When a Long Island Housewife Handed Out Arsenic to Kids on Halloween

H/T Mental Floss.

The darkside of Halloween.

This Halloween procession in Massachusetts was poison-free.
This Halloween procession in Massachusetts was poison-free.

On October 31, 1964, 13-year-old Elsie Drucker and her 15-year-old sister Irene returned to their Long Island home after an evening of trick-or-treating and dumped their spoils onto the table. Among the assortment of bite-sized sweets were two items that looked like bottle caps and bore the warning: “Poison. Keep away from children and animals.”

It wasn’t an ill-conceived, Halloween-themed marketing ploy—the tablets were “ant buttons,” which contained arsenic and could help rid a house of insects and other pests. They could also seriously threaten the life of any small child who accidentally swallowed one.

Alarmed, the girls’ father called the police.


The authorities notified the community, and people immediately began spreading the word and inspecting their own candy bags, unearthing another 19 ant buttons around town. Meanwhile, Elsie and Irene helped the police trace the toxic treats to 43 Salem Ridge Drive, where a 47-year-old housewife named Helen Pfeil lived with her husband and children.about:blank

Once other trick-or-treaters confirmed that Pfeil had indeed doled out the poison—and police discovered empty boxes of ant buttons in her kitchen—she was arrested. Fortunately, none of her would-be victims ingested any hazardous material, which meant that Pfeil was only charged with child endangerment. If convicted, however, she could still face prison time.

At her arraignment on November 2, Pfeil tried to explain to a baffled courtroom that she “didn’t mean it maliciously.” After having spent most of Halloween bestowing actual candy on costumed kids, Pfeil had started to feel like some of them should’ve already aged out of the activity.

“Aren’t you a little old to be trick-or-treating?” she had asked the Druckers, according to the New York Post.

So Pfeil had assembled unsavory packages of ant buttons, dog biscuits, and steel wool, and dropped those into the bags of anyone she deemed “a little old” to be trick-or-treating. She maintained that it was a joke, and her husband, Elmer, reiterated her claim to reporters at the courthouse. While she had been “terribly thoughtless and she may have used awfully bad judgment,” he said, she hadn’t planned to cause harm. Elmer himself wasn’t in on the scheme; at the time, he had been out trick-or-treating with their two sons—who, ironically, were both teenagers.

Her spouse may have been sympathetic, but Judge Victor Orgera was not. “It is hard for me to understand how any woman with sense or reason could give this to a child,” he said, and ordered her to spend 60 days in a psychiatric hospital.


The following April, Pfeil went on trial in Riverhead, New York, and switched her plea from “Not guilty” to “Guilty” when proceedings were already underway. With about two months until her sentencing date—and the possibility of up to two years in prison looming overhead—Pfeil’s neighbors got busy writing character references to send to the judge.

Though Judge Thomas M. Stark was just as bewildered by Pfeil’s indiscretion as everyone else, the letters convinced him that she was not a danger to society, and he suspended her sentence. “I don’t understand why she had done such a stupid thing as this,” Stark said, “but I feel incarceration is not the answer.”

So Pfeil got off with nothing more than a guilty conscience, and Long Island teenagers continued to pound the pavement for Halloweens to come. But the misguided ruse did scare at least one child into giving it up forever: Little Elsie Drucker never went trick-or-treating again.

12 Sweet-and-Chewy Facts About Tootsie Rolls

H/T Mental Floss.

Some Tootsie Rolls Trivia.


No Halloween candy haul is complete without them. Invented in 1896 by a Brooklyn food tinkerer, Tootsie Rolls have become one of the most ubiquitous sweet treats in the world, with tens of millions produced every day. Here, we unwrap a few choice facts about the storied brand.


The official story goes that the inventor of Tootsie Rolls, Leo Hirschfield, sold them out of his Brooklyn candy shop before signing over his creation to (and taking a job with) candy manufacturer Stern & Saalberg Co. There’s evidencethat shows the candy store story may have been just that—a story—and that Hirschfield was actually an employee of Stern & Saalberg all along. In any case, Hirschfield named his individually wrapped treats in honor of his 5-year-old daughter Clara, whose nickname was “Tootsie.”


