When they say the quiet part out loud.
Does that mean you have your Praetorian Guard ready with no other function than to kill people in large numbers?
My reply? “You first and fuck you after anyways ’cause we ain’t complying.”
The pushback seems to be starting
Sam Brinton was fired.
The Army is investigating the gay puppy play fetish officers who had a gay kink slave orgy in Hawaii while on duty and posted pictures of themselves in fetish gear abd uniform.
Several nurses in Atlanta have been fired for making TikTok videos in the hospital mocking patients.
It seems normal people have had fucking enough of the weird shit going on and organizations are realizing they have to hold people accountable.
I wonder if this is fallout from the Twitter files. The curtain got pulled back a little and now people are demanding accountability.
One day we may look back on Musk buying Twitter as the catalyst for major change.
Old News: Ithaca Firearms Lawsuit 1982
I did a quick search and found out that the lawsuit was dismissed which was par at the time for the many lawsuits brought against firearm manufacturers at the time. But the constant beating of legal actions was a very powerful weapon against the Gun Manufactures who had to shed cash to pay for legal expenses. Gun Control figured that Gun companies would eventually go bankrupt which would make them very happy. What they did not expect to happen was to have all those competing companies join together, lobby politicians and eventually obtain the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in Congress and becoming the law of the land.
Of course, new legal angles are now being explored in court and the bed-shitting that Remington did bending over and settling has not helped, but the enemy never quits, and neither should we.
Breaking Good
So what happens if your right to petition the government for redress of grievances carries with it the cost of bankruptcy of yourself and your representatives?
Would you be able to hire a lawyer if they knew that losing even one part of the case would put them, personally, on the hook for all of the states costs?
This is what Governor Newsom did. In CA SB 1327 they created a law which did precisely that with regards to second amendment cases. If you brought a case against the state for violation of your rights and you lost any part of the case then you and your lawyers were required to pay the costs of not only your own side but the costs of the California spent defending the state.
EC. 2. Section 1021.11 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, to
read:1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.
(b) For purposes of this section, a party is considered a prevailing party if a court does either of the following:
(1) Dismisses any claim or cause of action brought by the party seeking the declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision (a), regardless of the reason for the dismissal.
(2) Enters judgment in favor of the party opposing the declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision (a), on any claim or cause of action.
(c) Regardless of whether a prevailing party sought to recover attorney’s fees or costs in the underlying action, a prevailing party under this section may bring a civil action to recover attorney’s fees and costs against a person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, that sought declaratory or injunctive relief described by subdivision (a) not later than the third anniversary of the date on which, as applicable:
Laws are designed to be opaque, hard to read. Sometimes the meaning hinges on a single comma. For most people reading these paragraphs they read “…liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.”. There are some nasty gotchs in that little quote.
First “jointly and severally” refers to “person, entity, attorney, or law firm” which is challenging the law AND “that represents any litigant”. This means you and your lawyer.
Is this really so bad? If you “win” then this doesn’t matter. Except that they define “prevailing party” to mean “any claim or cause of action”. So if your suit had multiple claims or causes of actions, say you argued under the 2nd, and also the 5th
amendment.
In the course of the trial the judge says that there was “no taking” so the 5th amendment is not implicated. He then grants everything else you claim regarding the 2nd amendment.
You won. The State of California then presents you with a bill for all of their costs for defending the law that was just found unconstitutional. Why? Because according to the laws definition they prevailed. One of your claims was dismissed.
Anybody that has ever looked into COBRA coverage after being let go from a job knows that there are LOTS of hidden costs. The State has no reason to try and keep prices down. They have legions of lawyers and each of them gets billed out when dealing with such a case. Those costs can grow to millions of dollars very rapidly.
This had a chilling effect on second amendment cases out of California. So chilling that ALL California cases dealing with the second amendment were put on hold pending other cases challenging this law.
