Tag: law

Gun Rights and Realities

Since I’ve never hesitated to criticize ESR, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that he’s raised some good points on his public Q&A concerning gun rights and the recent fatal shooting of an armed protestor by federal agents in Minneapolis:

Q. This Alex Pieri character was well within his rights to be carrying a firearm at a demonstration.

A. Gun rights folks say “Yes, absolutely!” The fact that he was carrying a weapon was not grounds to shoot him. The fact that some government officials have made remarks that could be interpreted that way is immaterial; that’s on them, not on us.

Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO criminally overreaching his authority, and you are armed, and you are shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?

A. Gun rights folks answer “Yes.” Nobody is obliged to roll over for the equivalent of Redcoats trying to confiscate civilian weapons. In that case, we have your back.

Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO in the performance of his lawful duties with force appropriate to the occasion, does the fact that you’re armed when you get shot suddenly make you a Second Amendment hero?

A. Gun rights folks say “No, it does not.” In fact, under those circumstances, the fact that you were carrying a gun justifies the LEO believing you are a lethal risk even if they’ve secured your primary weapon. Because holdout guns and knives exist. If you get shot, we’re not going to cry for you.

Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO performing lawful duties but using what you deem to be excessive force, and you are armed, and you get shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?

A. Gun rights folks answer “Maybe.” It depends on whether a reasonable person would agree with you that the amount of force used was excessive. A lot of what’s been going on is an attempt to confuse these last three cases in an attempt to make gun rights folks into hypocrites and bootlickers. But we’re not going to roll over for that. We carry guns. Because we’re aware of the power that puts in our hands, we think a lot about violence and ethics and morality. The distinctions among these cases matter a lot.

Q. If you know that people being shot at demonstrations are trained agitators hooked into a covert network run by revolutionary Communists that intends to create violent confrontations and martyrs, how does this change the moral calculus of police shootings?

A. Gun rights folks answer: “These people are no longer innocent civilians, and they’re not the militia within the meaning of the Second Amendment, either; they have placed themselves in the same category as terrorists and illegal combatants.”

Of course, the idea that federal agents enforcing immigration law and the literally tens of millions of violations therein is intrinsically absurd. Everything going on in Minneapolis is the theater kid color revolution crowd that is normally engaged in spying on everyone, so trying to appeal to Americans in their defense is a definite no-go.

I’m pretty sure Constitutional protections don’t apply to many of them in the first place.

DISCUSS ON SG

Vaccines are Organized Crime

This recently filed lawsuit could be some very effective lawfare, especially when one considers how difficult it’s going to be for the vaccine lobby to play their usual “it’s too dangerous to actually test vaccine safety” game in front of a court:

In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and five other plaintiffs accused the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.

The suit alleges that the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by making “false and fraudulent” claims about the safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule — while receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers and providing financial incentives to pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.

“For too long, the AAP has been held up on a pedestal, as if it were a font of science and integrity,” said CHD CEO Mary Holland. “Sadly, that’s not the case.”

Instead, Holland said, the AAP “is a front operation in a racketeering scheme involving Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Media, ready at every turn to put profits above children’s health. It’s time to face facts and see what the AAP is really about,” Holland said.

According to the complaint, the AAP has worked to conceal the findings of studies that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) — now known as the National Academy of Medicine — published in 2002 and 2013.

The IOM called for more research after concluding that no studies had ever been conducted to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The AAP’s conduct constitutes a pattern of fraud under RICO, a statute often used to prosecute organized crime, said Rick Jaffe, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Perhaps this will help shut down one of the wickedest of all industries. Perhaps not. But it’s a potentially effective line of attack, and the free pass on liability the industry was given from Congress isn’t going to help them very much here.

DISCUSS ON SG

Once Lethal, Always Lethal

Law officers are not restricted to justifying each and every shot they fire the way civilians tend to be:

One of the dumbest arguments being advanced in social media and elsewhere is the effort to distinguish between the ICE Officer’s first shot through the front windshield — presumably while he was still in front of the vehicle and at risk of being run into — and later shots that were fired by him through the driver’s side window after he was no longer immediately threatened.

Besides this being a 20-20 hindsight analysis that runs contrary to Graham v. Connor, it also ignores a more recent 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court involving the use of deadly force against the driver of a vehicle.

