Category: Rights

Never Justified

Anti-Gun Nannies, Rights, The Gun Thing

I see that someone in the Golden Shower State has come to their senses:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

Here’s the thing about this ridiculous law.

Quite apart from its prima facie  Constitutional illegality, the 30-day restriction just makes absolutely no sense — I mean, what are they trying to achieve (other than a broad restriction, of course)?  Are they trying to stop someone from arming a group or gang? (I know, nonsensical.)

As with all laws like this, it should be looked at as part of a whole.  What is intended is to make a thicket of laws like this so that the breaking thereof becomes an inevitability — and the side-benefit (to the anti-gunners) is that the people most likely to fall foul of this nonsense would be gun owners.  (We always talk about lawful or law-abiding gun owners, but what we sometimes forget is that to the anti-gun set, all gun owners are evil, and not just the criminals.)

Anyway, it’s gone away, and good riddance.  Best of all is that because of this ruling, it’s going to apply to any and all other states who have similar nonsense in their raft of laws;  and all that’s left is for the SAF guys bring suit in each of them.

Go to it, guys.

Side note:  I have more than one friend who won’t give money to any gun lobbying group like the NRA or even GOA.  But they give lots to the Second Amendment Foundation because Alan Gottlieb and his guys are doing the work where it matters most:  in the courts.

Think about it.

Different Strokes

Legal Stuff, Rights

…different folks.

Background:  a little while ago, this happened:

Chinese and other foreign citizens could soon be barred from purchasing homes in Texas under a bill greenlit by the Texas House on Thursday [and since signed into law by TxGov Abbot].

The measure, which passed the Republican-led chamber in a largely party-line vote, was significantly narrowed-down from the original version. Lawmakers voted to add exemptions for individuals residing in the United States legally on temporary work or student visas. Dual citizens and permanent residents are also not included in the ban.

The legislation would block any other citizens of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing homes, buying land or leasing apartments in Texas, and give the governor power to add other countries to the list.

Now, via Insty, this little development:

A pair of Chinese citizens asked a federal judge to block a new law banning Chinese nationals and people from a select number of other countries from buying or leasing property in Texas.

In a lawsuit filed July 3, Peng Wang and Qinlin Li, two Chinese citizens currently in the United States with visas, called Senate Bill 17 unconstitutional and racist.

Because of course.

Both plaintiffs said that while they plan to stay in the United States legally, they have no clear path to permanent residency and would be hurt by the law.

In its initial response to the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office argued the state was using its “police powers” to prevent foreign governments from gaining a foothold in Texas. The attorney general’s office argued that Wang and Li won’t be affected by the law because they are already in Texas lawfully and wouldn’t be prohibited from real estate transactions.

The complaint, however, argues that the law is centered around where people claim their domicile, or permanent home. People in the U.S. on student or work visas, like Li and Wang, can’t claim their home is in Texas, attorneys wrote.

That’s not the part which get up my nose, however;  it’s all legal stuff and whatever happens, happens.

Because this is the Houston Chronicle, the reported decided to provide a little “balance”, or what we conservatives would call “whataboutism”:

As of 2023, Chinese investors owned or leased about 277,336 acres of U.S. agricultural land, according to the USDA. Of that, 123,078 acres were in Texas. Most of the land was associated with wind energy investments, the agency said.

Other foreign countries own far more land in the U.S.

Canadians own or lease about 15.3 million acres of U.S. land, according to the USDA. The Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany hold a combined 13 million acres.

Yeah.  The difference, however, is that unlike the Chinese, Iranians et al., the Canadians, Dutch, Italians, Brits, and Germans aren’t likely to use the land they purchase as a springboard to cause mischief.

And a huge percentage of the land already owned by the Chinese coincidentally(?) happens to be adjoining U.S. military bases.  What are we to deduce from this little factoid?

One last thought.  Both the plaintiffs aren’t exactly wealthy:  one is a salaried employee and the other a recently-graduated student.

So I’d like to know who, exactly, is paying the costs of this lawsuit.  Let me go out on a limb here, and suggest that once you peel away all the shell organizations or individuals who purport to be paying the legal costs, the thing is being funded by the fucking Chinese government.  I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Which is the precise reason for the law in the first place.

Missed That Show

Funny Stuff, Rights

Proving that Brazil doesn’t have a First Amendment:

A Brazilian comedian has been sentenced to more than eight years in prison for telling offensive jokes.

Offensive, or really fucking funny?  I report, you decide:

“What show could be more inclusive? I even hired a sign language interpreter just to be able to offend the deaf-mute.”

And my absolute favorite:

“I’m totally against pedophilia – I’m more in favor of incest. If you’re going to abuse a child, abuse your own. What’s he going to do? Tell his dad?”

Apparently, the audience roared with laughter all through his set.  The authorities?  Not so much. He’s facing eight years in the clink.

