NRA and ACLU Together At Last, Alabama Stand Your Ground and More Leftist Threats — TTAG Daily Digest

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ACLU NRA Gun Control

ACLU Sticks Up for the NRA?!

First the California bill and now this. There are apparently a few vestiges of intellectual honesty left within the ACLU . . .

The official view of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) remains that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right rather than an individual right.” But the organization nevertheless is helping the National Rifle Association (NRA) fend off extralegal attempts by New York state officials to put it out of business.

In a brief filed in federal court today, the ACLU argues that New York’s strong-arm efforts to compel banks and insurance companies to ditch the NRA as a customer represent a glaring violation of the First Amendment.

“Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business,” the ACLU says.

The ACLU’s amicus brief never says the group agrees with the NRA’s positions on firearms. Instead, the group invokes a long series of First Amendment cases to argue that the regulators should not use their power in office to punish political enemies.

We’ll take what we can get.

Washington I-1639

courtesy spokesman.com and AP

State Supreme Court orders gun control initiative back on Washington’s November ballot

Keep trying until you get the result you want . . .

Washington voters will get to vote on a gun control initiative this November after all.

The Washington Supreme Court today reversed a lower court’s decision blocking Initiative 1639 from the November ballot, ruling that Secretary of State Kim Wyman does not have the legal authority to reject it.

Gun rights advocates, including Robin Ball of Spokane’s Sharp Shooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop, challenged the validity of the petitions, contending the type on the back that spells out the entire initiative was too small to read and the changes to state law were not clearly marked with the standard process of striking out words that would be removed and underlining words that would be added.

Wyman acknowledged those problems after I-1639 supporters submitted some 378,000 signatures, but said she had no legal authority to reject them. A check of signatures later revealed the petitions had more than enough to qualify for the November ballot.

Hannah Brumbles Oregon Walmart Gun Bakery

courtesy wweek.com

Family of Oregon Teen Denied Gun by Walmart Wants Same Fine That Was Handed Down to Anti-Gay Wedding Cake Bakers

Walmart has reportedly offered her $150 . . .

An Oregon teenager who filed a discrimination complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries after Walmart refused to sell her a rifle asked for $135,000 in a settlement—the same amount an Oregon baker was fined after refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.

Hannah Brumbles, an 18-year-old Deer Island woman, filed a civil rights complaint with BOLI in April. BOLI investigators found that Walmart had violated state nondiscrimination laws and filed formal charges against the company on Aug. 21.

Her father says he wanted the same fine that was levied against a Gresham bakery that refused to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple.

“Discrimination is discrimination,” says Chris Brumbles, Hannah’s father.

Alabama woman stand your ground

courtesy vox.com and Getty

A black woman shot and killed her abusive husband in a “stand your ground” state. Now she faces murder charges.

Lots of questions here. Jacqueline Dixon had an order of protection against her husband which she reportedly enforced sporadically . . .

A black woman in Selma, Alabama, says she shot and killed her abusive husband because he charged at her and she feared for her life.

Now she’s facing a murder charge — despite living in a state with a “stand your ground” law in place, and despite a history of domestic violence, including a 2016 order of protection filed against her husband because he punched her in the face repeatedly.

The case raises questions about Second Amendment rights, particularly when it’s women — specifically women of color — who are exercising them. Just a few months ago, another case drew national attention when a black woman defended herself with a registered (and unloaded) gun but ended up in jail for it anyway.

Why We Can’t Ignore the “Militia” Clause of the Second Amendment

Gun-rights advocates often fixate on the second half of the amendment, claiming that the phrase about a militia is just something that provides a reasoning for the second phrase. Many opponents of gun control even suggest that the only phrase here of key importance is “shall not be infringed.”

Looking at the debates surrounding the Second Amendment and military power at the end of the eighteenth century, however, we find that the authors of the Second Amendment had a more sophisticated vision of gun ownership than is often assumed.

Fearful that a large federal military could be used to destroy the freedoms of the states themselves, Anti-Federalists and other Americans fearful of centralized power in the US government designed the Second Amendment accordingly. It was designed to guarantee that the states would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power, and as a means of keeping a defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government.

This grew out of what was a well-established opposition to standing armies among Americans in the late eighteenth century.

Alexander Micah Cohen TPUSA Threat Bomb FBI Arrested

courtesy abc7news.com

Man Arrested For Threatening To ‘Shoot’ and ‘Blow Up’ TPUSA High School Leadership Summit

The forces of tolerance continue to show us exactly who and what they really are . . .