Hirschfield is also credited with inventing Bromangelon, the first commercially successful gelatin dessert. Boxes of the powder sold for around 10 cents, and came in flavors like raspberry, cherry and orange.


The U.S. military valued them a source of “quick energy,” and because they wouldn’t melt in hot weather or go bad over time. In at least one instance they proved to be life-saving: A pilot whose plane was shot down over the Sahara sustained himself on Tootsie Rolls for three days.


Shortly after the invention of the Tootsie Pop in 1931, a rumor began to spread that wrappers featuring a drawing of an Indian shooting an arrow at a star could be redeemed for a free Tootsie Pop. Apparently some stores honored the giveaway, allowing the notion to persist for decades despite the fact Tootsie Roll Industries never sanctioned it. The company, which says that roughly one out of every five wrappers has the drawing, has refuted the rumor, and even came up with a “Legend of the Indian Wrapper” story to entertain customers. And yet the company still receives letters every week from people demanding free Tootsie Pops.


Surrounded by Chinese and North Korean forces at the Chosin Reservoirin 1950, the 15,000-man First Marine Division radioed for an airdrop of “Tootsie Rolls”—the Marine codename for mortar shells. What they got instead were boxes of the real thing. Turns out, though, that the candy boosted morale and kept the Marines going through the subzero temperatures. It also provided one other critical function: Soldiers discovered that chewed-up Tootsie Rolls could patch the holes in their vehicles’ fuel lines, allowing the division to leave their vulnerable position.


According to dead-celebrity expert Alan Petrucelli, Ol’ Blue Eyes is buried with them along with a few other choice effects, including cigarettes, a lighter, and a bottle of Jack Daniels.


Ellen Gordon, 83, who now runs the company after her husband, Melvin, passed away earlier this year, was featured inLife magazine ad when she was 18. Her father, William Rubin, was CEO of the company at the time.


Truly one of the more cringe-worthy superheroes of American comics, Captain Tootsie was a buff blonde lad who undertook odd adventures with kids (like killing bears and punching out bank-robbing cavemen), all while toting around a yellow man-bag full of Tootsie Rolls. First published in 1943, the comics ran as standalone issues and in newspapers for nearly a decade.


Tootsie Roll Industry’s iconic ad, which first ran in 1970, asked, “How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?” For years, fans have responded with their own assessments, typically in the high hundreds. Researchers at Purdue University and the University of Michigan, meanwhile, took a more scientific approach. Using special licking machines modeled after the human tongue, both teams entered into a Big 10 showdown. The Purdue bunch came up with 364, while Michigan put up 411. So is the true answer somewhere between those numbers? The world may never know.


That’s more than 44,440 per minute, or roughly 740 per second.


Under Melvin Gordon’s leadership beginning in 1962, Tootsie Roll Industries gobbled up a slew of competitors like Dots, Crows, Charms, Sugar Daddy, Junior Mints and Charleston Chew. In 2000, they bought Andes Mints, and in 2004 Tootsie bought Concord Confections, makers of Dubble Bubble.


Tootsie Roll Industries saw tremendous growth throughout most of Gordon’s tenure. But sales have slid in recent years as the candy industry has evolved, and lately the company has been acting a bit too old fashioned for investors’ liking. This has prompted many investors and analysts to wonder how many more licks it can take before selling.

15 Spooky Halloween Traditions, and Their Origins

H/T Mental Floss.

Some more Halloween trivia.

EEI_Tony/iStock via Getty Images

Trick-or-treating, Jack-O’-Lanterns, and creepy costumes are some of the best traditions of Halloween. Share these sweet facts with friends as you sort through your candy haul.




