11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Dispel NYC Mayor’s Concerns on Open Carry

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Any week now, the Supreme Court will render its decision in the pivotal Second Amendment caseNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where a majority seems poised to strike down New York laws that effectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms in public for self-defense.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, recently lamented the likely outcome of the case, telling reporters that city residents should be “very concerned” and noting that his administration “did our job of getting the guns off the streets.”

Respectfully, Mr. Mayor, your city’s soaring violent crime rates prove that you haven’t succeeded in getting guns off the streets. In fact, New York’s entire legal framework succeeds only in rendering law-abiding New Yorkers defenseless in the face of criminals who continue to illegally carry firearms and use them to commit heinous acts.

This reality was made painfully obvious during recent mass public shootings in New York state, including one Saturday in Buffalo where the perpetrator’s manifesto explained in detail how New York’s strict gun laws “put him at ease” by ensuring that his victims, even if armed, would have a more limited capacity to fight back.

The right to keep and bear arms plays a pivotal role in protecting law-abiding Americans when the government cannot or will not be there at the moment those Americans are victimized.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in April. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

  1. April 1, St. Paul: A man fatally shot his daughter’s ex-boyfriend after he kicked in the family’s front door in the middle of the night and threatened her, police said. The former boyfriend had a long history of domestic violence, including three prior convictions for domestic assault dating to 2006. He was facing additional domestic violence charges—all related to alleged physical assaults against the man and his daughter—and had active warrants out for his arrest.
  2. April 5, Somerset, Kentucky: A man was assaulting his girlfriend inside their home when a juvenile came to the woman’s defense, retrieved a handgun, and fatally shot her assailant, local officials said.
  3. April 7, Brownsboro, Texas: A would-be burglar who broke into a house by smashing through glass in the front door found himself face-to-face with the homeowner, who—armed with an AR-15—held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The burglar was arrested, but police said they were unable to locate a second, female suspect believed to be his accomplice.
  4. April 8, Melbourne, Florida: A man sitting in his truck outside a friend’s house was confronted by an acquaintance who, angry about an earlier argument, opened fire on him, police said. The man grabbed his own handgun and shot back. When the handgun jammed, the man—still under fire—grabbed an AR-15 from his backseat. During the ensuing shootout, he got out of the truck to use it as cover. He eventually retrieved a second AR-15 from his trunk and maintained his defensive fire until his assailant ran away. Police were able to find, arrest, and charge the man with several felonies.  No one was injured during the shootout, police said.
  5. April 11, Las Vegas: A teenager was arguing with someone on a residential street when a neighbor, who was walking his dog, tried to intervene, police said. The teenager pointed a gun at the man and threatened him, but he was legally carrying his own gun and fatally shot the teen. Police said the man acted in lawful self-defense, wasn’t arrested, and won’t face charges.
  6. April 14, Charleston, South Carolina: A man called police to say that another driver had shot at him, but his story quickly fell apart when other witnesses reported that he was, in fact, the aggressor in a violent road rage incident. Officers arrested the man, who is accused of tailgating a female driver, throwing a soda can at her car, and then threatening her with a gun before firing several rounds at her. She grabbed her own gun from the glovebox and shot back in self-defense, police said.
  7. April 17, Philadelphia: Two armed men with fake badges impersonated police officers, forced their way inside a home, and attempted to zip-tie a resident’s hands, police said. The resident quickly realized that the men were not real cops, drew his own gun, and fatally shot one of them. The second intruder, who fled, was not immediately captured. The resident encouraged fellow Philadelphians who can legally own guns to buy one to protect themselves from violent crime.
  8. April 21, Brentwood, Tennessee: When a woman’s estranged husband violated a protection order and showed up at her apartment without permission, she called her father and brother for help, police said. When they arrived, the husband lunged at them, so the brother shot him three times, wounding him. Police said the husband would be charged with stalking and violating a protection order when he is released from a hospital.
  9. April 25, Cleveland: A man held a store employee at gunpoint and grabbed cash from an open register, police said. As he turned around to flee, another employee tried to follow him out, so he shot at her. This employee, however, was armed. She returned fire, striking the robber in the leg. Responding officers couldn’t find the injured robber, but recovered his abandoned backpack with the gun still inside.
  10. April 27, Princeton, West Virginia: A homeowner discovered a man breaking into his vehicle in the middle of the night, then held him at gunpoint until police arrived. Responding officers found several items in the man’s possession that had been stolen from area residents, including the backpack in which the man had placed the other items.
  11. April 29, Miami: An employee at a demolition and trash hauling company confronted a man who was trying to steal a catalytic converter from a car in the company lot, police said. Instead of fleeing, the would-be thief ran at the employee while wielding a saw, so the employee drew his firearm and shot him. The wounded thief dropped the catalytic converter and fled, but police later found him and his stolen getaway car.

