All of the battleground states votes need to be voided and a revote happen.
A recount of votes in the battleground state of Wisconsin has unearthed hundreds of uncounted and unopened absentee ballots in the battleground state.
Wisconsin is one of several key states whose results are being contested by President Donald Trump amid allegations of fraud and voting irregularities.
The discovery of 386 ballots that were not counted on Election Day will do little to help the president close his deficit in the state; Trump is about 20,600 votes behind Democrat Joe Biden there, and his campaign has paid for a recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties.
But it’s also likely the find will do little to further the narrative from Democrats that the Election Day count was accurate.
The AP’s Scott Bauer reported the unopened ballots were found on the fourth day of the recount.
“The city’s top elections official, Claire Woodall-Vogg, said not counting the 386 ballots on Nov. 3 was due to an error by new election inspectors,” the report said.
“The county board of canvassers voted unanimously to count the ballots as part of the recount,” Bauer reported.
Not including the unopened ballots, Trump has gained 57 votes so far in the state’s recount.
Woodall-Vogg told the AP the discovery of the unopened ballots was a silver lining for election integrity.
“If there’s one positive to come out of the recount it’s that indeed that every vote is being counted, including these 386,” she said.
Trump’s legal team has argued that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the state’s most Democratic areas, should be thrown out on the basis they should never have been counted, according to the AP.
The report said the president’s attorneys have “sought to have ballots discarded where election clerks filled in missing address information on the certification envelope where the ballot is inserted; any absentee ballot where a voter declared themselves to be ‘indefinitely confined’ under the law; and any absentee ballot where there was not a written application on file.”
The AP reported the recounts in Milwaukee and Dane counties must conclude by Dec. 1.
Biden received 577,455 votes in the two urban two counties, compared with 213,157 for Trump.
Attorney Jim Troupis, who is assisting the Trump campaign with the Wisconsin recount, argued in favor of recounting the votes and also for enforcing absentee ballot laws in an interview with the AP.
“The people of Wisconsin deserve to know whether their election processes worked in a legal and transparent way,” Troupis said.
“Regrettably, the integrity of the election results cannot be trusted without a recount in these two counties and uniform enforcement of Wisconsin absentee ballot requirements,” he said.
“We will not know the true results of the election until only the legal ballots cast are counted.”
Regardless of the recount, it appears the Wisconsin results will be headed to the courts at some point, as will the results in other states that relied heavily on mail-in ballots where many are alleged to be unverified and to have arrived after the election deadline.
The so called Blue Wave is in reality a Blue Drip at best.
This is the third seat picked up by the GOP in Commiefornia.
Yes, bear with us. Races are still being called. David Valadao has defeated Democratic Rep. TJ Cox to reclaim the House seat he lost two years in California’s 21st Congressional District, according to the Associated Press. It’s now the third seat claimed by the GOP in the Golden State this year, and the 11th seat flipped overall for the party. Cox has yet to concede.
Valadao claimed victory on Twitter before the AP called the race. And he gave voters of glimpse of his top priorities in Congress.
“This Thanksgiving, as the coronavirus continues to spread and our community and nation struggle, we desperately need relief,” Valadao said. “The only way we will get through this is by sticking together as Americans, not divided by political parties. When I head back to Washington every resident of the Central Valley has my word that I will continue to always put this community first.”
Valadao’s win comes after victories from his fellow Republicans Michelle Steel (CA-48) and Young Kim (CA-39) pulled off their own upset wins.
By the way, the party may not be done winning in California.
Still waiting to hear what happened to that “blue wave.”
Gun Prohibitionists offering gun safety tips reminds me of the old adage of “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.”
In other words do not accept anything from those who oppose you as there unexpected traps in the gifts or help.
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Gun sales are way up, in Pennsylvania and across the country. And many are first-time owners,” The Philadelphia Inquirer notes in a “Philly Tips” column. “Here’s what you need to know about gun safety.”
Gun owners can be forgiven if that assertion causes their antennae to go up. The mainstream press, what I call the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media), has not exactly been supportive of the right to keep and bear arms. Plus, we have seen too often how the term “commonsense gun safety laws” is contorted by gun-grabbers (with little actual knowledge of firearms and shooting) to mean more infringements that won’t do a thing to stop evil people from doing evil things and stupid/lazy people from doing stupid/lazy things.