Plumhoff v. Rickart — 2014, with Justice Alito writing for a unanimous court:

Following a car-stop of a suspected drunk driver, and after just a few questions posed by the officer, the driver sped away. The officer gave chase and was eventually joined by five other cars. The chase lasted more than 5 minutes, and at times exceeded 100 mph.

The chase eventually ended in a parking lot where the suspect’s car collided with a police vehicle, and other vehicles made an effort to pin in the suspect’s car in — the high speed chase portion was over. But that wasn’t the end of the suspect’s efforts to flee:

Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and … Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window…. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building.

The comments I’ve seen on social media suggest there is case law that says each round fired must be independently justified as “reasonable.” They make this claim based on the premise that the shot fired through the front windshield must be evaluated separately from the shots fired though the passenger window, and if either are “unreasonable” then the ICE officer committed a crime. That’s just nonsense and I’d like to see anyone post in the comments a citation to a case saying that is the law.

As always, the “I’m not a lawyer crowd, but…” is extrapolating from what they think they know in order to reach a conclusion that is directly contradictory to the law. Once a police officer, or an ICE officer, or a federal officer, is justified in firing his weapon, he doesn’t face the same potential ramifications for firing subsequent shots that civilians do when acting in self-defense.

So, yes, if you finish off a wounded home invader with a double-tap as he’s desperately trying to crawl away from your house, you almost certainly will find yourself facing some serious charges. But if you’re an ICE officer who fires four, or ten, or fifty more shots after the first one, all that really matters is if the first one is justifiable or not.

Personally, I’d prefer to see the civilian standard relaxed to meet the officer’s standard. What is the societal benefit to protecting criminals who have already conclusively established that their elimination was legal and justifiable, simply because the civilian didn’t shoot quite straight enough the first time?

DISCUSS ON SG

The Logic Holds

If we can suspend the constitution in its entirety over a 99.999% survivable virus, we can suspend it to expel all the Somalis and the Democrats facilitating their welfare and election scams.

Without question. Furthermore, the Somalis, naturalized or not, have no Constitutional rights as Americans. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the Posterity of the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Regardless of what immigrant judges may have declared over the years, no one else resident in the USA has any claim to any rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

You can point horse and say cow all you like, but that doesn’t make the horse a cow.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Inevitable Arrives

I have always said that feminism is the dumbest, most incoherent, most violent, and most destabilizing ideology in the history of ideology. Now Great Britain is discovering one of the many reasons why:

Britain’s leading abortion charity has been criticised for encouraging ‘sex-selective’ terminations – amid fears these are on the rise among the country’s Indian women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which carries out 110,000 terminations a year, suggests that aborting a baby on the basis of sex is not illegal – despite Government advice explicitly stating it is against the law.

Furious campaigners called the advice ‘irresponsible’ and pointed out that many pregnant British-Indian women are under huge pressure to have boys, and may be coerced into having an abortion as soon as a scan reveals a female foetus.

Women of Indian origin are likely to have aborted 400 girls on the basis of their sex in the five years up to 2021, the latest figures reveal.

But Department of Health guidance issued to doctors in 2014 states: ‘Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Gender is not itself a lawful ground under the Abortion Act.’

But the BPAS website says: ‘The law is silent on the matter. Reason of foetal sex is not a specified ground for abortion within the Abortion Act, but nor is it specifically prohibited.’ BPAS carries out almost half the abortions in the UK, through drugs it sends by post or surgical procedures at its 55 clinics nationwide.

If women have the right to choose abortion, then they have the right to choose abortion for any reason. The entire concept of the freedom of speech is literally founded upon the undeniable observation of the freedom of thought, which is not a right, but a definitional tautology: one man cannot know what another man thinks.

Human Action was written on the basis of acting man alone knowing the basis for his actions. Or, in this case, her actions.

A society cannot have both a) abortion rights and b) laws against women having abortions for the wrong reasons. Obviously, there is no such thing as a “right” to murder unborn children simply due to the physical location of the child and abortion should be illegal.

But in places where it isn’t, these issues will inevitably arise, as I pointed out nearly 20 years ago. Now, what was once a problem in India is now a problem in the UK thanks to the joys of mass immigration.

DISCUSS ON SG

Bankrupt Them All

Looks like we’re going to see some of those wicked Lutheran and Catholic charities aiding and abetting the invasion going out of business in 2026:

The Trump administration is making sponsors pay back the money that migrants received through tax-payer funded benefits like welfare and health care.