To which I say:  “Libertem Léo Lins!“

That “86” Thing

Asshole Cops, Rights, Two-Minute Hate

A whole lot has been said about former FBI Chief Thug James Comey’s X-post featuring this picture, and his coy little observation:

Needless to say, this silliness found immediate favor with the Perpetually Indignant (Rightwing Division, even John Kass), who claimed that the “86” is code for “kill” or “assassinate”.

No it isn’t.

“86” means to dump or throw in the trash — in restaurant terms, it also means “not to mention (to customers)”, and back in my executive days, we used to use “86” to mean “forget about it” — e.g. “86 that idea, dummy”.

In other words, it’s a completely innocent term.  It does not mean anything sinister.

I don’t care that the .dotmil uses “86” to mean “kill”, either.  The military (and government, for that matter) has a long and storied history of using the English language to cover a whole panoply of ugly shit (e.g. “Terminate With Extreme Prejudice”), and I don’t care about any of that either.

Now far be it for me to come to the defense of that treacherous lizard Comey, but seriously?

Current FBI Director Kash Patel announced that his department is in communication with the Secret Service over Comey’s social media post “directed at President Trump” on X Thursday evening.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem added in her own X post that the DHS is investigating Comey’s post as well.

Noem appeared on Fox News Thursday night, saying she believes Comey “should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

“The rule of law says people like him, who issue direct threats against the president of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law,” she said.

FFS, grow up, you assholes.  Your reaction to this is actually in the dictionary, under the word “Overreaction”.  Get a clue, and stop being so hyper-sensitive.

This is just as bad as those foul pricks on the Left complaining about Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” comment.  It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now.

Yeah, I know Trump has already survived two actual assassination attempts and everyone’s hyper-sensitive about anything that might hint at another.  But wait… we’re talking about jailing someone for a fucking Twatter post?

And yet we (quite justifiably) mock the BritGov when they send the rozzers over to threaten people over Fecesbook ramblings that run afoul of the dreaded “hate speech” rules?

Fuck off, all of you — and yeah, I’m including Superhero Kash and St. Kristi here — because this is absolute bullshit.

Look, the whole “86” thing may be in poor taste;  but the last time I looked, “bad taste” is kinda protected by the First fucking Amendment.

I know, the Bill of Rights can be a somewhat inconvenient at times — the Second as much as the First, ask any gun-confiscator — but that’s the exact purpose of the Bill of Rights:  it protects us from government.

And as much as I hate to say it, that shitbird Comey gets the same protections as the rest of us, even if he himself is a prime candidate for “eighty-sixing” — i.e. should be dumped in the trash heap of history and forgotten.

Fach.

Quote Of The Day

QOTD, Rights

From some Brit:

“I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [freedom of expression] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ‘Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.”

Read this for an explanation of the above.  Then be grateful you don’t live there.  (To my several Brit Readers:  I’m sorry, folks.)

Same Here

Government Thugs, Rights, Surveillance Society

Tom Knighton has written an article which resonates with me, for obvious reasons:

By now, we’re all well aware of the Biden-era “Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” which has some very troubling language in it.

As Just the News reported earlier on Tuesday, the criteria included buying guns, being a veteran, and what was termed as “‘xenophobic’ disinformation.”

I’m a veteran and gun owner, and I was pretty critical of China during the whole pandemic, at least on social media. Now, I’m curious as to whether my own government was monitoring my lawful activity simply because I wasn’t a raging leftist loon willing to toe the progressive party line on these issues.

Was I considered a threat to become a domestic terrorist?

Anyone see any parallels between Knighton and me?  The only difference between us is that I’m a veteran of another country’s army — but I’m still a veteran.  (As for the criticism of the foul ChiComs, and buying guns:  ipse dixit.)

I have no idea what is/was meant by “xenophobic disinformation”, but if it means saying that I heartily dislike furriners who creep illegally over our borders to take jobs away from U.S. citizens, commit other crimes, engage in espionage or otherwise try to undermine our country, then I’d have to plead nolo contendere*.

Knighton goes on:

I’m sure I could file a FOIA request and find out, and part of me is considering doing just that, but another part of me would rather not know.

I do have one hint that I may be on such a list if “undesirables”:  back in 2017 (that would have been under the Obama administration), I had the dreaded “SSSS” designation appear on one of my air tickets, but it was for one flight only (among several others in that year and the year following), and Obama had only been  in  out of power for a few months at that point.

I’m fairly sure  that I was “noted” by some government apparatchik during the latter years of his presidency, and if not then, I have absolutely no doubt that I was flagged during the Biden era.

This website is my only “online presence” (no Twatter, no Fecesbook, no Instagram and certainly no ChiCom-based Tik Tok either), but over the years several of my posts have engendered (shall we say) some notoriety, and it wouldn’t take much for those to have got me noted and monitored by some DHS/FBI drone.

Anyway, my interest in such surveillance by the .gov is minimal, although I am a kindred spirit of Tom Knighton’s in that:

Finding out that I was monitored because of my views and lawful behavior might just be too much for me to tolerate, and I’m seeing too much that I’m incapable of tolerating as it is.

Amen, Brother Tom.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.  My AK-47 is feeling all neglected and stuff.

*Whole lotta Latin in this post… sorry.