An Illinois man was arrested last month for threatening to “shoot” and “blow up” Turning Point USA’s High School Leadership Summit at George Washington University, ABC7 reports.

28-year-old Alexander Micah Cohen tweeted a photo of a man with a baseball bat wrapped in what appears to be barbed wire, writing, “On my way to #HSLS2018 to greet the nice conservative teenagers.” Another tweet reportedly said: “I’m riding through D.C. [to] go and shoot GWU up … We gon’ come and blow GWU up.”

A parent of an attendee reportedly saw the tweet and notified the FBI, launching an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department. The police reportedly also worked with Twitter to identify Cohen due to the threatening language of the tweet.

 

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    You missed best news: Anti-gun senator John McCain is no more.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      He was such a bad person.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        No, he was a great person, but a horrible politician. He could have walked out of the Hanoi Hilton but he stayed. That not only made him a war hero but a great person as well. Of course, he got a little confused about what the parties were supposed to stand for when he ran for public office…

        Probably should have been a Demoncrat.

        1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          “No, he was a great person, but a horrible politician.”

          He was a horrible person too. Member of the Keating Five, crashed a couple of fighter jets due to negligence and only escaped punishment due to family influence, cheated on his wives, accepting donations(bribes) from George Soros and people and governments just as evil, urged top IRS officials like Lois Lerner to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous”

          https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch/status/1009928105421615105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

          among other things.

        2. avatar Guardiano says:

          May he RIP (Rest In Piss)

        3. avatar RichManPoor says:

          The Hanoi song bird. Really wish his demise would have come 30 years ago.

        4. avatar CC says:

          He was hardly a “great person.”
          – He could not have “walked out of Hanoi Hilton” without breaking the UCMJ .
          – Also the moment he got back he divorced the wife who waited for him the whole time, and who had cancer for a woman from a multi millionaire family to bankroll his poltical ambitions.
          – He was corrupt to the core, getting more money and having his in-laws KEEP more money from the Keating five rip off. That was literally money stolen from widows and orphans.
          – Staff who worked for him considered him the nastiest most vindictive guy on the HiIl
          – HE is the one who insisted on Palin. He blamed his staff but it was HIS mercurial impulsive move. showing he had bad judgement*AND habitually blamed others for his bad judgement.

          * (I am not a Palin hater, she was unfairly vilified by the press, but I do think she was not qualified)

        5. avatar bryan1980 says:

          He seems to get a pass for all of his later misdeeds because of his wartime service. But, there were a lot of guys in the Hanoi Hilton (Sam Johnson, for one) who went through the same horrors and led respectable lives afterwards. Being that he had brain cancer, I have to wonder how long he had that tumor, and how it could have affected his judgement.

          Then there’s the whole “Maverick” thing. The media gave him that name, only because poked a stick in the eye of his party (and the people who put him in office) every time he could. If a democrat had done the same thing, the label would have been “traitor”.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      They did not call him Crash McCain for nothing.
      I have at least read that he did not follow attack procedures then his A4 went down and screwed himself up on ejecting because he did not follow procedures on that either.
      Yeah, I know crap happens in the wild blue yonder but I had two uncles in the USAAF and they had better records piloting their planes in the face of the Lutwaffe than the Maverick did.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Speaking of good ole Maverick McGoober,he picked that moniker up because of his Leftist leanings in a supposed conservative party,RINO.

        1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          So he outed himself as controlled opposition and no one listened. Sad…

  2. avatar New Continental Army says:

    A liberal wants to shoot/blow up a school full of innocent children? Color me surprised. Another typical liberal showing his true colors.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    I hope the Oregon teen gets a big cash settlement. My only hope is a pro-2A Senator gets appointed to fill the RINO seat in Arizona…and quickly. RIP

    1. avatar Tennbud says:

      His wife will be the appointee. NOT exactly what we need.

      1. avatar How_Terrible says:

        I can’t help but feel that you commented on the wrong conversation.

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          No, he’s right. Every report I’ve heard is that Ducey will appoint Cindy McCCain to fill out the rest of her husband’s term. In addition, under AZ state law, since John McCain made past May 31, 2018 she won’t have to have a special election to contend with. The seat will be hers until Jan 2023.

          Lets just pray that she caucuses with the Republicans.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          AH!! I guess we now know why he did not resign! Thanx, JR, I was wondering.

      2. avatar m. says:

        douche gets to pick a rino replacement, reflecting the will of the AZ voters no doubt

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “I hope the Oregon teen gets a big cash settlement.”

