Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[First Amendment]]>

Next up for California: an ideological test for concealed carry applicants?

by Leave a Comment

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen last week, California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry applicants is going away, but the state’s Attorney General has seized on another provision in state law that’s (so far) unaffected by the Bruen decision; providing proof of “good moral character.”

In guidance sent out to California law enforcement shortly after the Bruen decision was handed down, AG Rob Bonta reminded issuing authorities of the “good moral character” clause, and as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh points out, appears to endorse an ideological test for those wanting to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in self-defense. Here’s what Bonta said:

Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition” or “[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years.” It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant’s proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing “law-abiding citizens”).

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added.]

Bonta says issuing authorities in the state can not only personal references from applicants, but can scour their social media pages looking for anything that they can point to as a basis of denial. Volokh says the whole scheme sounds unconstitutional to him; not just as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of Californians, but as an infringement on their First Amendment rights as well.

The government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express. People can’t be denied benefits because they

  1. endorse “hatred” (a potentially extraordinarily broad and vague term) and “racism” (a term that, especially in much recent usage, is likewise highly broad and vague),
  2. because they endorse certain extremist views of Islam (or any other religion),
  3. because they endorse violent Communist revolution,
  4. are strongly anti-police,
  5. anti-government,
  6. anti-abortion,
  7. pro-abortion-rights,
  8. environmentalist, or
  9. pro-animal-rights.

Nor does it matter that some extreme adherents of the relevant ideology engage in violence (something that’s true for many ideologies), or that there are strands in the ideology that overtly support violence under some circumstances (again, something that’s true for many ideologies). Just as the Free Exercise Clause would bar the government from engaging in religious discrimination in deciding which citizens can do certain things, so the Free Speech Clause bars the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. (The rules related to religious discrimination and viewpoint discrimination may be different when the government is acting as employer, but here we’re talking about the government controlling the behavior of ordinary citizens.)

And of course it’s easy to see how, if California were allowed to deny concealed carry licenses to whoever California law enforcement officials believe is “racis[t]” or endorses “hatred,” then some other state could deny such licenses—or lots of other kinds of licenses—to whoever its law enforcement officials believe is anti-government or anti-police or a Muslim extremist or what have you. Indeed, now that some states can ban abortion, presumably strong support of abortion rights might be seen in many states as lack of “good character” (since in those states’ views, it would be support for mass murder). The First Amendment doesn’t allow this.

I don’t think the Bruen decision allows for this kind of subjectivity either, to be honest, though it will likely take another legal challenge to curb California’s enthusiasm for violating the rights of its residents. While Justice Thomas’ opinion didn’t cast doubt on “suitability” requirements as they are practiced in three states, he did make it clear that any policy that has the effect of depriving the average law-abiding citizen from being able to carry a firearm in most places for the purposes of self-defense is a violation of their Second Amendment rights, writing “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry,”

Volokh says that, in practice, he doesn’t anticipate California’s “good moral character” clause leading to a high number of denials. I applaud him for his optimism, but I’m not convinced that will be the case, at least in population-rich counties around Los Angeles and San Francisco, which have typically had the lowest numbers of concealed handgun permits per capita. In those jurisdictions hostile to the Second Amendment, there will unfortunately be sheriffs and police chiefs who embrace Bonta’s new guidance with the intention of artificially suppressing the number of concealed carry holders in their county or city. That, of course, would squarely contradict the Bruen decision and would be challenged in court, but it could also very well delay the real world impact of the case for the tens of millions of Americans who live in the states that just had their “may issue” laws struck down.

National Scholars Association Outlines a Plan to Ban and Defund 'DEI' in Public Education

by Leave a Comment

The National Association of Scholars has a bold idea, and some might see it as a turn toward…scholarship.

President Peter Wood has penned a paper titled “Regime Change: Repelling the DEI Assault on Higher Education.”