Now California put in language that says that even if one part of SB 1327 is found unconstitutional all other parts are still in affect. Regardless, the “must pay defendants costs” part of SB 1327 was recently found unconstitutional. This means that the other 2A cases are now moving forward.
We’ll have updates on a couple of cases that are being heard this month shortly.
Someone in HR at PSA is gonna get a talking to
https://www.instagram.com/p/CmIeGwps8wX/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y
An anti-religious tranny communist really isn’t what you’d expect from a big name gun retailer that leans heavily into the pro-America patriotism gun culture.
Honestly, how did this person not get adequately vetted during the hiring process?
A good rule of thumb in the gun industry is don’t hire fucking tankies.
On the good news front
Sam Brinton was fired. It is likely that he will face charges.
Non-binary Biden nuclear official Sam Brinton fired after multiple luggage theft charges: reports
The Department of Energy has fired Sam Brinton, a top nuclear waste official who happens to be non-binary and has been accused in a string of luggage thefts, according to reports.
I’ve had security clearances in the past. The goal of a clearance is to reduce the risk of the person being given a secret from sharing it.
To this end when performing a background check they are looking to see how well you are able to keep your word. In short how trustworthy you are. They are looking for criminal acts which might just disqualify a person as a matter of policy and they are looking for illegal acts (drug use) that might be disqualifying.
Having established if you are trustworthy they next look into how easy would it be to compromise your integrity. A person that is a few thousand dollars in debt is unlikely to betray their country for those few thousand dollars. The same person in debt for the same amount to a lownshark might be willing to sell a little secret in exchange for keeping working kneecaps.
So debt load and who you are in debt to plays a part in whether they feel a person can be trusted. Trustworth is not the same as trusted.
They then look at things that might be compromising. Things that might embarrass you. I knew homesexuals that had security clearances. They were required to out themselves to their parents and family. This is so that no bad actor could say “if you don’t share this small secret with us we will out you to your wife/parents whatever”
In the same way they don’t want you to have any embarrassing secrets from your employer or family/community.
Finally the look for things that might indicate that you have bad judgement or that you do things that might allow you to say things while not fully cognitive. I.e. while drunk or stoned.
The fact that Sam is non-binary and into kink does not instantly disqualify him for a clearance. All of the criminal activity around him does.
For example consider the following exposure of Col. Donnelly and CPT Tenney.
?Military Sickness Exposed??
Identity of @USArmy’s @PupRavage ? is Col. Brian T. Donnelly (ret.) of INDOPACOM
Past @Mdarmyguard CO: 58th EMIB, 1100th TASMG
Posing in uniform w ? mask?
Engaged in ?-play sex w junior @USArmy officer – CPT Dayton Tenney, aka @adjutantpup pic.twitter.com/PlOzWBjQHM
— NOVA Campaigns (@NoVA_Campaigns) December 9, 2022
(H/T to a reader)
My issue with this pair is that there is a level of inappropriate behavior between a superior and his direct report.
In the same way I had no problem with Billy Clinton having sex in the oval office. I didn’t care if it was with his wife or some hooker the SS brought in. I had and have a problem with him having sex with an intern.
If the CEO of some firm had sex with an intern we would have seen him fired and lambasted. Billy doing it was a matter between he and his wife. We know that a CEO would be fired because a CEO for IIRC McDonald’s was fired for exactly this thing shortly after.
Never meet your heroes
At some time in your life somebody–probably your mom–told you that you were a "smart" or "clever" boy.
You believed them.
They lied to you. https://t.co/ttpeuphgIN
— Law of Self Defense (@LawSelfDefense) December 13, 2022
Andrew Branca has done a lot for the gun rights and self defense community.
I was trying to argue a rational point about a shooting I thought was unjustified.
That was how I was trained when I clerk for a lawfirm and thought about going to law school.
Did he respond with a logical counter point?
No, he responded with petty schoolyard bully insults.
It’s actually kind of pathetic when you think about it.
I guess being a lawyer on Twitter has made him succumb to Tyson’s Law of Social Media.