      So do I, but as I understand the BATF policy on gun sales, an FFL can refuse a firearm sale to anyone, for nearly any reason.

      Or is this in error?

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        They are a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer. In 1968 the federal government made FFL’s the gate keepers for adult Americans to exercise an enumerated right in the bill of rights. For an FFL to deny an adult the ability to exercise that right for arbitrary and subjective reasons is a gross civil rights violation even more so than the “cake case”. She wasn’t “acting funny” or saying “odd things”. She didn’t smell like weed or act intoxicated or under the influence. There was no reasonable justification to deny her the exercize of her rights other than, “We think this legal adult American citizen is too young to exercize her constitutionally protected rights.”

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Bake the damn cake. Sell the damn gun.

        2. avatar cc says:

          The case against Walmart has nothing to d with it being an enumerated right.

          Walmart is able to say: “the sales person,/manager did not feel right about this person for some reason>’ and that would be 100% legal to refuse an FFL transaction. Any FFL can 100% refuse to sell you any gun on “feeling.” You can go on about enumerated rights, but this does not change the fact.

          What the FFL cannot say is that they are basing refusal on a recognized class in the local, state or federal anti discrimination laws. The can say “the person was acting strangely”, dressed slovenly, or any ambiguous thing they choose — they just can’t say they refused due to gender, age, race, etc.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          cc, you are neglecting the fact that WalMart *announced* that they would discontinue sales to otherwise legal individuals under the age of 21, in accordance with currently popular virtue signaling, and ignoring the law. This had nothing to do with this young lady, her appearance, her accomplishments, or anything else. If I had any kids under 21, I’d probably go for it as well.

      2. avatar Sora says:

        You don’t have RIGHT to have someone MAKE you a cake for EVENT of your choice. You have Right to purchase a gun. And imagine if the Walmart said “Won’t sell guns to Muslims because they hate gays and shot up gay clubs.”

        Hmmm…

        1. avatar m. says:

          f your mfng cake: i don’t have to deal with, recognize, respect, or even acknowledge your existence because you are part of a “protected” class. those who feel they are entitled to have their hind-end kissed can use their own lips.

        2. avatar cc says:

          You have Right to purchase a gun

          NO. The case law shows the FFL can refuse simply because they don’t like your attitude. That is totally legal and hte FFL does not have to prove you have a bad attitude. What they can’t do is state that the reason they refused is that you belong to a protected class (depending on state: race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, sometimes age, etc)

      3. avatar cc says:

        So do I, but as I understand the BATF policy on gun sales, an FFL can refuse a firearm sale to anyone, for nearly any reason.
        Or is this in error?

        you are mainly correct. An FFL can refuse to sell and cannot be compelled to — UNLESS the reason they state is in that state a protected class (eg, gender, national origin, race, age, sexual orientation, etc)

        It is 100% legal for an FFl to refuse to sell a gun to ANYONE, and state they do not feel comfortable selling to that person, or have some ambiguous suspicion.

        What the FFL can NOT state as their reason in a state with anti discrimination laws is that their refusal of business traction is based on a protective class reason: eg I don’t want to sell to a Catholic person, a black person, a gay person or an adult of a certain age if age is included in the state anti-dsictriminaiton laws.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        A decision by a chain retailer cannot possibly be considered the same thing as a refusal by an FFL. That is just stupid. Anyhow, just keep them in court for a while, at least, there needs to be a price. And that girl rocks, as does her Dad!

  4. avatar tinhats says:

    Should have happened weeks or months ago when he was no longer capable of fulfilling his duties. Maybe even a year ago. Now it’s playing catch up. Shame on him for not resigning a year ago.

    1. avatar JR Pollock says:

      If he resigned a year ago, Arizona would have to contend with 2 elections this November. One to elect Flake’s replacement, and the other, a special election to determine who would fulfill the remainder of McCain’s term.

      South Carolina managed to pull it off in 2014, with Scott running in his special election, and Graham running for re-election, and both republicans won, but Arizona isn’t South Carolina, and chances are, one of the two victors would have been a democrat. AZ might have great gun laws, but they’re kinda purple-ish politically.

  5. avatar CZJay says:

    Why do we need a militia if we have the police and National Guard? Those men had no clue what they were talking about. Go Army! Go Marines!

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      Not sure if trolling…

    2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      @ CZJay

      Cause the National Guard wouldn’t know how to take all the blue out of your neighborhood overnight.

    3. avatar California Richard says:

      The police and national guard don’t have enough depth to resist a tyranical federal government or standing army. They are too easy to identify and are too conventional. Levy en mass of an entire state’s population is enough to deter any military.