NAS believes “diversity, equity and inclusion” deserves an “F” and should be expelled from school.

DEI’s criticism of America for “inequitable treatment” of minorities, Peter writes, often “veers into simplistic claims and fictions presented as fact.” But “esteemed historians” as well as “parents of all races” oppose classroom messages that frame the country as “fundamentally racist.”

The author outlines DEI’s posed “peril”:

  • Ethnic division and strife: DEI is an incitement to racial resentment, primarily of blacks against whites, and at another level of whites against blacks.
  • Political opportunism: DEI…is aimed at recruiting students through emotional manipulation into durable loyalty to progressive political ideologies.
  • Cultural impoverishment: DEI imposes ruthless hostility toward Western values and falsely romantic views of other traditions.
  • Historical amnesia: DEI…sets forth grossly inaccurate accounts of the American past as if they were true, and it provides students with no basis to recognize that there are other accounts better grounded in the facts.
  • Professional incompetence: Because it lowers academic standards and diverts attention from…facts, DEI leaves graduates with an inferior education.
  • International competitiveness: Other nations are not handicapping generations of students by providing them with inferior DEI-inflected educations…
  • Destructive orientation: DEI prioritizes race in all contexts and subordinates all other principled considerations.

NAS opposes racial preferences and the “rising tide” of “anti-intellectual authoritarianism in American colleges and universities.” For such scourges, the classroom is one “insertion point.” But more potent are — among others — pronouncements of systemic racism from high-ranking school officials, mission statements composed in DEI language, institutional “diversity action plans,” diversity scrutiny/reviews of faculty, and woke tenure requirements.

Another biggie: DEI “redefinitions.”

Academic qualifications…are redefined to include “lived experience.” Evidence is redefined to include “trauma-informed” opinions. … The definition of academic “success” in every discipline is redefined to include mastery of the contributions of [minorities], even when these are historically minimal.

The National Association of Scholars contends that DEI violates three Constitutional amendments:

  • First Amendment, via coerced and prohibited speech
  • Fourth Amendment, via intrusion into matters of personal conviction
  • Fourteenth Amendment, via racially discriminatory rules that violate the Equal Protection Clause

Therefore:

There is no reason why legislatures could not responsibly exercise their existing powers to end the un-Constitutional and illegal actions colleges and universities have put in place to advance “antiracism.”

Peter’s recipe for success:

  • Ban mandatory DEI training
  • Ban all forms of DEI evaluation
  • Require transparency
  • Encourage vocational schools and post-secondary education
  • Terminate funding to institutions that refuse to mend their ways

The paper calls for established “vigilance” and a “counter-bureaucracy.”

The DEI bureaucracy must be met with a well-informed and equally-determined body of people who are opposed to its agenda. This counter-bureaucracy should enforce the policies mentioned above and take whatever actions are needed to restore free speech, academic freedom, and due process in institutional settings where these have been compromised.

DEI certainly appears to have penetrated the heart of education. It’s surely hard for modern-day students to imagine that, relatively few years ago, no such thing existed. The public ed apparatus has been overwhelmed by identity-group-focused social-justice bureaucracies, overseeing classrooms that inculcate that same emphasis. Has such a transformation benefited our future? If not, what’s more feasible: a return to old-school education, or an abandonment of the government school system?

Either way, the National Association of Scholars is thinking big.

Higher education, the article asserts, can form “young men and women into responsible adults prepared to participate fully in our free and self-governing society.”

Yet:

The antiracist mania now running loose in academe does exactly the opposite. It prepares students to live in fear, resentment, and recrimination in a society dominated by a manipulative elite. We look to our elected leaders to stop these developments now, before the damage of so-called antiracism becomes irreparable.