It’s clear that, try as they might, law enforcement officers simply cannot be there to defend most citizens from violent crime at the moment they are victimized. The Second Amendment enables these innocent Americans to have more of a fighting chance against criminals who would harm them.

And what’s more, the data is clear that concealed carry permit holders are, as a class, one of the most law-abiding segments of the population.

Mr. Mayor, New York has nothing to fear from a future where its law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves in public with firearms.

New York’s violent criminals, on the other hand? They should feel a little more afraid.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Ninth Circuit Panel Strikes Semi-Auto Rifle Ban For Young Adults in SAF Case

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A three-judge panel for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday struck down a California prohibition on sales of semiautomatic rifles to young adults in the 18-20-year-old range, remanding the case back to the district court for further proceedings in a win for the Second Amendment Foundation. The case is known as Jones v. Bonta.

SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Poway Weapons, and Gear and PWG Range, North County Shooting Center, Inc, Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, and three private citizens including Matthew Jones for whom the case is named.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Ryan Nelson and joined by Judge Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, and in part by Judge Sidney Stein from the Southern District of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee. Judge Stein also dissented in part.

Writing for the majority, Judge Nelson observed, “(T)he Second Amendment protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them. The district court reasoned otherwise and held that the laws did not burden Second Amendment rights at all: that was legal error…(T)he district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. And even under intermediate scrutiny, this ban likely violates the Second Amendment because it fails the ‘reasonable fit’ test.”

“We are delighted with the opinion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court majority rightly recognized that delaying the exercise of a right until age 21 does irreparable harm. It also applied strict scrutiny to the semi-auto ban.”

He noted this ruling could have an impact on another case challenging a similar prohibition in Washington State, which is also part of the Ninth Circuit. There, the prohibition was adopted via a citizen initiative in 2018, and was challenged by SAF and the National Rifle Association.

Fifth Circuit Rules Against New Jersey in 3-D Gun Ban Case

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed today are celebrating a court victory in a long-running battle to allow online publication of information related to the 3D printing of firearms, thanks to a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returns claims against the New Jersey attorney general (NJAG) to its jurisdiction.

A district court order had wrongly severed the case against the NJAG, from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, and transferred it to a federal court in New Jersey. Today’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit directs the district court in Texas to “request retransfer from its counterpart in New Jersey.”

“It’s a huge victory for us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because New Jersey wanted to be severed from our legal action in their effort to prevent publication of the information by Defense Distributed, thus violating the company’s and SAF’s First Amendment rights to promote the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

This effort began when anti-gun-rights attorneys general, led by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, filed suit in the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State Department from authorizing the release of Defense Distributed’s files on the internet under a settlement from a previous SAF and Defense Distributed lawsuit. That effort was an offshoot of attempts by then-New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal and several of his peers to prevent the plaintiffs’ distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones stated, “Correctly assessed, the NJAG did not carry its burden to clearly demonstrate that transfer is clearly more appropriate than the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The district court erred legally and factually in virtually every aspect of this issue, and its decision, which has unnecessarily lengthened this litigation, even more, represents a clear abuse of discretion for which mandamus is an appropriate remedy.”