    4. avatar Danny338 says:

      The National Guard is not the militia, nor are the police. The people are the militia. Which is why the second half of the second amendment says “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If the people (individuals) have to ask PERMISSION from any level of government to own or possess a weapon, then there is no militia.

    5. avatar cc says:

      Why do we need a militia if we have the police and National Guard?

      Back to school. Police are not a militia under any definition. and national guard are part of the US standing army under US law, and therefore NOT a militia

  6. avatar Timothy k Toroian says:

    I will refer you to September 9, 1789, when the Senate, during debate on the Bill of Rights, VOTED IN THE NEGATIVE, meaning against, inserting the words, “for the common defense” after the words “to bear arms” in what at the time was the 4th amendment but became the 2nd amendment when the states ratified the Bill. Google Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 789-1793, Wednesday, September 9, 1789. As far as I and others are concerned that shoots the crap out ANY argument that the amendment is a collective rather than individual right. That is irrespective of the fact that of the 7 other relative amendments are protective of the individual. Nine and ten protect the individual but are instructions for the federal and the state governments regarding those protections.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Early drafts also had restrictions on age, criminal history and alleged insanity. Dropped for a reason.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I believe that at the time, the notion of the RKBA as an individual right was pretty much unquestioned, but the ‘militia clause’ was inserted to clarify that the states also had the right to raise their own militia, independent of the federal government in order to check the power of the federal government. But then they had no idea what a leviathan the federal government would become over the next couple of centuries.

      So being both an individual right and a states right, the words ‘shall not be infringed’ applies to both. The federal (or state) government(s) do not have the constitutionally granted authority to infringe on your personal right to keep and bear arms, nor does the federal government have the authority to interfere with state militias.

      1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

        Say it with me…

        States DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. States have POWERS, ordained to them BY THE PEOPLE.

        The 2nd Amendment states that the Right of The People…shall not be infringed. It does not state that the Right of The Militia… shall not be infringed.

        Furthermore, the ‘common’ National Guard is part of the Federal Government, and is NOT a state militia (there exists a State National Guard as well), and as such, is as much a ‘Federal Standing Army’ that the Founding Fathers were concerned about as any. The 1903 Militia Act (A Federal Law) created both an Organized and Unorganized Militia, and the Unorganized Militia explicitly excludes members of the National Guard.

        This Law mandates every able bodied ‘man’ from 17 to 45 to be part of some form of militia – whether organized or unorganized. Therefore, raising the age to 21 to purchase a firearm is, By Law, a violation of the 2nd Amendment, per the 1903 Militia Act.

        So, regardless of the reading of the 2nd Amendment as a ‘collective right’ (what is a collective right????) only to those in a militia, or an individual (aka, ‘The People’) right, there exists, in law, the requirement that neither the federal government, nor the States, may ‘infringe’ on that right. I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand why these arguments are not held in court. As has been discussed, the 2nd Amendment has rarely been successfully used as a defense. Supreme Court Justice Thomas has it correct – the 2nd Amendment is treated as a Second Class Right, if a Right at all, and THAT is a travesty.

        Make no mistake – no Government – Federal, State, or Local, have RIGHTS. They have Powers. Maybe a subtle difference, but it is significant.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Correction; both an individual right and a states’ power.

          The federal government is authorized by the Constitution to raise and maintain an army and there’s no reason to believe that wouldn’t include a reserve/auxiliary force, so the National Guard is a constitutional entity, just not under the Second Amendment. The 2A authorizes the states to maintain militias independent of the federal government, which is how it used to be before the militias were taken over by the federal government to make the National Guard.

  7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Oh, the American Social Justice League just calculated that they could look more righteous siding with people with a mental health history, who aren’t Andrew Cuomo. (Does he realize he’s advocating to ban himself?)

    With that “Um, maybe not the state arbitrarily taking guns away from people?”, the American Social Justice League may find themselves with a problem with their new policy, charter, and constituency.

    Some of us have been dinging them for years now for morphing into advocates for Social Justice through more state power. They went public with it, what, earlier this year? Their mission is *social justice* not *civil liberties* said it right on the revised governing docs, and promoted it.

    Sure, take the assist on the issue, like when they one-time joined with the EFF on an information / data security exercise. Don’t think they’ve changed their agenda or preferences.

    1. avatar Guardiano says:

      You’re 100% correct. I believe their main concern here is that if Cuomo’s behavior is allowed to stand, Republican governors could do similar things to organizations like Planned Murderhood etc.