-ALEX

See more content from me:

Man Facing Life for Attempted Assassination of Justice Kavanaugh Submits His Plea

Disney Animation Makes History Again, This Time With an Openly-Gay Teen Crush

Another Sport Bans Biological Males Like Lia Thomas From Women’s Athletics

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

The Left Is Really Losing It After Supreme Court Sides With Religious Schools

by Leave a Comment

In a victory for religious liberty, equal opportunity, and (to a somewhat lesser extent) school choice, the Supreme Court ruled against a Maine tuition program that blocked district-funded tuition from being used at religious schools. As is usually the case where religious freedom is concerned, though, the left is having an absolute meltdown over it.

In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nation’s highest court held in Carson v. Makin that a Maine program that allowed districts with no secondary schools to give tuition for private schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by barring those tuition funds from being used at religious schools.

Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.

Justice Breyer wrote a heated (and pretty pouty) dissent to this ruling, hinting at his belief in the non-existent “separation of church and state” the left likes to claim exists.

The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second.

Breyer’s dissent misses the point of the majority’s opinion, though. Roberts clearly spelled it out when he wrote that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” In other words, you are not forcing the state to endorse a particular religion when you allow people to choose any school, public or private, to attend.

Justice Sotomayor went above and beyond Breyer, losing her mind over the ruling.

What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the Court was “lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 27). Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for where this Court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.

Breyer and Sotomayor are joined by plenty of pundits on the left who feel the Court is now out there forcing everyone to be Christian or something. Take CNN’s legal analysts, for example.

“[T]his court is elevating the religious aspects of the First Amendment above others” is a complaint that makes little sense. Speech, press, assembly, and petition weren’t up for discussion here, and there is no indication in this ruling that the Court favors forcing states to give money to Christian schools over someone’s right to free speech. It’s an absurd take.

The Court arguing that you can’t exclude an institution from a tuition program on the basis of its religious bent seems like the bigger issue here. Forcing a state to make all options available to parents, even if those options include religious schools, seems like a no-brainer when you look at the plain text of the First Amendment. Very clearly, the First Amendment explains that the government cannot establish a single, government-mandated religion in the country, nor can it tell you what you can and can’t practice. The former isn’t being violated by today’s ruling, but the latter was upheld.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, who still somehow has a job, tweeted this thought out as though it was a bad thing.

“‘Separation of church and state’ is a vanishing concept at the Supreme Court” is a good thing. Why? Because it never existed in the first place. It was a made-up inference that does not stand up to the intention of the Founders at any point. And the left, which goes out of its way to target Christianity in the public square, is apoplectic that this made-up legal platitude might be slipping away.

The Supreme Court made the right ruling in Carson v. Makin, and it’s driving progressives nuts.

Bill Maher Blasts the Anti-Free-Speech Fining of Jack Del Rio, Compares It to 'Pee'

by Leave a Comment

Bill Maher continues to prove he isn’t keeping up with the Democrats.

On HBO’s Real Time Friday, the host addressed a recent controversy surrounding Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio.

As you may know, Jack recently asked why the same scrutiny given to January 6th’s chaos at the Capitol wasn’t applied to 2020’s near-yearlong riots.

When pressed by media to defend his tweet to that effect, Jack offered the following:

“Why are we not looking into those things if we’re going to talk about it? … Because it’s kind of hard for me to say. I can realistically look at it. I see the images on the TV — people’s livelihoods are being destroyed, businesses are being burned down, no problem. And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol — nothing burned down. And we’re not going to talk about, we’re going to make that a major deal. I just think [it’s] kind of two standards. And if we apply the same standard and we’re going to be reasonable with each other, let’s have a discussion. … Let’s have a discussion. We’re Americans. Let’s talk it through.”

“I’m just expressing myself,” Jack explained. “And I think we all, as Americans, have the right to express ourselves.”

As it turns out, he was wrong — at least so far as Commanders head coach Ron Rivera was concerned.

From NBC News on June 10th:

Washington Commanders head coach Ron Rivera on Friday fined his defensive coordinator, Jack Del Rio, $100,000 for calling the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol a “dust-up” and referring to the racial justice protests of 2020 as a “summer of riots.”