So, the initial questions ought to be: Who are the experts? What are their qualifications? Do they have an observable agenda? Scott Charles is the first “authority” we meet, presented as “a gun violence educator and trauma outreach coordinator for Temple University Hospital.”
He says he’s a gun owner, but if he has any specialized training/credentialing that give him notable credibility as a gun safety expert, whoever wrote up his Temple Safety Net profile failed to list them. Instead, we find he has been “an at-risk youth specialist for the State Department of Education [and] assisted in the development of a statewide rite of passage program for young African American males.” He went on to get some degrees that have nothing to do with firearms and has been featured on network television, PBS, and a “documentary” about urban criminals using guns. He’s received some community awards, one of them being from CeaseFire PA, a group that used to admit it was about “gun control.”
So what are Charles’ “gun safety” qualifications? If you didn’t give him time to look it up on the internet, would he know who Jeff Cooper was and be able to explain his rules? Would he be able to tell you what to do about safety issues shooters may encounter at the range like misfires or hangfires? Could he even tell you what those are? Maybe he could. Maybe we just need to see a relevant CV. Maybe.
“As a gun owner and someone who sees the consequences of gun injury, this is something we should take seriously,” Charles pontificates. “We have a lot of novice, first-time gun owners taking that gun home where there are children, and the data we have says that firearm is most likely to be used to harm somebody in the home.”
So we see him adopting the gun-grabber talking point that guns in the home are more dangerous than not having them in the home. But he nonetheless says he has them in his home. Agenda much? Then you go to his Twitter page and his political predispositions make it all clear.
Our next “expert” source is Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown and a recitation of its propaganda about children and unsecured guns. Apparently, the Inquirer’s press release writer … sorry, reporter … couldn’t find an organization that actually trains gun owners (and trainers and police) in use and safety, so figured who better to approach than billionaire-funded citizen disarmament zealots?
To be fair, he also consulted ATF. That is fair, isn’t it? The bottom line, the gun-grabbers demand government edicts to lock up your safety, taking the decision away from you. And to lock your ammunition up separately. That way, should you ever need to access your gun to defend against an intruder, no doubt he will be impressed with how thorough you are about mandatory “safety.” The problem, of course, is that it adds a couple of time-consuming steps that would make Joe Biden’s recommendations to either fire your shotgun blindly off the balcony or through your front door problematic.
Of course, there are situations where it makes perfect sense to lock guns up to prevent unauthorized access. No responsible gun owner argues otherwise. The point is each situation can be different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach, no matter what these “experts” tell us. And presuming that there is, and then mandating storage, has resulted in things like pitchfork murders, as opposed to responsible young people being able to protect themselves and others.
The fact remains, things like cable locks, when used by irresponsible idiots, can actually create a false sense of security which in turn results in risky practices like leaving guns lying around. It brings to mind the people who believe childproof medicine caps mean kids can’t take them off.
Two cautionary tales from years past come to mind. The first was from Gambino crime family underboss Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, who said:
“Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
The second was from another self-styled “gun safety” authority:
“Dennis Henigan of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence drops the ball in front of a roomful of reporters, while trying to prove the efficacy of Saf-T-Lok, a purportedly easy-to-use combination lock in the gun’s grip. Henigan fumbles and fails to unlock the gun in a well-lit room with no intruder at the door… Finally disengaging the safety, he apologizes, ‘Most people aren’t as klutzy as I am.’” -From “Lawyers, Guns and Money” by Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard, Feb. 1, 1999
You have to wonder how he’d do with it in the dark, startled from sleep, fumbling frantically while his heart pounds, his hands shake, and an unknown someone draws closer…
Gabreski, leading the 61st Fighter Squadron, was flying fast to rescue the American bombers, which were being swarmed by Nazi fighter planes. As they arrived on the scene, the commander ordered his pilots into the fray.
Gabreski could see targets everywhere. He gunned the turbocharged engine in his powerful plane and went on the attack. Gabreski spotted a Messerschmitt Bf 110 and drew a bead. At 700 yards, he let go with a burst from his eight .50-caliber machineguns, causing the twin-engine plane to burst into flames. He had to dive to avoid colliding with the disintegrating aircraft.