  8. avatar Mr Lizard says:

    “A parent of an attendee reportedly saw the tweet and notified the FBI, launching an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department. The police reportedly also worked with Twitter to identify Cohen due to the threatening language of the tweet”

    Meanwhile the Parkland shooter had over 20 interactions with local cops and was reported to the FBI. It sure as hell looks like the FEDS knew exactly what he would do and put some kind of code in his file so that the he would never actually be arrested.

  9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    A $135,000 settlement against Walmart would go a long way toward ending all this silliness.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Walmart as a matter of corporate policy never settles. The alleged offer was generous by WalMart standards. There was a case in California where WalMart appealed a judgment for $100 against it, tactics that cost it dearly in sanctions for its frivolous appeal.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        This would be a good case to slowly wind its way through the state court system of Oregon, where she’s sure to lose, before going to SCOTUS . Maybe Ginzberg will be dead by then.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      “Discrimination is discrimination,” says Chris Brumbles, Hannah’s father.
      You go girl!

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    “There are apparently a few vestiges of intellectual honesty left within the ACLU”

    No, there aren’t. The ACLU is a bunch of commies with their own agenda.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      American Communist Lawyers Union

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      “Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business,” the ACLU says.

      Well if the NRA can be targeted and shot down, then the ACLU might be next is their thinking?

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      They’re just afraid this precedent will eventually bite their fundraising efforts in states with conservative governors as they press the envelope further.

  11. avatar Ing says:

    Washington state is hosed. Against Seattle’s metastasizing progressive mass and the nexus of billionaires feeding it, the remaining citizens of this once liberal state — in the good sense of the word, not the totalitarian SJW sense — have no chance.

    We’re the progressive left’s test bed for the methods they’re going to use against all the freedom-minded states where Democrats have a strong foothold.

    Having taken too many losses at the federal level (and having seen how their demands for “action” only spur more gun ownership), the progressive left is getting smart and using its big money as a powerful wedge against smaller targets.

    There’s no need for the central government to take rights away if you can convince a majority to preemptively give them away instead, one state at a time.

    If your state has an open citizen-initiative process and a sizable progressive hive, get ready — you’re going to see this coming your way. Maine and Nevada know what I’m talking about.

    1. avatar dph says:

      This, so much this. Washington is so screwed, as are most states with a few major population centers. Seattle and to a lesser extent Tacoma, Everett and Vancouver pretty much decide what will happen in the formerly great state of Washington.

  12. avatar K2 says:

    The most important phrase in the 2nd Amendment is: “the Right of the People.” This phrases is used three times in the in the Consitution in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. No on argues the 1st and 4th Amendments are declaring individuals rights, so why would the same men who wrote and ratified these amendments mean for the Second Amendment to be a state/collective right?

    Also it should be noted, the original proposed text of the 2nd Amendment is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” So in the final version of the 2nd Amendment the meaning of the word “State” is country, not individual states.

    1. avatar JR Pollock says:

      From the reading I’ve done, it wasn’t until 1905 when the Supreme Court of Kansas declared this “collective right” foolishness. Up until then, it had always been understood to be an individual right.

      1. avatar K2 says:

        I wouldn’t doubt the local court in Salina and later the KS Supreme Court were heavily influenced by the socialistic Populist Party politics of the 1890s. Socialists of all stripes from Communist to Fascists want a disarmed populations that lack the means to resist.

  13. avatar FedUp says:

    Remember Francine Burning Bed Hughes?
    When she got tired of being a punching bag, she burned her husband to death in his sleep.
    Feminists around the country rallied to her cause, NOW provided the best legal outcome money could buy, she was found innocent and Farrah Fawcett made a movie celebrating her violence.

    A couple years later, in the same state Hughes made husband flambe, a black woman shot her husband to death WHILE HE WAS BEATING HER. He had her pinned to the sofa, she had no way to escape, so she reached behind the sofa and grabbed a revolver.
    Unlike Hughes, she was convicted and went to prison. Every aspect of the killing was more in the defendant’s favor than in the Hughes case. So, was she convicted because she was black, because she wasn’t famous, or because the ignorant think guns are more icky than burning to death?

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Maybe a little bit of everything. White on black racism still exists, even though black on white racism is far more prevalent. Also, because guns.

  14. avatar Gralnok says:

    If the woman shot the husband in self defense, then it doesn’t matter what her skin color is. She stood her ground, good for her. We should be uniting and coming to her aid.

  15. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Rest in Peace John McCain.
    Everyone breaks under torture.
    Rest.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email