Reader’s Links for May 2nd, 2024

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

19 Replies to “Reader’s Links for May 2nd, 2024”

  2. UCLA Protest Encampment – Live
    Agenda Free – Started Streaming 6 hours ago

  8. Here’s Why Well-Off College Students So Attracted To Revolution

  10. Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/05/state-ags-kansas-judge-file-federal-lawsuit-v-atf-ffl-final-rule/#ixzz8Z6ERoqsW
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    State AGs, Kansas Judge File Federal Lawsuit v. ATF FFL ‘Final Rule’
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 2, 2024 by Dave Workman
    Canik iStock 1182677191
    A Kansas man has been joined by 21 state attorneys general in a federal challenge of the Biden administration’s “Final Rule” redefining “engaged in the business” of firearms sales. IMG iStock-1182677191

    A Kansas judge and 21 state attorneys general have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s “Final Rule” that changes the definition of “engaged in the business” as a firearms dealer.

    The rule is scheduled to take effect this month.
    The lawsuit was filed May 1 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Delta Division. Phillip Journey, acting as a private citizen and not in any official capacity, told Ammoland News via telephone he is the lead individual plaintiff in the case.

    Signing onto the complaint are the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, all Republicans. In addition to Journey, other individuals in the lawsuit are identified as Allen Black and Donald Maxey and they are joined by the Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association.

    Named as defendants are the U.S. Justice Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, in their official capacities.

    The lawsuit asks the court, among other things, to declare the “Final Rule” to be in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because it was not promulgated “in accordance with the law” and is “arbitrary and capricious and is of no force and effect.”
    According to an ATF announcement last month, the Final Rule “clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by:

    “Clarifying the definition of “dealer,” and defining the terms “purchase,” “sale,” and “something of value” as they apply to dealers;
    adding definitions for the term “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” and for “responsible person”;
    setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
    clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;
    clarifying the circumstances when a person would not be presumed to engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including as an auctioneer, or when purchasing firearms for, and selling firearms from, a personal collection;
    addressing the procedures former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license; and
    clarifying that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94 and Subpart H, rather than using an ATF Form 4473 when firearms are transferred to other licensees, including transfers by a licensed sole proprietor to that person’s personal collection.”

    According to Journey, the new rule essentially “makes us all FFLs if we sell one gun and make one dollar” in profit.

    He said the definition is so vague “I don’t see how it can stand.”

    The 54-page complaint alleges that the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) “narrowed the definition of ‘dealer’ by defining ‘engaged in the business’ as ‘a person who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principle objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    However, the complaint notes, FOPA “expressly excluded ‘a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

    The complaint further recalls that Congress two years ago passed a narrow amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act which amended the definition of “dealer” in two ways.

    “First, it replaced ‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’ with ‘to predominantly earn a profit.”

    “Second, it defined ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ as an ‘intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms [that] is primarily one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.”

    The only difference between the FOPA definition of intent and the definition included in Joe Biden’s Bipartisan safer Communities Act of 2022 was the BSCA’s omission of “livelihood” in the wording, the complaint says.

    However, the complaint alleges, “from that tiny seed, the Biden administration and defendant Dettelbach sought to smuggle in the backdoor what Congress had long-refused tro allow in the front door: near universal background checks, with the criminal edges so fuzzy that few individuals would risk private sales of firearms.”
    Ammoland reached out to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who has been involved in several cooperative actions by state attorneys general in defense of Second Amendment rights. Via email, he responded: “This is another attempt by the Biden administration to criminalize law-abiding Montanans for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I will continue to stand up for our Second Amendment rights and fight the federal overreach coming out of Washington.”

    Journey, a veteran gun rights advocate in private life, formerly served in the Kansas Senate, and on the NRA Board of Directors. He asserted, “What they’re trying to do is expand the instant check process to (include) anyone at a gun show.” He is concerned that the Final Rule will allow the government “to selectively prosecute anyone they want.”

    The lawsuit asks the court to postpone the effective date of the Final Rule pending judicial review, and, among other things, that this rule “violates rights protected by the Second Amendment and is of no force and effect.” Plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Final Rule.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/05/state-ags-kansas-judge-file-federal-lawsuit-v-atf-ffl-final-rule/#axzz8Z1NhPTyI

  11. Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/05/texas-leads-multi-state-legal-challenge-against-biden-administration-over-firearm-regulations-video/#ixzz8Z6FsiprD
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    Texas Leads Multi-State Legal Challenge Against Biden Administration Over Firearm Regulations ~ VIDEO
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 2, 2024 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

    YouTube video player

    In a bold move that underscores the ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with other state attorneys and gun rights advocates, has announced a lawsuit against the Biden administration. The legal challenge targets what Paxton describes as an “unlawful ban” on private firearms sales imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

    During a news conference held in Texas, Paxton, joined by Kansas Attorney General Chris Kobach and representatives from Gun Owners of America, expressed their concerns over the new ATF rule that redefines the statutory terms related to firearm sales. This rule, according to Paxton, could potentially criminalize hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans who engage in private firearm transactions.