Minutes later, Gabreski spotted another Bf 110. He throttled up his massive 2,000-horsepower engine and zoomed in on the unsuspecting fighter. Gabreski fired and hit the plane at the wing root. It spiraled to the ground in a massive fireball.
Those two kills nearly 80 years ago this month were his fourth and fifth of World War II. Gabreski was now an ace. He would go on to shoot down 28 enemy aircraft to become America’s top ace in Europe. All of the kills would come at the controls of the P-47, one of the most rugged fighter planes of the war.
Weighing 10,000 pounds empty, the Thunderbolt was the largest single-engine fighter built by any country during World War II. Fully loaded with pilot, fuel and armaments, it topped out at more than 17,500 pounds—yet was exceptionally fast as a fighter-bomber, achieving a top speed of 426 miles per hour. It was arguably the best ground-attack aircraft America had at that time.
“The P-47 was one of the most versatile aircraft we had in World War II,” says Jeremy Kinney, curator and chair of the aeronautics department at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, which houses a P-47 in its collections—on view at the museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia. “It was not as famous as the P-51 Mustang, but it ranks as one of the best for that era. The Thunderbolt was the hammer: big and strong, it could take a lot of punishment and still deliver a lethal blow. It was unparalleled as a ground-support aircraft and it was also a great dogfighter.”
In the European Theater, P-47 pilots were responsible for destroying more than 7,000 enemy aircraft—more than half in air-to-air combat. Though at least twice as heavy as the Supermarine Spitfire, the Thunderbolt was surprisingly agile and fast. It was well-regarded for its exceptional diving ability—considered crucial by ace pilots—and how it transformed that energy into climbing power to get back into the fight.
“As an escort plane for bombers, it more than held its own against the best the Luftwaffe had despite its range limitations,” Kinney says. “With eight .50-caliber machineguns and the capability of carrying rockets and bombs, the P-47 was a formidable aircraft against ground targets.”
And rugged too. Not long after Gabreski became an ace, his engine shut down at high altitude when his turbocharger was hit by a 20 mm cannon shell from a Messerschmitt Bf 109. He was able to outmaneuver the enemy aircraft and restart the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine at a lower elevation.
“The Thunderbolt could take a lot of damage,” Kinney says. “It was designed to be rugged and became a preeminent fighter of World War II, flying in all major theaters and developing this mythic quality because of its durability.”
“Kartveli, a Russian immigrant, was one of America’s great aviation designers,” Kinney says. “He revolutionized fighter aircraft with the semi-elliptical wing and more powerful engines equipped with turbosuperchargers.”
During World War II, the Thunderbolt flew more than half a million missions and dropped 132,000 pounds of bombs. It had an exceptionally low rate of loss—.07 per mission—while Thunderbolt pilots racked up an impressive 4.6-to-1 aerial kill ratio. Of the 15,683 P-47s built between 1941 and 1945, only 3,499 were lost in combat.
The Thunderbolt on display at the Hazy Center is one of only a few dozen that survived the conflict and the march of time. Built in 1944, this P-47D-30-RA was used primarily as an aerial gunnery trainer in the United States. After the war, it became part of the U.S. Army Air Forces Museum, now the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, before being transferred to the Smithsonian. It was restored by Republic Aviation for the 20th anniversary of the fighter’s first flight in 1941.
Looking at the shiny aluminum fuselage of the P-47, it’s easy to see why World War II pilots relied so much on this aircraft. Large and lasting, she was the beast of the airways and could deliver far more punishment than she took.
In fact, that reputation for durability became the inspiration for another remarkable aircraft: the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Known affectionately as the “Warthog” for its unusual aesthetics, it followed in the footsteps of its namesake to become one of the most reliable and rugged close-air-support aircraft in the U.S. Air Force.
“The A-10 pays homage to the P-47 as a ground-attack aircraft,” Kinney says. “Both are durable and amazing machines that were and are crucial to our country’s defense.”
Gabreski may have been just as tough as both aircraft. He flew a total of 266 combat missions and survived both a crash landing and internment in a German POW camp. In addition to his 28 kills in World War II, Gabreski shot down six aircraft in Korea, becoming one of only seven American pilots to be an ace in two wars.