Deputy Secretary of HHS, Jim O’Neill, is sending out demands for repayment from sponsors of migrants who have accessed taxpayer-funded benefits. Its actually a pre-existing law that was not enforced during the Biden Administration.

O’Neill said that sponsors are on the hook for the money when sponsored migrants use public benefits.

This action lines up with federal immigration law, which has required this type of accountability since the 1996 welfare reform. Details:

Sponsors who sign Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) enter a legally binding contract to reimburse the government for any benefits received by the sponsored migrant. Covered benefits typically include programs like Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and SSI administered through HHS or related agencies. The obligation remains until the migrant becomes a U.S. citizen, accrues 40 quarters of qualifying work, departs the country permanently, or dies.

Agencies may demand repayment directly from sponsors, with options to pursue legal action for non-compliance, including recovery of costs and fees.

They should go after every illegal penny that was paid. Clown World is all about selective enforcement. Often the laws that are needed are already on the books, since only the most dangerous ones about usury and blasphemy are actually eliminated.

DISCUSS ON SG

The EU in the Bunker

The European Union is going seriously off the rails as it heads towards its inevitable collapse.

The European Union is trying to eliminate sources of information that do not confirm with its official interpretation of real world events. One of the latest persons hit with official EU restrictions is the former Swiss intelligence official and author Jacques Baud.

I, too, found this hard to believe, but it’s real. Also being sanctioned by the EU is a retired Florida deputy sheriff.

Jacques BAUD
Function: former colonel in the Swiss army; former strategic analyst, intelligence and terrorism specialist
DOB: 1.4.1955
Nationality: Swiss
Gender: male
Jacques Baud, a former Swiss army colonel and strategic analyst, is a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO.

John Mark DOUGAN
Function: former Florida deputy sheriff
DOB: 15.12.1976
POB: Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America
Nationality: American, Russian
Gender: male

Reports from Western authorities and independent investigative sources link Dougan’s activities to Russia’s military intelligence agency (GRU) and the Moscow-based think tank the Center for Geopolitical Expertise, suggesting he receives Russian support and direction to influence elections, discredit political figures and manipulate public discourse in Western countries.

Everything about the EU is false marketing. There isn’t a single professed principle that the fake state actually stands by.

DISCUSS ON SG

No Democracy, No Law

The European Union has abandoned any pretensions of legitimacy:

The European Union has voted to keep Russian central bank assets frozen indefinitely despite opposition from member states. The bloc pushed through the controversial agenda by invoking emergency powers legislation to bypass the need for unanimous approval.

The European Commission, and its head Ursula von der Leyen, want to use the $246 billion in Russian sovereign funds immobilized by the bloc after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, to back a “reparations loan” for Kiev.

The loan scheme has been opposed by member states, including Hungary, Slovakia, which are against providing further aid to Kiev. Belgium, where most of the funds are held, has also raised concerns due to legal and financial risks. The European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have warned that tapping Russian money would undermine the reputation of the euro and more broadly the Western financial system.

Russia has condemned the freeze as illegal and called any use of the funds as “theft,” warning of economic and legal retaliation.

The vote put forward by von der Leyen reframed the issue of frozen Russian assets as an economic emergency rather than a sanctions policy. This allowed the Commission to invoke Article 122 of the EU treaties, an emergency clause that permits decisions to be adopted by a qualified majority vote instead of unanimity, effectively bypassing veto threats from countries opposed to the move.

Invoking the clause is unprecedented and raises concerns about the sanctity of the fundamental principle of EU politics that major foreign policy, budget, and defense decisions are made by unanimous consent.

This isn’t even remotely surprising. It was always inevitable that, sooner or later, the EU was going to break its “fundamental principle” of unanimous consent and the national sovereignty of its member-states by granting itself permission to override the national vetoes. But it’s one thing to know it’s eventually coming, it’s another to actually see it happen and see for what that principle was sacrificed.

This marks the first major step toward the collapse of the EU since Britain voted to leave. I’d be surprised if four or more states, including Hungary and the Czech Republic, didn’t take this as a sign that it’s time to leave the union.