    “The Biden administration is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy against our constitutional rights,” Paxton stated, emphasizing the perceived overreach of the federal government in matters traditionally preserved for individual states and citizens.

    This lawsuit is not an isolated event but part of a broader trend where state officials are increasingly confronting federal authority over gun laws.

    The coalition, including Louisiana, Missouri, and Utah, argues that the ATF’s redefinition efforts circumvent the legislative process and infringe upon the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    Historically, private firearm sales have not required the same level of regulation as those conducted through licensed dealers. However, the new ATF rule seeks to tighten these requirements, ostensibly to close the so-called “gun show loophole.” Critics, however, rightly view this as a direct attack on their rights and a misinterpretation of existing laws.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    The case highlights the complex interplay between gun rights, rogue regulatory agencies, and constitutional protections. As states rally to defend what they correctly perceive as an encroachment on their rights, the legal battles are set to intensify, potentially setting the stage for future Supreme Court debates.

    In a statement that resonates deeply with supporters of the Second Amendment, Paxton reiterated a defiant message to the federal government: “Come and take it.” This reference to historical defiance and resilience underlines the deep-seated resistance against perceived federal overreach and sets a contentious tone for the legal proceedings ahead.

    As the lawsuit progresses, it will undoubtedly attract significant attention from both legal experts and advocates on both sides of the gun control debate, marking another chapter in the complex narrative of America’s relationship with firearms.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/05/texas-leads-multi-state-legal-challenge-against-biden-administration-over-firearm-regulations-video/#axzz8Z1NhPTyI

  12. Read more: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240429/rewriting-history-repeats-itself#ixzz8Z6Gq1KKp
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

    Rewriting the History of Guns, What a Waste of a PhD Education
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on May 2, 2024 by NRAHQ

    Opinion
    Guns are Bad
    When you waste your PhD making the argument, the scary-guns are bad.

    Americans own guns. They’ve always owned guns, even before they were officially Americans. The British subjects who lived on this continent back in the 18th Century eventually used their guns to help expel British soldiers and establish what would become the greatest nation the world has ever known.

    And what makes America great is that our nation was founded, in part, on the premise of recognizing inalienable rights, and enshrining them in the documents that ensure our government operates in a manner that does not encroach on those protected freedoms.

    Among those freedoms, of course, is the right to arms, and as previously noted, Americans (even when they were still British) always embraced that right.

    Many years ago, however, one man tried to rewrite our nation’s history, and suggested that early Americans did not, in fact, own many guns.

    He argued that Americans didn’t actually begin owning firearms on a large scale until around the time of the Civil War.

    This Emory University professor, Michael Bellesiles, was briefly the darling of anti-gun extremists who all wanted to believe his ridiculous premise that none bothered to ask why his “research” flew in the face of common understanding.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    The Bellesiles love affair even came with one of the most prestigious awards for writings on American history; The Bancroft Prize, which has been awarded by Columbia University since 1948. There are 16 past recipients who were also awarded the Pulitzer Prize for History, so it carries with it quite a bit of clout.

    There was one small problem. The whole premise was wrong, and, upon closer scrutiny, his “research” was deeply flawed—if not completely made up.

    While we will not delve into the myriad criticisms of Bellesiles’ work—many readers are likely painfully aware of this scandal—those interested in revisiting this embarrassing episode can find just some of the work done to discredit his book, along with the aftermath, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    In the end, The Bancroft Prize was rescinded (the only time that has ever happened), Bellesiles resigned from Emory, and a number of prominent historians who had initially praised the work began backtracking, with one referring to the book as “a fraud,” and another calling Bellesiles “a liar and a disgrace to my profession.”

    Nearly a quarter-century removed from the Bellesiles scandal, a new “researcher” has come forward with a new premise.

    Megan Kang, a PhD candidate in sociology at Princeton University, apparently believes that America’s “gun culture” only really developed from the mid-20th century onward.