In the latter conflict, he flew jets and certainly came to appreciate their speed and nimbleness. However, the turbocharged supremacy of the P-47 Thunderbolt in World War II left a lasting impression with Gabreski, who died in 2002.
“That added power meant so much,” he said in an interview later in life. “It meant that I could do combat with the enemy over his territory at all altitudes and I could break off at will. I had more power than he had and I could corkscrew, go up to altitude and he couldn’t follow me.”
Remote Florida islands have a history of sea turtles, sunken treasures, and one of the world’s largest coastal brick fortresses.
JUAN PONCE DE LEON FIRST stumbled upon this stretch of islands in 1513, back when they were nothing more than clusters of coral inhabited by sea turtles. Upon his discovery, de Leon named the islands “Las Tortugas” (meaning “the turtles”), and is said to have subsisted off 160 of these very animals while on his journey through the high seas. (“Dry” was later added to the islands’ name as an attempt to warn mariners of the lack of freshwater in the area.)
After de Leon’s discovery, the Dry Tortugas became a fixture on Spanish ship maps for merchants and explorers going to and from the Gulf Coast. Seventy miles west of the Florida Keys, and in a prime location between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, the Dry Tortugas soon became a popular shipping corridor.
Despite the passageway’s popularity, the Dry Tortugas also became the site of hundreds of shipwrecks. The seasonal shallow waters and hazardous weather conditions lent to the corridor’s infamous title as the “ship trap.” To this day, a large collection of sunken treasures still lies beneath the surface waters. Seventeenth-century vessel remains, cannons, and glassware are among some of the maritime relics.
Of all the Dry Tortugas treasures, though, Fort Jefferson perhaps remains the crown jewel. Once Florida was acquisitioned from Spain in 1822, the United States began plans to erect a naval station that would help combat piracy in the Caribbean. Eventually, the U.S. Navy agreed on the Dry Tortugas as the site for their fortress, arguing that U.S. shipping in the Gulf Coast would be in jeopardy if a hostile power were to take over the islands.
In 1847, after seventeen years of extensive planning, Fort Jefferson began construction on the Garden Key Island. The design plans called for a practically indestructible hexagonal fortress, complete with a massive 420 heavy-gun platform. Two sides of the fort measured 325 feet and four sides measured 477 feet. The structure stood 45-feet above sea level, surrounded entirely by a wall and a 70-foot wide moat. Though construction lasted for roughly thirty years, Fort Jefferson was never fully completed. Despite this, 16 million bricks were laid, making it one of the largest coastal forts ever built.
During the Civil War the fort was also used as a prison, mainly for Union deserters. The most famous inmate, however, was Dr. Samuel Mudd, who was convicted of conspiracy in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. After shooting President Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth jumped from the theater box, broke one of his legs, and immediately fled to Dr. Mudd’s farm where he received medical assistance.
In 1865, Dr. Mudd was sentenced to life in prison and sent to the remote fortress. Two years later, a yellow fever outbreak occurred at Fort Jefferson. The outbreak took a number of lives, including the lone doctor who had been stationed at the fort. Dr. Mudd agreed to step in as a replacement and, as a result, many lives were saved. Consequently, the soldiers started a petition demanding Dr. Mudd’s release; a petition which President Andrew Johnson granted only four years into Dr. Mudd’s life sentence.
The fort was abandoned by the Army in 1874. In later years it served as a coaling station, a quarantine station for the Marine-Hospital Service from 1888-1900, during which the location was also used in the Spanish-American War and, in 1935, it was registered by President Roosevelt as a National Monument. Today it operates as part of the Dry Tortugas National Park. Accessible only by boat or seaplane, the Dry Tortugas are considered to be one of America’s most remote and least visited national parks.
If Joe Pee Pads Biden does give the illegals amnesty it will mean 11 million plus DemocRat voters.
President-elect Joe Biden said Wednesday that his priorities for the first 100 days of his administration will be “a pathway to citizenship” for 11 million illegal immigrants and overturning a number of President Donald Trump’s executive orders which pertain specifically to climate change concerns.
“I will send an immigration bill to the United States Senate with a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people in America,” Biden told NBC Nightly News.
“I will also be moving to do away with some of the, I think, very damaging executive orders that have significantly impacted on making the climate worse and making us less healthy, from methane to a whole range of things the president has done [that have] eviscerated the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.”