Ron released a statement calling the Capitol situation “domestic terrorism” and 2020’s goings-on “peaceful protests.”

Ron made clear the Commanders would “not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the actions of those on January 6 who sought to topple our government.”

Bill Maher, it seems, won’t tolerate Ron’s intolerance.

Friday night, Bill was quite the commander himself:

“Now, this is a very common view that [Jack Del Rio] has. … I think I could…convince him there are really important differences between those two things, and actually, the attack on the Capitol was worse. Nevertheless, he has a right to be wrong. In America, you have the right to be wrong.”

“They fined him,” Bill marveled. “The team fined him $100,000 for this opinion. Fining people for an opinion — I am not down with that.”

Bill referenced Coach Don’s acknowledgment that Jack had a right to free expression. “Apparently not,” Bill replied.

“You know what? This is the ‘Don’t pee on my shoe and tell me it’s raining (thing). What the [heck] are you talking about? He doesn’t have a right to an opinion. And it’s obviously not his right to do so. So…say you’re against free speech, but don’t tell me this.”

[Language Warning]:

Bill continues his move to the Right. Or, perhaps, the Left continues its move away from Bill. By modern standards, he’s three-quarters conservative whether he likes it or not:

Bill Maher Torches California for Its Regulation, Even Where the Golden State’s Sun Doesn’t Shine

Bill Maher May Have Just Delivered His Most Conservative Monologue Ever

Bill Maher Takes a Flamethrower to ‘Sad Saga’ of WaPo: ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’

Bill Maher Mocks Twitter for Its Meltdown Over Elon: ‘You Failed’

Bill Maher Nails the Left Again, This Time on Toxic Masculinity

It’s Finally Happened: A Call Rings Out for Bill Maher to Be Fired

As for that last headline, there’s a cost for speaking your mind. For Jack Del Rio, it was $100,000.

Will a calamitous cost catch up to Bill? That remains to be seen. But on the Left side of the aisle, free speech certainly isn’t what it used to be…

-ALEX

See more content from me:

Biology Professor Insists More Transgender Scientists Will Produce ‘Much More Robust Science’

New Study: America’s Faith in God Is at an All-Time Low

NYU Nursing School Launches Course on How to Care for LGBT Folx

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

FPC pledges support of free speech in Come & Take It hat case

by Leave a Comment

The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution are arguably the most important. With the latter being more important than the former. When it comes to the freedom of expression, we can go down a rabbit hole on what is or is not appropriate. I remember once talking to a family member about a Massachusetts lawmaker trying to put the word “bi*ch” on a list of prohibited words, aka hate speech and make it a crime with fines attached. The left of center family member, when I asked her her thoughts on that she said “Well, you know that could hurt someone’s feelings. So I don’t see anything wrong with that.” In that vein, I refuse to let anyone make me their bi*ch by having my free speech chilled. But what about kids and students? One school in Michigan is about to find out they made a huge mistake.

According to a press release, last week the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced their support of a lawsuit against several school officials. According to the FPC, a third-grader’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when she was not allowed to wear her “Come and Take It” hat during their annual hat day. The suit, C.S. v. McCrumb names several parties as defendants; Durand Area Schools Superintendent Craig McCrumb, Robert Kerr Elementary School Principal Amy Leffel, and On Track Coach of Robert Kerr Elementary School Michal Papenek.

“The Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago that schoolchildren do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said the student’s attorney, John R. Monroe.  “That is still the law, and schools that teach our children civics and government should recognize that.”

The student, through her father, seeks a declaration that wearing the hat in question is constitutionally protected speech, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the school officials from restricting her speech and preventing her from wearing the hat, and nominal damages.

“Public schools may not violate the rights of pro-Second Amendment students because they don’t like guns or people who support the fundamental, individual human right to armed self-defense,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We look forward to reminding these anti-rights authoritarian school defendants that the Constitution applies in public schools.”