    So, unlike Bellesiles before her—who tried to convince people Americans were not very well armed until the mid-19th century—Kang seems to be implying we were not very well armed until 100 years later. She is careful not to actually say that, as there isn’t a shred of evidence to support such Bellesilian nonsense, so she uses a vague, undefinable term like “gun culture,” and posits that it has undergone a dramatic change.

    It should be noted that Kang clearly doesn’t like the idea of Americans keeping or bearing arms. Her essay promoting her “research” is titled “Why America Fell for Guns,” which seems to imply we were tricked into possessing them at a higher rate than other countries. She claims that law-abiding citizens acquiring firearms for self-defense “makes everyone less safe.” She appears to lament the idea of firearms being “used (she likely means carried for personal protection) in shared spaces (i.e., public) of learning, worship and leisure.” She writes appreciatively about the “commonsense gun regulations” in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—specifically noting widespread gun bans (which came with turn-ins and confiscations), licensing, and registration. And she uses terms commonly used by anti-gun extremists, such as “ghost guns,” “military-grade automatic weapons,” and the aforementioned term “commonsense gun regulations.”

    She has even adopted the latest lie that is all the rage in anti-gun circles, claiming “guns are known to be the leading cause of child and adolescent death.” Anti-gun advocates have been lying for years about children and firearms—generally by including among “children” young adults aged 18 and 19, and sometimes older—and even the Washington Post has called them out on their claims. Perhaps Kang thought she was being clever by using the term “adolescent” to make her claim at least somewhat accurate. But she apparently didn’t know that the cut-off for an “adolescent” is, from a legal perspective, the age of majority, which is 18 in the U.S.

    So, her claim remains as much a lie as when it is made by others in the anti-gun circles she clearly inhabits.

    In other words, an anti-gun student looked for a way to promote her anti-gun views, so she wrote an anti-gun paper. Then she did a really poor job of supporting her premise.

    She claims that “a gun-filled country was neither innate nor inevitable.” She then cites “research” by a number of her fellow anti-gun “scholars” that rejects her hypothesis.

    In one—a 2023 article that questions the conclusions and validity of the Bruen decision—Brian DeLay of UC Berkely School of Law concedes, “…British North Americans were unusually well-armed.”

    Sounds pretty “innate.”

    She mentions Andrew McKevitt, an anti-gun “historian” who wrote a book about the availability of surplus firearms after WWII who then tried to claim that this era was “how America became the gun country.” McKevitt’s book to which she refers doesn’t even seem to contradict that Americans have always owned a lot of guns, it just suggests that they bought more during one time period he identified. What McKevitt appears to do is invent his own definition of American “gun culture”—something that seems to be a common trend among the anti-gun crowd these days—then claim his version was created and developed after WWII. Again, Americans have always owned guns, and generally at a higher rate than other countries. The suggestion that certain periods in our history saw growth, sometimes dramatic growth, in the firearms owned by law-abiding Americans will never change the fact that Americans have always owned plenty of firearms.

    Quite simply, gun ownership in America has always been “innate.”

    Grasping at McKevitt’s premise, Kang’s article claims importers of surplus firearms created “a mass market for civilian guns that had limited practical use elsewhere,” completely ignoring the “practical” use of firearms for self-defense, not to mention hunting, target shooting, and collecting. She dramatically proclaims that advertisements promote selling guns that are “the finest made by the Fascists. Carried by the crack Italian Alpine Troops.” To drive that point home, an old advertisement that contains that very language is included.

    The only problem is, the ad is from the Lytle Novelty (emphasis added) Company, and is for toy replicas, with a clear message that states the items are “Absolutely Safe! Cannot Be Fired.”

    In addition, her “research” trying to show Americans only began owning large numbers of firearms during the mid-20th century only goes back to 1949. While it is certainly true that from 1949 until today Americans have bought many firearms, there is no data available to show how many were bought or owned prior to 1949.

    To put a finer point on the fact that a large percentage of Americans have always owned guns, the “research” by DeLay that Kang cites notes probate records in colonial America showed perhaps greater levels of gun ownership than today. He reports firearms being present in roughly 70% of colonial New England probate records, and around the same for Virginia. The lowest mark he shows for colonial probate records including firearms is around 30%; again, it sounds like gun ownership in America was, and is, indeed “innate.”

    To cap things off, this Op-Ed masquerading as research makes a couple glaringly misleading claims near its conclusion, further exposing the author’s anti-gun agenda and deeply flawed “research.” First, Kang claims, “By the 1990s, unprecedented crime rates prompted many US states to adopt gun restrictions that resulted in a substantial reduction in gun availability and saved tens of thousands of lives.” To support this claim, she cites another “research” paper she wrote; one in which she goes even further to claim that “most (emphasis added) US states implemented more restrictive gun laws.” She also claims in the paper that “the United States experienced a decline in household gun ownership.”