During the second presidential debate, Biden emphasized his commitment to to green energy and said that he would “transition away from the oil industry.” Biden noted Wednesday that his progress will “depend on the kind of cooperation I can or cannot get from the United States Congress.”
The president-elect also promised to deliver “immediate assistance to state and local governments to keep them from basically going under” as a result of economic pressures due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Biden said he expects there will be “multiple things that are going to have to be taking place at the same time” but that he is committed to assisting “those folks who are always, when crisis hits, they’re the first one hit and when recovery comes, they’re the last one in: that’s basically minority communities.”
President-elect Joe Biden speaks as he addresses the media after a virtual meeting with the National Governors Association’s executive committee at the Queen Theater on Nov. 19, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“We have to act. We have to act. To guarantee them they have access to affordable health insurance. This is more than just a financial crisis; it’s a crisis that is causing real mental stress for millions of people.”
Biden has promised to expand the Affordable Care Act — or Obamacare — rather than proceed with the Medicare for All plan endorsed by some Democratic lawmakers.
Biden said very little about gun control during the presidential campaign but critics say his proposal to no longer exempt gun manufactures from liability caused by their products could cripple the firearms industry.
The drive-by media will ignore these newly elected pro-life women because they are not pro-abortion.
Many in the media regularly dismiss the Republican party – and the pro-life movement – as a group of old, white men. At the same time, the women who dare to identify as Republican or pro-life are all too often condemned as “gender traitors.” But the 2020 election results challenge these notions.
According to pro-life advocacy organization Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), women and the life issue are winning in Congress. At least 17 newly-elected pro-life women will join 11 pro-life women incumbents in the House of Representatives in 2021. That’s not to mention the Senate, where as many as six pro-life women could win, SBA List reports. While some in the media are acknowledging a record win by Republican women, they’re overlooking an issue that unites many of these women: protecting and valuing the unborn.
American voters are choosing life, according to SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
“The rise of pro-life women leaves me more convinced than ever that momentum is on our side,” she wrote for RealClearPolitics on November 18, “and the battle to save unborn children and their mothers is one we can – and will – win.”
These women represent a challenge to abortion: the intentional destruction of innocent human life.
“Nancy Pelosi and pro-abortion Democrats are now up against a stronghold of pro-life women who will stand up to their radical agenda and fight to protect longstanding pro-life policies,” Dannenfelser added in a November 14 press release. “Following President Trump’s lead, pro-life candidates are going on offense to expose the extremism of their Democrat opponents and are finding tremendous success.”
Of the 17 new pro-life women, nine flipped Democrat-held House seats. These women boast diverse backgrounds, including Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, an Iranian-American woman, Yvette Herrell of New Mexico, a Cherokee woman, and Young Kim and Michelle Steel of California, Korean-American women.
The media rightfully recognized them as Republican women, but they left out that they also identify as pro-life.
On November 13, NPR political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben reported on “a record 35 Republican women who will serve in Congress next year, breaking the previous record of 30 and a sharp increase from the 13 GOP women elected to the House of Representatives in 2018.”
But she made no mention of abortion in her report.
That same day, Rolling Stone highlighted, “How GOP Women Triumphed With Trumpism.” Politics staff writer Tessa Stuart acknowledged that “at least 35 Trump-loving Republican women were elected.”
They would carry out Trump’s legacy, she warned.
“As the president is forced to leave, spitting and screaming,” she wrote, “his toxic, pugilistic brand of politics will live on in those women: paranoid conspiracists, partisan firebrands, and ardent Trump loyalists.”
She also made no mention of abortion.
The headlines continued, with Vox announcing, “Why Republican women candidates had such a strong year” on November 19. On November 10, CBS News published a piece called, “Year of the Republican women: GOP adds record number of women to Congress.” That same day, USA Today declared, “A record number of Republican women will serve in the House after the GOP ate into Democratic majority.”
Likewise, none of them mentioned abortion. While some writers referenced Emily’s List, which backs candidates who promote abortion, they didn’t cite SBA List, which dedicated $52 million to the 2020 cycle.
Newspapers also highlighted the win, with the New York Times reporting, “In Ascendant Night for Congressional Republicans, Women Led the Way” the day after the election. On November 10, The Washington Post published a piece with the headline, “House GOP chipped away at Democratic majority. They can thank female candidates.”