Jack-O’-Lanterns, which originated in Ireland using turnips instead of pumpkins, are supposedly based on a legend about a man name Stingy Jack who repeatedly trapped the Devil and only let him go on the condition that Jack would never go to Hell. When he died, however, Jack learned that Heaven didn’t really want his soul either, so he was condemned to wander the Earth as a ghost for all eternity. The Devil gave Jack a lump of burning coal in a carved-out turnip to light his way. Eventually, locals began carving frightening faces into their own gourds to scare off evil spirits.


Celtic people believed that during the festival Samhain, which marked the transition to the new year at the end of the harvest and beginning of the winter, spirits walked the Earth. Later, the introduction of All Souls Day on November 2 by Christian missionaries perpetuated the idea of a mingling between the living and the dead around the same time of year.


With all these ghosts wandering around the Earth during Samhain, the Celts had to get creative to avoid being terrorized by evil spirits. To fake out the ghosts, people would don disguises so they would be mistaken for spirits themselves and left alone.




There is a lot of debate around the origins of trick-or-treating. One theory proposes that during Samhain, Celtic people would leave out food to placate the souls and ghosts and spirits traveling the Earth that night. Eventually, people began dressing up as these otherworldly beings in exchange for similar offerings of food and drink.


Other researchers speculate that the candy bonanza stems from the Scottish practice of guising, itself a secular version of souling. In the Middle Ages, soulers, usually children and poor adults, would go to local homes and collect food or money in return for prayers said for the dead on All Souls’ Day. Guisers ditched the prayers in favor of non-religious performances like jokes, songs, or other “tricks.”


Some sources argue that our modern trick-or-treating stems from belsnickling, a tradition in German-American communities where children would dress in costume and then call on their neighbors to see if the adults could guess the identities of the disguised guests. In one version of the practice, the children were rewarded with food or other treats if no one could identify them.




The association of black cats and spookiness actually dates all the way back to the Middle Ages, when these dark kitties were considered a symbol of the Devil. It didn’t help the felines’ reputations when, centuries later, accused witches were often found to have cats, especially black ones, as companions. People started believing that the cats were a witch’s “familiar”—animals that gave them an assist with their dark magic—and the two have been linked ever since.


This game traces its origins to a courting ritual that was part of a Roman festival honoring Pomona, the goddess of agriculture and abundance. Multiple variations existed, but the gist was that young men and women would be able to foretell their future relationships based on the game. When the Romans conquered the British Isles, the Pomona festival was blended with the similarly timed Samhain, a precursor to Halloween.


The classic Halloween colors can also trace their origins back to the Celtic festival Samhain. Black represented the “death” of summer while orange is emblematic of the autumn harvest season.


As a phenomenon that often varies by region, the pre-Halloween tradition, also known as “Devil’s Night”, is credited with a different origin depending on whom you ask. Some sources say that pranks were originally part of May Day celebrations. But Samhain, and eventually All Souls Day, seem to have included good-natured mischief. When Scottish and Irish immigrants came to America, they brought along the tradition of celebrating Mischief Night as part of Halloween, which was great for candy-fueled pranksters.




These days, candles are more likely than towering traditional bonfires, but for much of the early history of Halloween, open flames were integral in lighting the way for souls seeking the afterlife.


People have been coating fruit in sugar syrups as a means of preservation for centuries. Since the development of the Roman festival of Pomona, the goddess often represented by and associated with apples, the fruit has had a place in harvest celebrations. But the first mention of candy apples being given out at Halloween didn’t occur until the 1950s.


It’s likely that bats were present at the earliest celebrations of proto-Halloween, not just symbolically but literally. As part of Samhain, the Celts lit large bonfires, which attracted insects. The insects, in turn, attracted bats, which soon became associated with the festival. Medieval folklore expanded upon the spooky connotation of bats with a number of superstitions built around the idea that bats were the harbingers of death.




The act of going door-to-door for handouts has long been a part of Halloween celebrations. But until the middle of the 20th century, the “treats” kids received were not necessarily candy. Toys, coins, fruit, and nuts were just as likely to be given out. The rise in the popularity of trick-or-treating in the 1950s inspired candy companies to make a marketing push with small, individually wrapped confections. People obliged out of convenience, but candy didn’t dominate at the exclusion of all other treats until parents started fearing anything unwrapped in the 1970s.


