The Left constantly thinks they are morally and intellectually superior to our Founding Fathers. I have a quote that will prove to disprove their feelings and their policies.
Columbus Day has brought out the nut jobs.
And the Right is finally playing by the Left’s rules.
Maybe Those Guys Weren’t Dumb
Here is a quote from John Locke:
So that, however it may be mistaken, the end (reason) of (for) law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humor might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose and order as he lists, his persons, actions, possessions, and his whole property, which the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
-John Locke
A Lot of Bitter People
We Are Finally Getting Our Footing
According to the Daily Wire:
Pro-gun organizations are suing the federal government to challenge regulations on silencers and short-barreled firearms in an attempt to parlay a legal change in the Big Beautiful Bill into a complete overhaul of longstanding restrictions on guns.
Dubbed the “Big Beautiful Lawsuit,” the suit from the Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, and other pro-gun organizations argues that the regulation of the items by the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in the wake of a legislative change.
The lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms comes in the wake of the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, which will eliminate the $200 tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, and other firearms regulated through the National Firearms Act beginning in 2026.
The suit contends that the elimination of the tax on silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and a third category referred to as “any other weapon,” removes the Constitutional justification for their inclusion in the act.
The NFA has allowed the federal government to maintain a registry of those purchasing items covered by the 1934 law for the purposes of ensuring tax compliance, but now with the tax set to be sunsetted, the justification for the federal list becomes increasingly legally flimsy.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/gun-rights-advocates-launch-big-beautiful-lawsuit-to-gut-national-firearms-act
The Leftist Threat Continues
According to NBC7 News, San Diego:
United States Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday announced criminal charges against a 69-year-old man living in San Diego who is accused of sending a threatening letter in the mail to conservative influencer Benny Johnson.
Bondi shared at a press conference held in Florida that George Russell Isbell Jr. was arrested after the United States Postal Service helped trace the letter and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents found his fingerprints on it.
According to the Department of Justice, the letter said Johnson needed to be “exterminated” and included other graphic notes about him being killed. Johnson stood next to Bondi for the press conference and said, “This individual described orphaning my four beautiful children and widowing my wife with great joy.”
Bondi said Isbell was arrested in San Diego on Friday morning, however, the DOJ press release said he was taken into custody days earlier on Oct. 7. NBC 7 reached out to the FBI San Diego spokesperson who confirmed they were the arresting agency but could not clarify the timeline because the government shutdown limits their ability to respond to media requests.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/benny-johnson-unleashes-on-dems-after-doj-arrests-man-threatening-his-assassination
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/doj-charges-san-diego-man-sending-threat-podcaster/3914015/
Maybe They Shouldn’t Be Judges
According to the New York Times:
More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.
At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.
While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.
The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.
Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.
The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.
Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.
In interviews, federal judges called the Supreme Court’s emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.” One judge compared their district’s current relationship with the Supreme Court to “a war zone.” Another said the courts were in the midst of a “judicial crisis.”
These Two Deserve Each Other