An earlier ruling by a Fifth Circuit panel held that the NJAG is “subject to the jurisdiction of Texas courts” in this case because Defense Distributed is a Texas-based company. Today, the Fifth Circuit ruling directs the district court to:

  • Vacate its order dated April 19, 2021, that severed Defense Distributed’s claims against the NJAG and transferred them to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
  • Request the District of New Jersey to return the transferred case to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division; and,
  • After return, to reconsolidate Defense Distributed’s case against the NJAG back into the case still pending against the State Department.

“This case has dragged on for years,” Gottlieb noted. “What today’s ruling clearly demonstrates is that attorneys general who violates our First and Second Amendment rights will be held to answer by the courts, wherever the violations occur.

“NJAG wanted their case severed and transferred,” he added, “and now that will not happen. It’s unfortunate that justice has been delayed so long. It’s time to move forward. This is a case we fully expect to totally win.”

*****

This article was published by The Second Amendment Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

 

Meet Biden’s Second Nominee to Head ATF

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

President Joe Biden on Monday nominated Steve Dettelbach, a former U.S. attorney in Ohio with a record of supporting gun control measures, to be director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Dettelbach has a history of backing gun control measures, promoting several firearms restrictions during an unsuccessful 2018 campaign to become Ohio’s attorney general, and making multiple posts on social media calling on America to take action in the wake of high-profile shootings. He told WOSU that he supported universal background checks and bans on so-called assault weapons during his campaign.

During the campaign, Dettelbach received endorsements from prominent gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, as well as former President Barack Obama and Biden.

Dettelbach also opposed a plan to arm teachers in the aftermath of the February 2018 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, telling WOSU “it doesn’t protect people in any meaningful way, it’s more than a day late and much more than a dollar short.”

“Who allows madmen such easy access to firearms?” Dettelbach asked in a 2019 Twitter post shortly after a shooting in El Paso, Texas. “Who armed a madmen with enough hate that he would kill people just because they were Hispanic? Those people must also be held accountable.”

Dettelbach retweeted a 2020 post from the Sandy Hook Promise, a group that advocates for certain gun control measures, asking people to sign a “petition demanding action to prevent school shootings.”

The White House called Dettelbach “a highly respected former U.S. Attorney and career prosecutor who spent over two decades as a prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice” in a release Monday.

The nomination of Dettelbach comes in conjunction with a crackdown on so-called ghost guns, according to the release. The Justice Department announced new rules to target ghost guns, including requiring those who make or sell them to get federal firearms licenses and to run background checks.

Biden withdrew the nomination of David Chipman to the ATF in September 2021 after allegations of racist comments and bipartisan pushback over his attitude toward gun owners. Chipman called for banning the AR-15, a popular semi-automatic rifle, and pushed a definition of “assault weapons” that many viewed as more extreme than that of the European Union.

“President Biden’s new pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a rinse and repeat from his last unsuitable nominee, David Chipman,” Amy Hunter, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told the Daily Caller News Foundation, adding:

The new nominee, Steven Dettelbach, is a dedicated gun controller who has supported gun bans, restrictions on lawful firearm transfers, and expansion of prohibitions on who can possess firearms. Dettelbach’s history proves he cannot be trusted to work objectively and fairly with law-abiding gun owners, the firearms industry, or law enforcement—he will serve only to further restrict Americans’ rights.

In a statement Monday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the gun industry’s largest trade organizations, said it had “significant concerns regarding Dettelbach’s previous public statements supporting bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, universal background checks, which are unworkable without a national firearm registry that is already forbidden by federal law, and extreme-risk protection orders, or so-called ‘red flag’ laws, without protections for Due Process considerations.”

Dettelbach did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Indiana the 24th Constitutional-carry State. Three More States Right Behind

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law on March 21 his state’s permitless carry bill that had passed both the state’s House and Senate overwhelmingly.

That makes 24. And the third state so far this year.