According to some stories, a candymaker at the Wunderlee Candy Company in Philadelphia invented the revolutionary tri-color candy in the 1880s. The treats didn’t become a widespread phenomenon until another company brought the candy to the masses in 1898. At the time, candy corn was called Chicken Feed and sold in boxes with the slogan “Something worth crowing for.” Originally just autumnal candy because of corn’s association with harvest time, candy corn became Halloween-specific when trick-or-treating rose to prominence in the U.S. in the 1950s.

America’s Least-Popular Halloween Candy Will Never Go Away

H/T Atlas Obscura.

Candy corn either you love it or you hate it but it is here to stay.

The waxy little treat continues to sell by the billions.

How Donald Duck and, Peanuts Saved, Trick-or-Treating

H/T History.com.

A little Halloween trivia.


“It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”, 1966. (Credit: CBS/AF Archive/Alamy Stock Photo)

Today, it’s hard to imagine a Halloween not filled with doorbells, costumes, and treats. In 2016 Americans spent $8.4 billion on the holiday. But while trick-or-treating is many children’s favorite pastime, it hasn’t been a pastime for all that long. The tradition didn’t make its way to North America until the 1920s and 30s, first taking root in the West. Almost as quickly as the tradition started, it was nearly derailed. It took the combined efforts of cartoons, comics and candy manufacturers to resurrect trick-or-treating after World War II and make it what it is today.

Not only did World War II bring unspeakable death and destruction to the world, it also affected the goods and services available to civilians at home. In an effort to help alleviate hoarding, price hikes—and angry citizens—the Office of Price Administration printed War Ration Books with stamps that were used in exchange for goods. Sugar was the first consumer commodity to be rationed, as one-third of American sugar imports came from the Japanese occupied Philippines. War Ration Book Number One—nicknamed the “Sugar Book”—was handed out on May 4, 1942. With deep cuts to sugar allowances (half a pound a week, 50 percent less than pre-war consumption levels), it came as no surprise that children’s Halloween celebrations had to be adjusted.

In an effort to ration sugar, coupons from the War Ration Books assured a just distribution of the nation's sugar supply to all, July 1942. (Credit: Anthony Potter Collection/Getty Images)
In an effort to ration sugar, coupons from the War Ration Books assured a just distribution of the nation’s sugar supply to all, July 1942. (Credit: Anthony Potter Collection/Getty Images)

When sugar rationing finally came to an end in June 1947, the commercialization of Halloween took off. Candy companies like Curtiss and Brach wasted no time in launching their Halloween advertising campaigns. But it wasn’t just candy companies that had stock in the reemergence of these festive celebrations. As early as fall 1947, the children’s magazines Jack and Jill and Children’s Activities both featured trick-or-treating in their October issues.

The iconic comic trip Peanuts joined in on the fun four years later when they ran three Halloween-themed strips from October 29 – October 31, 1951. Charles Schulz drew his iconic characters in ghost costumes, preparing for “Halloween ghosting.” Patty even used Charlie Brown as the model for her jack-o’-lantern carving. These comic strips helped spread the popularity of Halloween.

VIDEO: Donald Duck – Trick or Treat (Credit: Laser Time & Disney)

The following year, Disney also re-popularized trick-or-treating with an eight-minute short film that showed youngsters exactly how it was done. The short, Donald Duck – Trick or Treat, opens on Witch Hazel flying on a broomstick named Beelzebub. She watches as Huey, Dewey and Louie trot up to their Uncle Donald Duck’s house, all wearing costumes and carrying bags to collect the apple-of-their-eye, candy. Uncle Donald, however, is more interested in tricks than the treats, and places firecrackers in each of his nephew’s bags, which explode. Witch Hazel witnesses the whole event and decides to help the kids. The rest of the cartoon shows a battle between Witch Hazel and the nephews versus Donald Duck, as each tries to out trick the other. Kids worldwide could now see exactly how to trick AND treat.