And, right before the election, women’s magazine Elle asked, “Is This the Year of the Republican Woman?” The subheadline added, “With a record number of conservative female candidates on the ballot, 2020 could be GOP women’s turn to make history.”
Magazine writer Rebecca Nelson didn’t bring up abortion either, but she did stress that “Republican women are building the foundation on which more little girls—on both sides of the aisle—can say, I can do that, too.”
Abortion might be a women’s issue after all, it seems – just not in the way that Democrats or the media ever anticipated.
Hopefully,the Republicans will keep control of the Senate and foil Joe Pee Pads Biden’s agenda.
Even better the Republicans hold the Senate and Donald Trump will be reelected.
President-elect Joe Biden’s gun control plan includes a provision to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, which protects firearm sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits related to the misuse of weapons or ammunition.
Two Second Amendment advocates said the plan could cripple the gun industry and drive companies and small sellers alike into bankruptcy.
Remington Arms Company, which recently went bankrupt, and Cabelas were recent targets of gun-related lawsuits, and the firearms advocates insist the Georgia Senate races will determine if Biden’s policies are enacted into law.
President-elect Joe Biden’s gun control plan, which in part seeks to remove liability protections on firearm manufacturers and dealers, could bankrupt major players in the weapons industry, two advocates said.
The former vice president’s “Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic” seeks to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, which affords firearms dealers and manufacturers legal protection against lawsuits that may result from the misuse of weapons or ammunition sold to the public. Such a measure would effectively leave dealers and sellers vulnerable to wrongful death and injury lawsuits that target the weapon, rather than the perpetrator, senior vice president of the Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“[Biden’s plan] means that gun manufacturers could ultimately be put out of business through frivolous lawsuits, Pratt said in a phone interview.“It’s totally irresponsible, imagine holding Ford or GM responsible for the damage caused by hit-and-run drivers. We wouldn’t tolerate that and yet that’s exactly the type of legal theory they’re trying to put on gun manufacturers.”
Kevin Jamison, a Missouri self-defense lawyer and firearms trainer, said “The guys pushing these lawsuits, they don’t care if they win. They care if they can force these companies to hemorrhage money. They are in the business of putting gun companies out of business.”
Remington Arms Company, which has been producing firearms since 1816, went bankrupt in late September after the corporation was sued by the families of the victims involved in the deadly 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, according to Fox Business. The gunman used a Bushmaster, a sub-company of Remington, AR-15 during the shooting, Fox reported.
The families argued that the Bushmaster XM15-E2X “posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical risk to others” and insisted that the 200-year-old gun company was negligent in selling the weapon to civilians, according to WBUR. Outdoor retail giant Cabela’s was also sued in early November for selling ammunition to a 19-year-old who accidentally killed a friend with a handgun, The Buffalo News reported.
Attendees look at a display of Remington shotguns during the NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center on May 5, 2018 in Dallas, Texas (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).
Pratt said the country will be seeing “more” of these lawsuits and he added that Remington’s bankruptcy “was the desired intent” of the legal procedure. Jamison called the theories behind the gun litigation “absurd” and said the lawsuits have been allowed to continue even under the Commerce In Arms Act because of misguided courts.
“They’ve gotten away with it because the courts have indulged these absurd theories of law,” the gun lawyer said. “It’s a disaster. It has been very bad the last few years, yes, but it’s going to be the death of mom and pop and gun shops — individually-owned gun shops — and some of these companies.”
Pratt sees the potential for America’s gun industry as a whole to crumble under the weight of litigation that could result from Biden’s plan.
“The idea of the left would be ‘oh sure you can have a Second Amendment right, too bad you just can’t find any guns that are being produced and manufactured,’” he said.
Jamison said, “If they destroy enough companies or force them to adopt their rules of procedure then there will be no place to buy guns and that’s what they’re looking for. They want to make it as expensive to own a gun as humanly possible — and as difficult. If they get even part of their wish list, they won.”
Everytown For Gun Safety, a prominent anti-Second Amendment organization, which supports a position similar to Biden, said the Commerce In Arms Act allows “manufacturers and sellers” to “skirt the law” and “shield” themselves from legal repercussions.