On March 10, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a similar bill into law. This was followed by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who signed a constitutional-carry bill into law on March 14.

Georgia is next, as a similar bill passed both state houses last Friday and will arrive shortly on Governor Brian Kemp’s desk for signing.

Said Kemp earlier, “The Constitution should be our carry permit, and I look forward to signing a Constitutional Carry measure this year to enshrine hardworking Georgians’ ability to protect themselves and their families in Georgia law.”

National Rifle Association (NRA) Chairman Wayne LaPierre told Fox News:

The success of the carry movement in America cannot be denied at this point. When Gov. Brian Kemp signs this landmark legislation, half of America will protect the right to carry as an inherent and inalienable right.

Two more states — Florida and Nebraska — are on the brink of passing laws protecting their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, without first having to get permission to do so.

South Carolina is right behind, with conservative, pro-constitutional Republican majorities in both statehouses. Constitutional-carry bills failed to pass last year, but the pressure is building on Governor Henry McMaster to urge the legislature to bring such a bill to his desk for signing.

Tennessee already has a “partial” constitutional carry law in place, but it only applies to handguns, and legislators in the Volunteer State are itching to amend it to include long guns. What’s in place, according to John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, is “not real constitutional carry,” and his group is lobbying to expand the present law.

It should be noted that not a single state has repealed a constitutional-carry law, nor has there been a single move in any state to consider such a move.

It should also be noted that arguments against such laws consist primarily of worries that more firearms will mean more gun violence. But that has simply not been the case. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center (CRPC), firearms violations by police officers are very low — about 16.5 for every 100,000 police officers. For citizens who already have a permit, the rate is even lower: 2.4 per 100,000.

Further research by the CRPC reveals that gun violence drops as private gun ownership increases. As John Lott, founder of the CRPC, noted in an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Several dozen peer-reviewed academic studies show there’s no evidence of any uptick in gun crimes linked to concealed carry laws, and most show violent crime declines.

Research also shows that murder rates fall even more when states move to Constitutional Carry laws.

That makes sense, as the people who benefit the most from carrying a firearm are the most likely to be victims: They are “overwhelmingly,” wrote Lott, “poor Blacks who live in high-crime urban areas.”

As states increasingly remove infringements from the right to keep and bear arms, it becomes increasingly difficult for tyrants to turn the American Republic into a dictatorship. To succeed, they must first disarm every private owner of his firearms. At present, the momentum is heading in the other direction.

The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting. It was always about keeping the government in check.

A quote from Adolf Hitler bears repeating:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

*****

This article was published in The New American and is reproduced with permission.

Anti-gun Support for Jackson Nomination to High Court Raises Alarms, Says SAF

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court following the retirement of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer later this year raises alarms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Just the endorsements Judge Jackson’s nomination is receiving should be enough to cause concern,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The nomination is being applauded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun prohibition lobbying groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, and by the anti-gun Giffords Law Center and Brady group. There can be no stronger indication of where Judge Jackson stands on the individual right to keep and bear arms and how she might rule on Second Amendment issues.”

Judge Jackson has also been reversed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, for what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as “judicial overreach.”

“The high court doesn’t need another liberal activist justice on the bench,” Gottlieb observed, “especially where Second Amendment issues are concerned. We know it is inappropriate to ask a Supreme Court nominee how he or she would rule on possible upcoming cases, but considering the energetic support Judge Jackson’ nomination is already receiving from the gun ban lobby, such questions aren’t even necessary.

“When the nation’s most extreme gun control lobbying groups throw their weight behind a judicial nominee,” he added, “there should be no misconception about where that nominee is likely to stand on Second Amendment rights, and frankly, it’s disappointing.

“Since Joe Biden promised to make gender and ethnicity the deciding issues in his Supreme Court nominations,” Gottlieb stated, “we were hopeful his selection would be someone upon whom we could depend for at least some semblance of objectivity. But not now, not with endorsements from organizations known to be hostile to Second Amendment rights, because that is and always has been their litmus test.