By 1952, the tradition of trick-or-treating was firmly established, and grew in size every year since. In addition to television and magazines, schools began reinforcing the trick-or-treat tradition, when the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) launched a national campaign to raise money for children in 1950. They handed out cardboard boxes for kids to take with them while trick-or-treating. The kids were told to ask for any spare coins when collecting their candy, a tradition that has proved quite lucrative, raising more than $175 million for the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.

Searching CNN for ‘Bobulinski,’ The Biden Whistleblower, Turns Up Zero Results

H/T Western Journal.

It is no big shock that nothing comes up when you search the drive-by media for Bobulinski.

A search of the name of former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski unearths zero results on the CNN website as the establishment media continues to suppress the Biden family corruption scandal.

That scandal first broke in the early morning hours of Oct. 14 when the New York Post first reported on a trove of files recovered from a hard drive once belonging to Hunter Biden.

In a scandal of its own right, the information was immediately suppressed by Big Tech companies Facebook and Twitter.

On Twitter, the story’s URL couldn’t even be shared via private message for a period of time. As of Wednesday, the New York Post Twitter account remained locked.

The files reported by the Post implicated Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in his son’s foreign business dealings, and have since been corroborated and expounded upon by multiple additional reports from numerous credible news agencies.

Additionally, on Tuesday evening, Bobulinski, the man who claims with evidence that he was an integral part of the Biden family’s reported corrupt business practices, joined Fox News host Tucker Carlson for a long interview in which he presented a credible accounting of the story.

As Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel pointed out in a Twitter post on Wednesday, the establishment media completely ignored the story on morning broadcasts.


The find isn’t surprising, as the story is potentially damaging to Biden’s campaign with less than a week until the Nov. 3 election.

But what is truly an assault on journalism and an insult to voters, is that Bobulinski’s story is also being surpressed online by the establishment media.

ABC NewsCBS NewsNBC News and MSNBC News have all failed to cover the shocking interview between Bobulinski and Carlson, in which the former naval officer recounted, with great detail, the Biden family’s reported corruption as well as his alleged meeting with Biden at a hotel in California in 2017.

The above news agencies made not one mention of the interview on television broadcasts or online.

Using a search of the word “Bobulinski” on each network’s website, the last time any of the companies published a story with Bobulinski’s name was in reference to last week’s final presidential debate, in which the man was a guest of President Donald Trump.

But in case you were wondering where CNN stands on the bombshell corruption story, the network has gone a step further than its liberal news peers, and even Silicon Valley.

A search of CNN’s website on Wednesday turned up absolutely no results for the word “Bobulinski.”

Those searching for reporting about the former Biden family pivot man on Chinese business are met with a message that reads, “Your search for Bobulinski did not match any documents.”


You wouldn’t expect the establishment media to cover the reported Biden scandal, or Bobulinski’s account of his time with the family, with any enthusiasm.

But the fact that the story is being completely ignored by almost the entire national media is a forever stain on journalistic integrity.

Despite attempts to squash the story, its legs are growing.

The story is credible, backed up by corroborating evidence from multiple reports and sources and even a man and military veteran speaking on the record with apparent intricate knowledge of a presidential candidate’s reported corruption.

Still, the mainstream media outlets have turned a blind eye to the story, and to Bobulinski, despite years of false reporting on smears of Trump.

The entire establishment media apparatus is guilty of attempting to hide the scandal from voters, but the fact that CNN has gone to such lengths to cover it up by not reporting on a single angle with regard to Bobulinski shows its contempt for voters — and the American democratic process.

CNN and the rest of the country’s leftist media, as Twitter did two weeks ago, have crossed an ethical line of no return.

Journalists have an obligation to report facts to their audiences, and it is a fact that the Democrats’ candidate for president is being credibly implicated in one of the most shocking corruption scandals in modern political history.

But the liberal media outlets, especially CNN, have collectively decided to ignore the scandal in an act of either censorship, voter suppression, or both.

As a result, Biden gets to cower in his Delaware estate, knowing he has the majority of the country’s most influential reporters running interference on his behalf.