DISCUSS ON SG

Larry Correia is a Giant Cancer

In the aftermath of yesterday’s blog post about Larry Correia, and the subsequent Arkhaven Nights stream on UATV, a number of people have asked me about the facts of the matter to which Larry was referring in such a dishonest manner to the editor of Baen Books and science fiction professionals. First, here is the email Larry sent out to JDA, Toni Weisskopf, Jason Cordova, Brad Torgersen, and Sarah Hoyt:

From: Larry Correia monsterhunter45@hotmail.com
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025at 11:02 AM
To: Jon Del Arroz jdelarroz@gmail.com, Toni Weisskopf toni@baen.com, cordova829@gmail.com cordova829@gmail.com, brad.r.torgersen@comcast.net brad.r.torgersen@comcast.net, Sarah Almeida Hoyt scifihoyt@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Interview With Christopher Ruocchio

I’d say I hope you have a nice Christmas with your family, but you probably can’t because of that domestic violence restraining order. Now I’m gonna block this email like I have all your other accounts, you sort of human shaped blob of herpes.

Now let’s address the facts. You may wish to note that I have read the relevant documents, including the restraining and custody orders.

  1. There was a restraining order filed against JDA by his ex-wife in 2023, two months after she filed for divorce. It was not filed on the basis of domestic violence, nor is there any mention of violence, domestic or otherwise, in the order.
  2. The restraining order was requested on the basis of text messages that criticized his ex-wife-to-be’s physically abusive behavior towards their children.
  3. The three-year restraining order was granted eight months later as part of the divorce settlement because the text messages sent to his ex-wife-to-be about her behavior made her feel bad and were characterized as something that “disturbs the peace”.
  4. JDA did not contest the restraining order since a) doing so would be expensive and b) he was not interested in having any contact with his ex-wife over the next three years anyhow.
  5. JDA never committed any violence, never laid a hand on his ex-wife, and was never accused by her or by anyone else of doing so. He was not even within miles of his ex-wife when the exchange of texts that served as the basis for the restraining order took place.
  6. JDA was granted full custody of the children by the court.
  7. JDA absolutely can, and will, spend Christmas with his family, which includes his children by his ex-wife, of whom he has had custody since the divorce.

In other words, Larry Correia attempted to falsely portray a married father who proactively defended his children, and still has custody of those children, as a violent wife-beater who is not permitted to be around his family at Christmastime. And in doing so, he encouraged dozens hundreds of people on social media and on YouTube, including last night on Arkhaven Nights, to post messages saying things like “why did you beat your wife” repeatedly throughout the the stream. I personally witnessed at least 20 of these obnoxious comments from at least four different accounts during the stream.

This is absolutely inexcusable and unprofessional behavior, particularly on the part of a self-styled conservative who purports to be a family man. And that cancerous behavior further exposes Larry Correia’s undeniable lack of character, which we first observed when he encouraged hundreds of Sad Puppies to spend $40 to nominate him for Hugo awards, then fled the field and abandoned his followers the moment the mainstream media took notice of him and started to call him names.

The damning thing is that Larry knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, ten years ago, he was angry about the very sort of behavior he is exhibiting now.

I’m angry. When people who haven’t talked to my wife since high school reach out to her, worried for her safety, because they read about how her husband is a wife beater, I get angry.

Indeed.

DISCUSS ON SG

More NCAAF Drama

The University of Michigan just unexpectedly fired its head football coach. And the police are involved, f.

The University of Michigan has fired Sherrone Moore following an investigation into a situation that transpired within and outside the football building, sources tell OutKick.

Coming off a season that ended with a loss to Ohio State, the Wolverines’ administration had been looking into alleged allegations levied against the coach. Over the past few weeks, Board of Regent members have met numerous times to discuss the allegations levied against the coach, which violate university policy.

Wednesday night, Sherrone Moore was detained in Saline, Michigan, and then subsequently handed over to police in Pittsfield Township, pertaining to an investigation that is now tied to the relationship.

Multiple sources tell OutKick that once the school found out about an alleged extramarital affair with a staffer through an outside tip, a decision was made to launch an investigation.

“U-M head football coach Sherrone Moore has been terminated, with cause, effective immediately. Following a university investigation, credible evidence was found that Coach Moore engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. This conduct constitutes a clear violation of University policy, and U-M maintains zero tolerance for such behavior,” AD Warde Manual announced.

It looks like Indiana and Ohio State are going to be cleaning up in the transfer portal soon.

DISCUSS ON SG