“For this reason and no other,” Gottlieb concluded, “Judge Jackson’s nomination raises red flags for gun owners. We implore the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a thorough and thoughtful vetting process, and to raise questions about her Second Amendment perspectives during any confirmation hearing.”

*****

This article was published by Second Amendment Foundation and is reprinted with permission.

Arizona Bill Would Keep State Money From Businesses Refusing to Work With Firearms Companies

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Last week, the Arizona House voted on a bill that would penalize businesses in the state that refuse to do business with firearms companies.

The bill (HB 2473), proposed by state Representative Frank Carroll, R-Sun City, would require companies that sign contracts worth more than $100,000 with the state or local governments to agree that they won’t refuse to do business with firearms-related companies.

The bill passed along a party-line vote of 31-28. Every Republican voted in favor of it and no Democrat supported it.

Republicans and the firearms industry support the bill. They say it’s necessary because some banks refuse to do business with firearms companies.

That’s the argument that National Shooting Sports Foundation director of government relations Michael Findlay made during the House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

“This bill is a Second Amendment bill,” he said. “We have members in the state of Arizona as well as all over the country that have been discriminated on access to capital, payment processors.”

However, banks and Democrats oppose the legislation, arguing that they should have the right to do business with who they want.

“This seeks to have the government interfere with those private businesses and come put their finger on the scale in support of a single industry,” Arizona Bankers Association lobbyist Jay Kaprosy said during the hearing on the bill last week that “…what this bill is asking you all to do is to pick winners and losers about what businesses in Arizona we’re going to favor and that’s where we have a problem with it.”

The bill now heads to the Arizona Senate for consideration.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

Leftists Want To Control Your Money So They Can Control You

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Editors’ Note: We ourselves have suggested that governments would not permit the full operation of cryptocurrencies because it challenges their entrenched power to manipulate money. This manipulation in the past was limited to inflation of the currency, redistribution of wealth, and supposed countercyclical measures to modulate the business cycle. Then that power morphed in several directions.  The widespread use of sanctions began with South Africa and has been extended in the foreign policy realm to many other nations with which we may disagree. Then it spread into the “war on terror” and the funding of terrorist groups. The final stage is to label political opponents as “domestic terrorists” and expand surveillance, harassment, and prosecution of political opponents. We are now seeing that operate in Canada. This use of monetary power has now gone so far as to restrict credit and clearing operations to disapproved industries such as firearms and petroleum. Only those industries favored by the state have full and unfettered use of the capital markets and the government-regulated banking system. To some extent, this use of capital manipulation is now advocated even in the private sector by the ESG movement and large money managers like Black Rock, largely to force policies along the lines of their environmental agenda. Adding to the problem is that large tech companies that operate various transfer platforms, align themselves with the state or a particular political party. Private market actors should know better because these tools could well be turned against them. These developments pose a grave threat to liberty. It is a violation of privacy, a violation of property rights, and the use of monetary pressure is a violation of the rules of political conduct. Once these precedents are accepted, economic warfare against political opponents will become common and will lead to only one political view triumphal and unassailable because one faction restricts the resources of their opponents while directing the wealth of the state to their own ends. We can’t think of a more sinister way for political power to be abused. It completely short circuits the ability of one faction to balance another, an integral part of the American system of governance. We have not thought that Bitcoin was the answer, but we certainly can appreciate the need for some solution.

 

All of the convenience of moving money around effortlessly comes at the cost of losing control over it.

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the suspension of Canadians’ rights last week in his invocation of the Emergencies Act to stop the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa and elsewhere. Among the restrictions announced are greater controls over the online crowdfunding sites that help to fund the protesters and attempts to control the flow of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

According to news reports, “credit card processors and fund-raising services will be required to report any blockade-related campaigns to Canada’s anti-money laundering agency.” Canadian banks quickly fell in line with the decrees, with Toronto-Dominion Bank freezing two personal bank accounts containing C$1.4 million ($1.1 million) they said were intended to support the truckers.