The bias is both unprecedented and beyond disgraceful.

Judge Strikes Down Open Carry Ban At MI Polls

H/T Bearing Arms.

A win for the gun owners in Michigan.

The ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling sites in Michigan that was put in place by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was stopped by a Michigan judge late Tuesday afternoon when he granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of her new rule.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray didn’t say whether the open carry ban violated the Second Amendment rights of residents who want to lawfully carry to the polls, because in Murray’s view Benson never had the authority to institute a ban in the first place, making the Second Amendment question moot.


The edict by Benson “smacks of an attempt at legislation” and lacks public input instead of following the regular rule-making process, Murray said during a Tuesday emergency hearing. Further, the state already has a law prohibiting voter intimidation, said Murray, an appointee of Republican former Gov. John Engler.

“The Legislature has said: Here are the places you cannot carry a weapon,” Murray said during the hearing. “The secretary has expanded that. And so how is that in accordance with state law?”

Murray argued Benson could have implemented such a rule over a months-long process, but Nessel’s office pushed back.

The need for this directive has grown during the last several weeks, specifically after the details of the alleged plot against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were revealed, Nessel’s representatives argued.

“There’s no inconsistency,” Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast said. “There is no affirmative right to open carry in all places at all times.”

I’m not even an attorney and I know how awful Meingast’s argument is. There is an affirmative right to open carry in those places that aren’t deemed off-limits, and under Michigan law that includes most polling places. The state of Michigan’s position is that they shouldn’t have to follow the law if it’s too hard, and Judge Murray simply reminded Attorney General Dana Nessel and Benson that the law doesn’t work that way.

In his decision, Murray noted that the Democratic secretary of state’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms at polling places appeared to be more than an interpretation of existing statute. It was a rule that should be subjected to the rule-making process, he wrote.

“The directive itself covers a substantive policy area — where a resident can openly carry a firearm — and applies to every resident of this state,” and implies that law enforcement will be expected to enforce it, Murray wrote.

While state law doesn’t grant the right to open carry a firearm, the Second Amendment does in some form and state law provides some prohibitions, the judge said.

“Even if defendant can place additional restrictions on where people can open carry a firearm beyond those contained in statute, it must be done through compliance with the (Administrative Procedures Act),” wrote Murray, noting the rule-making process would require public notice and public comment.

Without an injunction, Murray said, a “single state officer” would effectively be able “to circumvent (and essentially amend) a valid and enforceable state law on the same subject.”

“This is certainly not in the public interest, which expects its public officials to follow the rule of law,” he wrote.

Nessel’s office is vowing to appeal Murray’s decision, but given the fact that neither the AG nor the Secretary of State can point to any section of state law that allows Benson to arbitrarily invoke a gun ban, I don’t think they’re going to be successful.

As one local sheriff recently said, Benson’s open carry ban actually created a problem where one didn’t previously exist. Now Benson is going to have to cope with the fact that she’s likely made open carry at the polls a more common occurrence than it would have been otherwise thanks to her unconstitutional attempt at a gun ban.

On Biden’s Anti-Gun Agenda: Gun Rationing

H/T Bearing Arms.

Joe Pee Pads Biden will be a nightmare for the Second Amendment.

It’s a beautiful day. You’ve finally saved up enough money to make some purchases you’ve wanted to make for some time. The sport of three-gun looks intriguing and you’re ready to pick up some firearms to help you give it a try. Sure, you had a revolver you keep close at hand in case of a burglar and maybe even for concealed carry, but that’s not really going to work for three-gun.

As a result, you need to purchase three firearms. A semi-auto rifle, a shotgun (preferably semi-auto), and a semi-auto handgun. There’s a match in your area in a month and you need to start practicing.


Only, you can’t.

See, despite you being a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record wishing to engage in a lawful recreational activity, the law now limits you as to how many firearms you can purchase per month.

That’s what’s likely to happen if Joe Biden wins on November 3.

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s gun control proposals include supporting legislation to limit Americans to purchasing only one firearm a month.

