McDonald’s CEO Warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that Soaring Crime is Leaving its Corporate Staff Too Terrified to Return to HQ

Mayor Lori Lightfoot has allowed criminals to take over the once great city of Chicago. As such, we are now seeing a corporate exodus out of the Windy City. How long before McDonald’s follows Boeing, Citadel, the Chicago Bears and others out of Chicago? Not very long at this rate. The city of Muddy Waters, John Belushi, John Hughes, and Michael Jordan is dying before our eyes. Little to no media coverage on Lightfoot’s willful incompetence. Shameful.

McDonald’s CEO warns Chicago Mayor Lightfoot that soaring crime in burger giant’s home city is leaving its corporate staff too terrified to return to its HQ

  • Chris Kempczinski spoke last and says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back
  • He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis’ 
  • Crime is up 37 percent from this point in 2021, according to the city’s own data 
  • Murders and shootings are down double digits but thefts are up a shocking 64 percent
  • Previously, Kempczinski appeared to blame parents of two children who were shot and killed in a McDonald’s drive-thru in Chicago to Mayor Lori Lightfoot 
  • Kempczinski – who lives in the city with his family – pledged to not only keep the golden arches headquartered in Chicago but build a new innovation center 

By, Sept 16, 2022

The CEO of McDonald’s is speaking out about the crime crisis in Chicago and believes the lack of safety is keeping employees from returning to the fast food giant’s Windy City HQ in a warning to Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Chris Kempczinski spoke last Wednesday at the Economic Club of Chicago, where he says the violence has been a problem when trying to convince employees to come back.

He said: ‘Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by the same question: ‘What’s going on in Chicago? There is a general sense out there that our city is in crisis.’

View Chicago Crime Statistics Here.



Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Suffers Enormous Defeat: Chicago Bears DENY Her Proposal To Stay In The City Of Chicago

Judge Overrules Despotic Democrats, ‘Vote-By-Mail Statute Is Unconstitutional’

Watchdog To Probe IRS After Hundreds Of Employees Failed To Pay Taxes

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How the James-Younger Gang’s Historic Defeat Showed the Importance of a Well-Armed and Responsible Citizenry

The outlaws met their match on September 7 in 1876. They fell not to federal marshals but to the townspeople of Northfield, Minnesota.

“Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you.” Thus spoke Alexander Graham Bell on March 10, 1876, in the world’s first successful telephone message. Twenty-two-year-old Thomas Augustus Watson thereby became history’s first recipient of a phone call, though he was no further away than an adjacent room. Telemarketers would inevitably follow.

Six months later, on today’s very date—September 7 in 1876—telephonic communication in remote Northfield, Minnesota was still years in the future. Nonetheless, local townspeople by word of mouth put an effective end to a notorious crime spree. “Get your guns, boys, they’re robbing the bank!” shouted Northfield resident J. S. Allen.

The bank robbers on that day were among the most feared and famous outlaws of the day, the James-Younger Gang. Members included Jesse James and his brother Frank, the Younger brothers (Cole, John, Bob, and Jim), plus occasional cohorts such as Clell Miller, Charlie Pitts and Bill Chadwell. Most hailed from Missouri but over an entire decade, they robbed and killed in multiple states from Texas to Kentucky to Iowa and finally, Minnesota.

Not wanting to hold up the First National Bank of Northfield on empty stomachs, the Gang sat down for fried eggs and whisky at a restaurant at about noon. Tanked up and ready to go shortly before 2:00 pm, they headed over to the bank. Having noticed the outlaws (alert residents later testified that the thugs reeked of alcohol), the stage was set for a violent confrontation.

Gunshots rang out and a Swedish immigrant selling vegetables fell dead. Inside the bank, teller James Heywood refused to cooperate by forking over the cash and was shot dead on the spot. As townspeople opened fire, the Gang attempted to escape with a few bags of nickels. Two of the thugs were killed, and every one of the remaining six (including Jesse James himself) was wounded.

What’s the difference, asks an old joke, between a successful bank robber and one who ends up in prison? One’s a pro, and one’s a con. In the end, the James-Younger Gang were definitely in the latter category.

Well-armed and public-spirited Northfield citizens formed a posse and pursued the crooks. All but brothers Frank and Jesse James were either killed or caught and sentenced to long prison terms. To this very day, Northfield hosts an annual “Defeat of Jesse James Days” celebration in September to commemorate the town’s break-up of the James-Younger Gang.