You Don’t Control Your Money Like You Used To

We’ve grown used to the idea that the government has a monopoly on money. Coining money is one of those powers of the state that most people never consider, like building roads or controlling national borders. Our money has dead presidents on it — it’s plainly a government operation. Where else would money come from, right?

But before the rise of electronic money transfers — the electronic bill-pay, direct deposit, and credit and debit card purchases we make every day now — whether the dollar bill in your wallet was issued by a bank (as in the early days of the republic) or by the Federal Reserve (as they are now) did not much matter. It was yours. No one knew what you spent it on unless you chose to tell them.

That meant greater privacy, both from your neighbors and from your government. But it also entailed risk. Cash could be stolen, lost, or destroyed, and there was no way to get it back. And it was cumbersome, especially as inflation ate away at the value of a dollar. Could you bring cash for a downpayment on a house? Sure. It still happens. But hauling a suitcase full of cash invites the scrutiny of thieves and the state — even when it’s completely legal.

How Goverment Uses Control of Your Money to Control You

These digital transfers feel, to most of us, like magic. A volley of ones and zeros flies through the cybernetic ether and — poof! — your electric bill is paid. But in truth, the data is routed through banks, and there are fewer of them all the time. Those remaining, many-times-merged financial giants that handle our affairs are, for all their clout and power, susceptible to government pressure. We have seen it already when the Obama administration leaned on banks to refuse to deal with people involved in marijuana or the sex trade, even where those businesses were legal at the local level. No federal law gave them this power: the threat was enough. And where people keep money in cash, the government often finds a way to take it without even bothering to charge the owners with a crime.

Trudeau’s emergency measures take advantage of these pressure points and lean on banks to choke off the complete flow of money to and from those he deems enemies of the state. No charges, no trial, just shutting it down. Now Trudeau’s government wants to make these “temporary” measures permanent. The slippery slope is usually not so steep, but these are strange times.

How Crypto Challenges the Government Monopoly on Money

Governments understand that alternatives to state-issued money, like cryptocurrency, are a threat to that hegemony. Trudeau and Biden demonstrate that in their recent efforts to control Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. But the beauty of these new systems is that they are made, purposely, to be beyond the control of any person or government.

When Bitcoin launched more than a decade ago, most of us (myself included) barely understood what it was or how it worked. Fake money for dark web mischief, I figured, an eventual failure at best, a scam at worst. Yet here we are in 2022, where government-issued money is eroded by inflation and controlled by statist decrees. They leave peaceful opponents with a choice between the old (gold) or the new (crypto). And crypto is a heck of a lot easier to carry around.

In deciding an earlier banking law question in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Two centuries on, we could apply a modern twist: the power to regulate involves the power to control.

Cryptocurrency was just a passing fad until government overreach made it a necessity. Decades of deficit spending have inflated the currency and decades of creeping statism have given the government massive power over how money is used. The government’s monopoly on money has failed and, like it or not, cryptocurrency is at least part of the answer.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

How Biden Could Save His Presidency, But Won’t

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

When columnists choose to advise elected officials and others from the opposing party how they might improve their political status, I have no objection. Typically, this is done by someone who is an “enlightened” columnist for a Left-wing publication disguising themselves as an independent voice providing observation from 10,000 feet looking down on the plebeians.  This column is about as close as I have ever gotten to writing a column of this type.  It is not to suggest a course of action for President Biden, but in my opinion what he needs to do. No expectations here.

President Biden marched into New York City, a hotbed America’s current crime explosion. The city elected a new mayor with a cop background to clean up the mess created by his predecessor, the worst mayor in America. Unfortunately, they simultaneously elected a new DA in their largest and most famous borough, Manhattan, who is against prosecuting criminals for nearly all crimes. That includes criminals resisting arrest by the cops for whom he is supposed to be working. After the murder of two cops – neither of whom were white oppressors against whom the DA is fighting — DA Bragg reversed course a smidgeon. It is not ok to kill cops, just the rest of the residents.