    Neither claim is even remotely supported; except, perhaps, by Kang’s own “research.”

    First, “most US states” did not impose more restrictions during the noted time period. Most readers are aware that gun laws in many states were actually made less restrictive over that time. The Right-to-Carry (RTC) movement began in Florida, in 1987, when the state made it far easier for law-abiding residents of the state to legally carry firearms for self-defense. By 1996, more than 20 states had enacted similar laws; some going from may-issue systems to shall-issue, and others going from no-issue to shall-issue.

    Along with the push for RTC laws that NRA promoted came many other laws intended to make gun laws less restrictive, as well as countless successful efforts to defeat the passage of anti-gun laws. Contrary to Kang’s assertion, the time period she cites was known for making gun laws far less restrictive. Reducing limitations on law-abiding gun owners had far more to do with lowering crime rates—including homicide rates—than the mythical limitations she imagines were imposed.
    Any “reduction in gun availability” or “decline in household gun ownership” are merely figments in her fevered, anti-gun imagination.

    The other glaringly misleading claim made by Kang is when she states, presumably referring to the post 1991-2016 time period she selected, “Some states have eased or repealed laws, and in 2022 the US Supreme Court limited states’ ability to restrict gun access. This has likely contributed to the recent surge in firearm deaths, particularly among Black Americans.”

    To support the claim, she cites one relatively obscure paper written in 2018 that discusses the changing of one law in one state. That change, which eliminated Missouri’s law requiring a permit to purchase a handgun, took place in 2007, when Kang says states were making laws more restrictive. Repealing the law, of course, had no impact on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that covers the purchase of all firearms from gun dealers in all states, including Missouri.

    Somehow, Kang was able to contort one study that stopped looking at data after 2013 in one state and determine that, not only was the repeal of any other anti-gun law in any other state at any other time after 2016 somehow something that “contributed to the recent surge in firearm deaths, particularly among Black Americans,” but the same can be said about the 2022 Bruen decision; in spite of the fact that violent crime has actually decreased nationwide since the Supreme Court decided Bruen.

    Ultimately, Kang’s anti-gun vitriol and questionable “research” reveal her as yet another gun ban advocate who will use her alleged status as a “scholar” to promote attacks on law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment. She might have saved herself a lot of time if she had simply written, “I don’t like guns, and I don’t think Americans should own them.” It would make just as much sense, and have just as much validity, as her Op-Ed.

  13. Europe—but Not NATO—Should Send Troops to Ukraine -Foreign Affairs-

    A taboo has been broken in Europe. Only a few months ago, it would have been inconceivable for European leaders to propose sending European troops to Ukraine. But on February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron said the deployment of European forces to Ukraine could not be “ruled out.”

    Since then, other European officials have joined the chorus; the Finnish defense minister and Polish foreign minister have both suggested that their countries’ forces could end up in Ukraine. These comments, combined with existing support for such measures in the Baltic states, show that there is a growing bloc of countries open to direct European intervention in the war.…

    [I]f the United States continues to delay aid, and especially if it elects Donald Trump (who has pledged to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, presumably by allowing Putin to keep his ill-gotten gains) as president in November, Europe will be Ukraine’s only defender.…

    Too many politicians and pundits in the United States and Europe echo Putin’s own talking points by warning that any kind of external intervention in Ukraine would lead to World War III…

    European leaders do not need to follow the dictates of an increasingly unreliable United States about how the battle in Ukraine should be waged; they can and should decide for themselves how best to ensure the continent’s freedom and security. Europe must do what it takes to safeguard its own future, and that starts with making sure Ukraine wins this war.

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/europe-not-nato-should-send-troops-ukraine
    https://archive.ph/D9EGO#selection-1689.319-1689.676

  17. Lee Smith is always a Must-Read.
    Saving Hamas

    The Palestinian terror organization refuses to release hostages while clinging to its last stronghold in Rafah. So why is the Biden administration throwing the full weight of the U.S. government at Israel to prevent it from routing Hamas?

    [Last paragraph]
    It’s not the traditional U.S.-led order in the Middle East that the revisionist faction, Obama’s faction, is most determined to dismantle but rather the existing order in the U.S. And it’s not Israel that it’s most keen to grind into dust, but America. For the party that Obama remade in his image to triumph at home, the Palestinians must win.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/saving-hamas