frontlines

Newsmax:  Watchdog: IRS Spent $10M on Weapons, Ammo Since 2020  by: Luca Cacciatore  Tuesday, May 2, 2023

The Internal Revenue Service has invested $10 million on weapons, ammunition, and combat gear over the last few years as Republicans warn of a militarized tax agency.

Published last week, OpenTheBooks found that the IRS spent $2.3 million on ammunition, $1.2 million on ballistic shields, $474,000 on rifles, $463,000 on shotguns, and $243,000 on body armor vests since 2020.

Another $467,000 were spent on duty tactical lighting, $354,000 on gear bags, and $1.3 million on "various other gear for criminal investigation agents" over that same period.

The spending spree comes despite the IRS appearing to be well-stocked before it, with the agency spending $35.2 million adjusted for inflation since 2006 on guns, ammo, and military-style equipment, the watchdog determined.

Republicans have frequently slammed the Biden administration for empowering the IRS, which received more than $80 billion in new funding as part of the $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act signed last year.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California led his new Republican majority in January to vote to rescind over $70 billion of that new funding. However, the legislation has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

"Do you make $75,000 or less? Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you — with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k," McCarthy warned on Twitter in August.

According to the New York Post, the IRS has defended its requirement that agents carry military-style weapons because of their consistent involvement in organized crime, drug, and gang investigations.

The Treasury Department has also claimed the IRS requires 86,852 new employees over the next decade, which conservatives like McCarthy believe will be used to target everyday Americans.

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Federal Judge Halts State’s New ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban, Cites Likely Second Amendment Violation

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/federal-judge-halts-states-new-assault-weapon-ban-cites-likely-second-amendment-violation/

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/04/30/fl-sheriff-commends-store-clerk-who-shot-robbery-suspect-8-times/

The Footnote to End All Gun Control  by John Crump|Apr. 3rd, 2023   According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.  With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Footnote 11 reads: “The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Gun Confiscation Around The World

Click here for a printable Pdf copy

Three New York Congressmembers Want House of Representatives to Label NY Pistol Law Unconstitutional

Geneva, NY, United States / Finger Lakes Daily News  Ed Vivenzio   Jan 17, 2023

Three New York Congressmembers are urging the House of Representatives to call out New York’s concealed carry pistol law as unconstitutional.

Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Elise Stefanik (NY-2), and Nick Langworthy (NY-23) were joined by Darrell Issa (CA-48) to reintroduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is unconstitutional.

The CCIA was passed last July in response to the June US Supreme Court decision striking down New York’s previous “may issue” pistol permitting scheme in the case of NYSRPA v Bruen.

Below are statements from the three New York Congressmembers:

“The ability to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “New York State’s new concealed carry law is just another way that Kathy Hochul is working to limit New Yorker’s Constitutional rights and attack the Second Amendment. Last June, the Supreme Court repealed New York’s overly restrictive concealed carry laws, and instead of respecting the Court’s opinion, Governor Hochul chose to enact another unconstitutionally restrictive law. This resolution affirms our belief that New York’s latest law is unconstitutional and that state governments should support our Second Amendment rights, not undermine them.”

“Kathy Hochul’s gun grabbing law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on our Upstate rights and values,” Congresswoman Stefanik said. “We know that Hochul passed this law declaring historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park felons in direct defiance after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun laws, but still she doubled down on her unconstitutional agenda. I am bringing the concerns of New York patriots to the highest levels, and, just as we did in the previous concealed carry issue, I am committed to bringing this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

“As I have said from Day One, the concealed carry law is Unconstitutional and does absolutely nothing to make New Yorkers safe. Albany’s obsession with constantly targeting law-abiding gun owners while allowing violent criminals to have free rein on our streets would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly. I am proud to join with my colleagues in standing up against our dictatorial state government and will do everything in my power to protect New York’s Second Amendment rights,” said Congressman Nick Langworthy.

Who is Going to Blink First? New York or the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision in Bruen Regains Public Approval  by Dean Weingarten, Ammoland|Dec. 7th, 2022

Before the Supreme Court decision on Bruen, the average of the five polls was:

• Heard of and favor the decision: 65%

• Heard of and oppose the decision: 35%

After the decision, the average results of the two polls were:

• Heard of and favor the decision: 56.5%

• Heard of and oppose the decision: 43.4%

• Strongly favor 36%

• Somewhat favor 28%

• Somewhat oppose 19%

• Strongly oppose 16%

Opinion:

The Supreme Court decision made on June 22, 2022, restoring the protections of right to bear arms outside the home by the Second Amendment, has bounced back to what it was before the decision was announced.

On November 30, 2022, a Marquette University Law School poll was released showing the results of this question, from September of 2021 through September of 2022.

The question was:

Table 11: Favor or oppose ruling that Second Amendment protects right to possess a gun outside the home. Among those with an opinion.