President Biden laid out his plan to attack the core of the crime problem – guns. He particularly came down against ghost guns, but he apparently has endorsed ghost criminals because the guns shoot themselves. Across the country, San Francisco’s police chief stated the cops will no longer work with the DA regarding prosecutions of cops. This is based on the prejudice by the DA’s underlings by withholding evidence in cases that would aid the cop being prosecuted.

President Biden misses what is going on in America. The cops want to do their jobs – the jobs that their residents want and are overwhelmingly demanding them to do. Simultaneously, enlightened members of Biden’s party masquerading as DAs are either stopping the cops from doing their jobs or they are failing to prosecute the criminals that are arrested, letting them out on no bail even for violent crimes.

Jen Psaki, Biden’s paid mouthpiece, is routinely confronted with questions. Instead of the made-up issues she likes to discuss in the White House Press room, occasionally reporters ask questions about real concerns. Night after night, she states Biden has never been in favor of defunding the police. She virtually never says what he is for, evidenced by his recent visit to New York. Stopping gun crimes.

His “solution” comes out of the standard Democrat playbook: Make it more difficult for millions of Americans who legally own guns and legally maintain guns to get those guns, keep those guns and get ammunition for those guns even for the purpose of properly practicing how to properly shoot those guns. At the same time, do not discuss the folks illegally obtaining guns and using those guns to commit crimes.

Democrats accuse Republicans of ignoring the means by which these criminals obtain the guns they use. Yet, Democrats have no explanation except for the fact that many are stolen from people’s homes during robberies. You know – the robberies the Democrat DAs refuse to prosecute.

Biden has yet to pick up the phone and call one of these marauding DAs and tell them that their policies are not working or to stop what they are doing because it is harming the party of which Biden claims he is the leader. During the campaign in 2020, after he self-designated his position as leader of the Democrats, I suggested he pick up the phone and call the mayors of Portland and/or Seattle. He should have told them to stop the behavior in their cities; it was embarrassing their party. Biden never did. He skated through the election due to an international pandemic he said he would solve for Americans.

President Biden is currently nosediving in the polls for a multitude of reasons. The most significant of which is crime exploding across the American landscape. This is largely due to left-wing Democrats who have produced the ridiculous idea that not prosecuting criminals and letting them out of jail works as public policy and is beneficial for their constituents.

Here is my suggestion.  Mr. Biden picks up the phone and calls one of these woke DAs and tells them unless these failed policies are stopped, the President will publicly call them out and come out against them. He can start in Los Angeles with George Gascon.  Gascon is facing a recall where the signatures are being collected. He is certain to face a very tough recall election to save his job.

Mr. Biden needs only to say Gascon must enforce the laws that he was elected to uphold. None of these lawless DAs (who are self-proclaimed defenders of righteousness) are doing their jobs. Biden must state as much.  He can come to Los Angeles and take a picture of the Union Pacific rail lines littered with the trash from criminals stealing merchandise on the train. At the very least, members of his party would be offended by the scene as they would be afraid the trash would hurt the local seagulls.

Mr. Biden can inform Gascon that he will personally campaign for his replacement unless his policies that have harmed both of their constituents are reversed. Any replacement will likely also be a Democrat, but one can hope for a sane one. Do you think that would be a big national story? And for months? If Mr. Biden did this with just one DA, the others might just get the hint.

Ok, the chances of Biden doing this are slim to none. Not only are his policies failing, but he and his crew have made so many politically tone-deaf decisions that it seems unlikely they would now change their stripes. This would go a long way to mitigate the Armageddon they are facing in November.

Political analysts always lead by stating that crime is a local issue. Not anymore. This issue is nationwide, and it is being exacerbated by policies of one party. President Biden is the head of that party. As Eldridge Cleaver said, “If you are not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem.”

California Senate Bill 906: Making Schools a Logic Free Zone

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Liberals and Progressives continue in their belief that the presence of guns causes crime rather than the presence of criminals causes crime. It appears no amount of evidence or logic can dissuade them. It is a purely emotional position devoid of logic and experience.