While minor children don’t have all the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the freedom of speech and expression is one that they do have, and have had for a long while. The subject of schools battling over Second Amendment related speech and students’ rights thereof, sparks up from time to time. There were a flurry of instances from Lacey New Jersey a number of years ago dealing with schools engaging in outright overreach in disciplining students for activities off property (going to the range or in their own home) or in one case, having an NRA sticker on their vehicle.

From the suit, some fun background for the history buffs:

February 17, 2022 was “hat day,” on which students were encouraged by the school to wear hats. The Hat was black and featured a white star, an image of an AR-style rifle, and the words, “Come and take it.”. An image of the Hat is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. The words, “Come and take it,” especially when used with an image of a star and some kind of weapon, are a common slogan used to show support for the right to keep and bear arms. The words, “Come and take them,” or a derivation thereof, are reputed to have been used by King Leonidas I (of Sparta) during the Battle Thermopylae (480 B.C.) in response to a demand by Xerxes (of Persia) for the Spartans to lay down their arms and surrender. The Greek words “molon labe” from which the English translation “come and take them” was derived, were used by the I Army Corps of Greece and the Second Infantry Division of Cyprus during World War I. The words “molon labe” are the sole inscription on a bronze statue of Leonidas erected at Thermopylae in 1955. The words “come and take it” were used by American Col. John McIntosh on November 25, 1778, who was defending Ft. Morris, Georgia against a British attack, in response to a British demand for the surrender of the fort. The British declined to attempt to do so. Texans created the “Gonzales flag” during the Texas Revolution after Mexico demanded that Texas return a small cannon that Mexico had previously supplied to the colony of Gonzales, Texas, for its defense. The Gonzales flag features a single star (the Texas “lone star”), a drawing of the cannon, and the words, “Come and take it.”  A copy of the Gonzales flag is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2. The words “molon labe” are the motto of the United States Special Operations Command Central. C.S. understands the meaning of the inscription on the Hat and the importance of the inscription to the support of the right to keep and bear arms.

Paging Superintendent Craig McCrumb, school’s now in session! Take notes.

This particular incident is beyond disgusting. To put it lightly, it’s poor judgment by those telling a third-grader that she’s basically not allowed to participate in the school’s activity. So much for diversity and inclusion. The damage that the school officials have done is probably immeasurable. We’re living in a time and state where we’re supposed to be fostering tolerance and understanding, and at that young of an age no-less, what kind of message is being sent? That you’re allowed to express yourself only as long as you fall in line? Keep to the narrative? That’s about right. Come and Take It, indeed!

If a student (or parent of a student) believes they were discriminated against or disciplined for peacefully expressing their pro-Second Amendment views or not participating in some anti-rights event or speech, and would like to share your experience with us, or to report a possible civil rights violation, please feel free to email our FPC Legal Action Hotline at [email protected] or call our toll-free Legal Action Hotline at (855) 252-4510.

The filing of this important lawsuit is made possible by FPC’s members and donors. Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Thankfully the FPC has taken the reins by rendering aid in this case. Free speech is a cornerstone of our civilized society. Without this freedom of expression, discourse cannot take place, and thus, we’d be in a vacuum of idea exchange. Whether it’s a third-grader that wishes to wear a “Come and Take It” hat, or a middle-aged man that advocates for everyones’ right to call someone a “bi*ch”, the speech is protected. It seems in their attempts to usurp the rights of a child, the administrators of that school are being a bunch of word they wanted to outlaw in Massachusetts(es). I’m interested to see how this fleshes out, I would not want to be on the receiving end of FPC’s wrath. Molon labe bi*ches!

For a bit of more commentary on this story, be sure to check out my friend and colleague from Guns and Gadgets HERE or in the embed below, and be sure to read Cam’s take on the lawsuit here.