“An extraordinary law has provided gun manufacturers and sellers who skirt the law with a unique, broad immunity from legal accountability. [The Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act] PLCAA gives gun industry members a shield from the lawsuits that are most often used in the United States to hold businesses accountable for products or practices that harm people,” the organization wrote on their webpage.
“PLCAA blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer, and for manufacturers, distributors and dealers with irresponsible, reckless and negligent sales practices that contribute to the flood of illegal firearms in our communities.”
“All we can hope for is that Joe Biden does not have his allies in control of both Houses, even then it’s going to be a war every day for the next four years,” Jamison said. “We’ve just got to buckle down, make sacrifices, build up a war chest to finance this litigation.”
The gun lawyer remains hopeful that fight could be won in his favor.
“We can win this thing, but it’s not going to be easy, simple or cheap,” he told the DCNF.
If Joe Pee Pads Biden does become president he will destroy businesses with burdensome regulations.
While our venerable Constitution describes the basic structure of our tripartite federal government and outlines the powers to be exercised by each of the three branches, the mechanisms whereby those functions are translated from word to deed reside in the real world, not on parchment. So it is with presidential transitions.
The Constitution is silent on how the change from an incumbent president to a successor is to occur. A presidential term lasts four years and ends precisely at noon on January 20 of the year following the November election. That is where the certainty ends. How those nearly three transitional months play out often have been rocky rather than smooth, and occasionally downright hostile. The current stand-off between President Trump and apparent President-elect Biden promises to be no exception
That neither Trump nor Biden likes the other is no secret, and in this they are in good historic company. America’s second president, John Adams, disliked his successor, Thomas Jefferson, to such a degree he left Washington before the latter’s swearing in and never looked back (Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, repeated the snub by refusing to attend his successor’s inauguration in 1829). History records that the 31st president, Herbert Hoover, and the man who trounced him in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, were on such poor terms by the time of the latter’s inauguration that neither spoke a word to the other on the ceremonial car ride to the U.S. Capitol.
At times, the presidential transition process has veered into the juvenile, as when Bill Clinton’s White House staff removed the “w” from typewriters and keyboards on their way out the door, prior to George W. Bush taking his oath of office after the infamous November 2000 “hanging chad” election. (As always, the taxpayers pick up the tab for such antics; estimates are that replacing all those busted “w’s” cost between $12,000 and $14,000.)
Fortunately, history has shown that not only does life go on, but the country survives even very unfriendly transitions. More important than what happens before January 20, however, is what happens after that date; in this case, how Biden exercises his power as “employer-in-chief.”
It is, after all, though the appointment process that the incoming president can make a profound and lasting impact on public policy. While it is the high-profile appointments – secretary of state, treasury secretary, attorney general and other cabinet-level posts – that garner public attention by the boatload, it is in appointments to jobs that do not require the “advice and consent” of the Senate where a new president can really make his mark. And it is here that Biden’s nearly five decades as a denizen of the “swamp” will pay rich dividends to him and his party.
Unlike Trump, who barged into office promising to “drain the swamp,” Biden will be looking to “fill the swamp;” and he will have bureaucratic allies in every department, agency and office eager to help him.
To his credit, Trump did a credible job of replacing many top-level, bureaucracy-loving officials in key departments with individuals who shared his disdain for the Nanny State. Unfortunately, Trump’s dislike for the Washington “Establishment” extended even to refusing to heed or take advantage of advice from well-intentioned and knowledgeable Republicans, who early-on offered to help him identify and fill those second- and third-tier positions that are crucial to ensuring that policy directives from the top are actually implemented where the rubber meets the road. Biden will not make such a mistake.
The former vice president loves bureaucrats and they in turn love him; his administration will be relentless in reversing Trump’s regulation-averse policies and ferreting out and removing Trump holdovers. In fact, Biden has already started.
Two months before Inauguration Day 2021, Biden and his cohorts, including snarky governors like New York’s Cuomo and California’s Newsom and the weaselly Dr. Fauci, are undercutting the good news that a COVID vaccine has been developed and should be ready for distribution before the end of next month. This disgraceful display of hatred not just for President Trump, but for the market-based process that appears to have given the citizens of America and the entire world a defense against the Coronavirus pandemic in record time, is but a hint of the price we will be paying for a resurgence of the Nanny State in a Biden administration. It truly will be a regulatory Hell.