This is the assumption behind almost all “gun control” legislation. Guns cause crime and thus fewer guns cause less crime. Guns you see, can leap about by themselves, leave premises, invade school zones, and discharge themselves in an erratic and deadly fashion at almost any time. These pieces of metal are very badly behaved and are a threat to all of us.

Gun control laws almost always translate to fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding, and more guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals about to murder, hijack a car, or invade a home, could care less about breaking some peripheral firearms laws. There are too busy breaking all kinds of other laws to be convinced only the gun law is the one they will obey.

Therefore, the law-abiding, are left helpless in the face of criminals and must depend on public authorities, that may, or may not, respond in a timely manner.

The statistical evidence concerning guns and crimes is just the reverse of what liberals allege: more guns cause less crime, but that doesn’t stop these people from attacking your rights both to privacy and the right to own firearms.

And like so much in our current debate, Leftists want to direct the school system to undertake the social reforms they so desperately want to force upon the rest of us.

A rather frightening manifestation of this delusion is found in a new bill introduced in the California Senate.  A pertinent section of Senate Bill 906 is shown below:

“This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2023, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to develop model content for use by local educational agencies related to a threat or perceived threat of an incident of mass casualties at a school. Using the model content, the bill would require local educational agencies to require the parents or guardians of a pupil to disclose whether any firearms are located at the home of the pupil and to answer questions about the ownership, storage, and accessibility by the pupil of the firearms. The bill would require local educational agencies to include information related to the safe storage of firearms in the annual notification provided to the parents or guardians of a pupil. If a school official is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat of an incident of mass casualties at a school, the bill would require a report of the threat or perceived threat to be immediately made to law enforcement and the Department of Justice. The bill would require a school or local educational agency, in consultation with law enforcement, to conduct immediately an investigation and threat assessment, as specified. The bill would require the investigation and threat assessment to include a review of the parent or guardian’s firearm disclosure information and a search of the pupil and pupil’s property located at the schoolsite if there is reasonable suspicion that a search will result in discovery of a firearm or other evidence that the pupil has or is violating the law or the school’s safety rules or policies. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

So, it would appear the school must be notified that you own firearms and how you chose to store them must meet some undisclosed standard and impose some undisclosed liability. In addition, investigations of you and your children can proceed if a school official “observes” a “perceived threat”. Then, they can come search your property, and that of your child, based on their assessment.

Privacy, property rights?

We all know about the latitude permissible in the “perceived threats” teachers have observed.  The classic case, of course, was the child reprimanded for chewing his pastry shaped in an L that “looked” like a gun, at least to the unstable and hysterical liberal teacher.

This bill is written so broadly, that it could mean just about anything.  What it clearly seems to do is create firearms registration with the school being the collection point and make the schools the arbiter of whatever storage arrangements you might have for said firearms.

In addition, school officials (namely the teacher’s unions) can launch “investigations” based on “perceived threats”, at any time for any reason they wish, including if your child eats their Pop-Tart into a shape they might find alarming.

School shootings are a real problem and we do not mean to make light of the problem.

But this is a completely wrong approach.  Schools are already gun-free zones, and those rules are always violated by school shooters. Murder likewise, is both a moral and legal violation, and school shooters ignore those laws. And with an obvious lack of self-awareness, have not these same people advocated police be defunded and removed from schools?

Lost on these imbecilic legislators is that school shootings have more to do with moral decline, cultural and family decay, mental health issues, and the lack of fathers in the home, rather than guns.

It would be far better to arm and train select teachers and keep police on campus than to give such arbitrary power over to school district bureaucrats and the Department of Justice.

California is often the Petrie dish for breeding crazy social experiments. Unfortunately, what goes on in California, does not stay in California.  Besides, Californians are entitled to their Constitutional rights as are the rest of us.

The message is clear: Don’t let your local school become a logic-free zone.