the Pond

The government of the United Kingdom, wielding the controversial Online Safety Act 2023, has issued a direct ultimatum, launching a blatant assault on the principles of open discourse that define our community. They demand that Gab submit to their stringent censorship regime, threatening exorbitant fines potentially reaching £18 million or a crippling 10% of our global revenue if we refuse to bow to their demands. [More]

So, what “3D chess move” is Trump up to?

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

[More]

Keir Starmer to the rescue!

[Via WiscoDave]

The Buck Stops Where…?

GOA & GOF have been GAGGED from printing the news (uncovered in a FOIA) for 18 months. Despite a recent ruling by the D.C. Circuit prohibiting such gag orders, Biden holdovers in @TheJusticeDept are asking the court to extend this First Amendment violation. [More]

Those “holdovers” report to someone…

UPDATE

Here’s the Motion to Lift Protective Order.

Guess whose name is at the end:

Words and Deeds

Joe Rogan: America Has ‘Unique Freedom’ Because 1st Amendment Protected By 2nd Amendment [More]

So, why did he use his oversized influence to stump for gun-grabbing communist Bernie?

I don’t get the “conervative” and “gunfluencer” fascination with this guy. He’s every bit the phony carnival barker Michael Savage was.

[Via Jess]

It’s Showtime!

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a third Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, B&L Productions v. Newsom, for conference on Friday, Jan. 24. The case challenges California’s statutes which ban gun shows on state-owned property. Because the gun shows at issue are not only opportunities to view and purchase firearms, but also for like-minded individuals to assemble and share ideas, the case presents questions about both the First and Second Amendments. [More]

Having followed this issue for many years, I say apathetic gun show attendees own their share of the mess they’ve allowed. They’re no doubt part of the majority that don’t contribute to efforts like this to clean up that mess.

The Worst Defense is a Bad Offense

Yet Gannon’s defense attorney, Stephen Colella, described Hayes as “someone who, allegedly attending a peaceful rally, saw fit to bring a semiautomatic weapon and 20 rounds, and a person who has, in fact, attended similar rallies in the past similarly armed”… [More]

Yeah, to keep hotheaded lunatics like your 32-year-old buttwad client from attacking his 47-year-old target peaceably exercising his First and Second Amendment recognized rights with potentially lethal force.

This you, Stephen…? I ask not just because of the rather unique name and the same state, but also because of similar seedily manipulative approaches to the law…

[Via Edmund M]

Verified by MonsterInsights