There were five polls taken before the decision was released on June 22, and two taken after the decision was released, one during July 5-12, and one during September  7-14.

Marquette does not show any more polls on this question after September 14, 2022.

A new question was formulated and used in a Marquette poll for the week of November 15-22, five months after the Bruen decision. The heading for the category was: J2: Expand 2nd Amendment. The question was:

The new question was for all respondents, whether they had heard of the decision or not.  28% of 1004 respondents had not heard of the case. The question divides the response into four categories instead of only two.  Here are the results from the Marquette table:

The total in favor (64%) and total opposed (36%) are incredibly close to the opinions found before the decision (65%/35%). They are easily within the accuracy limits of the poll.

About twice as many people are in favor of the Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms outside the home, as are opposed to it. What happened in between? Why did the numbers briefly drop to 56.5%/43.5%?

The dominant media came out with a series of articles after the Bruen decision. The articles claimed the decision would lead to more violent crime. The Washington post published a “news”  article in the Outlook section by an advocate of arms restrictions, John Donahue, titled:

 The Supreme Court’s gun decision will lead to more violent crime

The Outlook section was discontinued in September 2022.

It seems likely the onslaught of negative articles about the Bruen decision swayed some people. This could account for the 8-9% swing in opinion against the decision.

Then, articles started appearing about the results of the decision. Articles showing lower courts using the decision to restore the right to carry on private property; the right to carry in public places; the right to bear arms for those under a mere indictment; or under a mere restraining order. Articles such as those might have had an effect.

It is possible those who had not heard of the decision were much more favorable than those who had heard of it. The latest poll included both those who had heard of the decision and those who had not.

The right to keep and bear arms is a popular right.  In a poll done in April of 2021, about 73-74% of those polled considered

“the 2nd Amendment is one of our most important and cherished civil rights in the U.S. Constitution.”

The Second Amendment costs residents of the United States very little. The effect on violent crime seems to be very small, for or against.  It mostly has an effect on the attitude of the people who exercise it. If a person has the means to protect themselves,their family, and their community, they feel substantially less dependent on the government.

Limited government power means they have the power of their own.

Nothing proves the government is limited by the Constitution like robust protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

With a mostly originalist/textualist Supreme Court for the first time in over 80 years,
the rights protected by the Second Amendment are being restored!

One thing that ties recent mass shootings?  Harassment

One thing I think we do a terrible job of when it comes to preventing mass shootings is trying to get a peek inside the minds of the killers.

People don’t just wake up one day and suddenly decide to slaughter people by the gross. That kind of pathology likely develops over time, which means it can be prevented from ever happening, preferably without a single restriction on any civil liberty.

In fairness, there have been looks at what mass shooters have in common. They found things like treatment for mental illness and broken homes as common themes.

Yet in looking at recent shootings, I found something else. A history of harassment.

I’m not talking about them necessarily harassing others, but instead being the victims of harassment.

Let’s start with the University of Virginia shooter. He allegedly killed three of the school’s football players after a field trip.

However, it also appears that he reported to his father that he was the victim of bullying.

The alleged killer at Club Q in Colorado Springs also dealt with harassment, and on a much larger scale. In fact, entire legions on the internet enjoyed harassing him.

In Chesapeake, the killer there left a note outlining his grievances, which included claims of being harassed by others.

That’s three recent killers who were either being harassed or felt as if they were, but they’re not the only ones.

In Uvalde, for example, the killer there had a history of being harassed, with some actually calling him a school shooter.

Now, understand that nothing about this is an attempt to excuse these killings. It’s not. There’s literally no valid reason to respond to harassment like this with homicidal action.

But if we’re ever going to uncover the roots of these horrific crimes, we simply have to discuss some uncomfortable things. That includes any potential role that harassment of these individuals might play in this.

It’s not an excuse and I’m not necessarily saying the harassers are responsible for these crimes. No, that responsibility rests on those who pull the trigger, as it always has.

Yet on the same token, if this is a unifying thread, then it’s a thread we as a society can work together to severe.

It’s one thing to be in the public sphere and receive harsh reactions to what you’ve offered up. I’ve been there myself and while it sucks, it’s the price you pay for playing in that sandbox.

But these cases appear to be different. These are people who were reportedly being harassed without that kind of action.

Now, I also have to admit that harassment may not be the issue, but a persecution complex. Maybe many of these people who reported being harassed really weren’t. It’s possible that they just thought the criticism they received was harassment when it was really nothing of the sort.

Sure, we know at least some were actually harassed and bullied, but it’s possible this isn’t a unifying thread among mass killers. I don’t think it is, necessarily, but I wouldn’t be intellectually honest if I didn’t concede the possibility.

Either way, this is something that the supposed experts should be looking at.

Too bad they can’t look beyond pushing for gun control.

By Tom Knighton | Bearing Arms  5:30 PM on December 02, 2022