The proposal is contained on Biden’s campaign website, which says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”

Of course, this is far from the only example of Biden trying to step all over the Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans, but let’s focus on this one for now.

Let’s understand why the idea of gun rationing even exists. In theory, one of the things it’s supposed to stop is straw buying. There are people who buy a ton of guns for people who can’t purchase their own. They apparently make a fair bit of cash doing this, too. However, those people are surprisingly rare.

Most straw buys are committed when someone asks their girlfriend, wife, or buddy to make the purchase for them. Gun rationing doesn’t actually stop many straw buyers.

But it does stop law-abiding citizens from buying guns when they want to, and that’s a problem. A right delayed is a right denied, and telling me I can’t exercise my Second Amendment rights twice in a given month is most definitely delaying that right.

I can’t help but believe the real reason Biden is pushing gun rationing, though, is that he knows that if he pushes for the kind of gun control he really wants, it’ll spark a buying frenzy as people gear up to resist him. If they can only purchase one a month, that becomes an issue.

Of course, that goes out the window because if he wins in November, the only reason the buying frenzy won’t start then is because it hasn’t died down from when it kicked off in March.

Either way, gun rationing is stupid.

However, let’s also note that the mainstream media isn’t talking about this. Debate moderators aren’t asking about it. The members of the press that follows Biden’s every move fail to ask about it. No one in the media seems to want to discuss gun control with Biden.

In other words, the most radical anti-gun agenda we’ve ever seen in a presidential campaign is being swept under the rug by a complicit media.

What Barrett’s Confirmation Means For Second Amendment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Only time will tell what Amy Coney Barrett will mean to the Second Amendment.

Last night, liberals throughout the nation began their wailing and gnashing of teeth. Despite the fact that it had to be obvious this was going to happen, remarkably few bothered to prepare themselves for the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Among others, this represents a major setback for gun control advocates who been hoping to keep a Supreme Court that was lukewarm toward gun cases since the McDonald decision a decade ago. This despite a conservative majority on the Court.


With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, though, an opportunity opened up. Now, Justice Barrett has an opportunity to step in and make the most of it.

To be sure, there are a wide variety of cases the Court will hear in the coming year or two, but for our purposes, let’s talk about guns.

Much of the blame for the lack of movement on Second Amendment cases appears to have been laid at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts. To be sure, Roberts may well be a factor, but he can’t be the only one. After all, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and with a 5-4 majority, the Court should have been inclined to address gun rights.

Even if Roberts is voting against hearing gun cases, he alone isn’t the reason. It means at least one more of the conservative justices has been voting not to hear those cases.

However, we now see a 6-3 majority and Barrett take pro-Second Amendment into directions many of us wouldn’t have thought likely. After all, she argued that non-violent felons shouldn’t be barred from owning guns. That was a position many pro-gun people wouldn’t have even thought of taking, to be sure.

Between her, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh–all nominated by President Donald Trump–one would think only one more vote would be needed. In that, I think you’d see Justice Clarence Thomas side with the newcomers and agree to hear gun cases.

At least, that’s my hope.

Of course, I’ve also been disappointed a lot in the last four years. Following every confirmation, I’ve argued that now we’re likely to see some movement to gain ground previously lost to anti-gunners, but so far, nothing. With each confirmation, my hope soars, only to see it end up smashed against the rocks.

Yet logistically, the Court that reached the Heller and McDonald decisions should have had at least four people who wanted to hear more gun cases, to clamp down on lower courts ignoring the previous rulings whenever they felt like it. One would have imagined they’d have taken a case just to clarify the Court’s opinions if nothing else.

Instead, we’ve seen pretty much every gun case ignored.

With Barrett, though, we may finally get what we’ve been hoping for. While I don’t think non-violent felons should rejoice just yet–I doubt many other justices will side with her on that particular issue–it may become time for the Court to start hearing gun cases once again. This time it may be different.

However, I’m also going to say that if we don’t see the Court accept a Second Amendment case soon, I’m going to feel a lot more like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football than I care to.