In his riveting book, Chasing Frank and Jesse James: The Bungled Northfield Bank Robbery and the Long Manhunt, Wayne Fanebust assesses this colorful episode:

[I]t was a huge mistake for the James–Younger gang to venture forth into Minnesota, looking for fat bank to rob. It was extremely arrogant of the Missouri outlaws to think that the hard-working farm and businesspeople of the northern prairie would simply run away once the shooting started. And when the shooting started at Northfield, Minnesota, the townspeople offered stiff and brave resistance, exchanging gunfire with gunfire. When the shooting stopped, two outlaws lay dead in the street, and the rest were shot up and sent riding for their lives. Two citizens of Northfield were killed in a shocking crime that set in motion one of the greatest and most exciting manhunts in American history.

When the James Brothers resumed their crime spree (mostly train robberies) a few years later, Missouri Governor Thomas Crittenden privatized their apprehension by offering a huge reward.

On April 3, 1882, an aspiring Gang member named Bob Ford fired the fatal shot that killed Jesse James in St. Joseph, Missouri. The story is dramatized in the 2007 Brad Pitt/Casey Affleck film, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Jesse’s brother Frank surrendered shortly thereafter.

A fifteen-year theft and murder saga had come to an abrupt end, underscoring the wisdom of the adage, “A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.”

When the cops do their job and do it well, I’m the first to offer thanks. But we should always be just as grateful for a well-armed, vigilant, and responsible citizenry.


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The FBI Secretly Pressured Americans To Waive Away Their Gun Rights

  • The FBI secretly provided forms to Americans between 2016 and 2019 to “voluntarily” relinquish their rights to own, buy or even use firearms, according to internal documents and communications. 
  • The signed forms, which were unearthed by the firearms rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA), raise serious legal questions, lawyers say.
  • “We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, outside counsel for GOA. 

The FBI secretly pressured Americans into signing forms that relinquish their rights to own, purchase or even use firearms, according to a trove of internal documents and communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The forms were presented by the FBI to people at their homes and in other undisclosed locations, according to bureau documents unearthed through the Freedom of Information Act by the firearm rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and shared with the DCNF. At least 15 people between 2016 and 2019 signed the secret forms, which ask signatories to declare themselves as either a “danger” to themselves or others or lacking “mental capacity adequately to contract or manage” their lives.

GOA and attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment law told the DCNF the existence of the forms raise serious legal questions.

“We’re into a pre-crime, Minority Report type of world where the FBI believes it can take constitutional rights away from anyone it thinks possibly might pose a threat in the future,” said Robert Olson, GOA’s outside counsel who specializes in firearms law. “Which certainly is not something you expect in the United States.”

The form specifies that signatories will be permanently registered with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) — which the form states would legally bar signatories from being able to “purchase, to possess and to use any firearm.” It is unclear what exact criteria the FBI used to identify signatories, but some forms include bureau notes detailing ongoing investigations.

Many signatories allegedly made violent threats in online chat rooms, in person and on social media platforms, FBI notes show. The 15 signed forms obtained by the DCNF show FBI agents in Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine presented them to Americans — whose names were redacted by the bureau.

Click here to view Screenshot/Signed NICS Indices Self-Submission Form.

While the existence of the FBI form itself was first revealed in 2019 by the firearms blog Ammoland, the outlet did not provide evidence of it being used at the time. GOA obtained the signed forms as part of its lawsuit initiated in January 2020 against the bureau to compel disclosure of records related to the forms.

A spokesperson for the FBI told the DCNF the form was “discontinued” in December 2019, but they did not say why that decision was made.

“The NICS Indices Self-Submission form was created to provide an avenue for individuals to self-report to the NICS Section when individuals felt they were a danger to themselves or others,” the FBI spokesperson said.

‘That Is Terrifying To Me’

In order to get signatures, FBI agents in some cases interviewed people at their homes and elsewhere. While signing the form is supposed to be done “voluntarily,” lawyers told the DCNF there is a sense of undue pressure when Americans have to deal directly with FBI.

“A person is almost invariably at a disadvantage when dealing with armed federal agents,” said Olson.

In 2017, there was one case in which the FBI “was advised of a Facebook conversation” where a man allegedly “threatened to ‘shoot up’ a church,” according to bureau notes. The man denied making the threats in interviews at his home, telling the FBI “he did not want to kill anyone” and has “never possessed a firearm and has no desire to possess a firearm,” notes show.

Nevertheless, the man later filled out the form waiving his gun rights.

In 2018, FBI agents in Maine interviewed a high school student who “decided to look at online advice for hacking” on his school-assigned laptop, bureau notes show. Agents tried to access the student’s Facebook, but were “unable” to do so, according to the notes. However, the high school student eventually agreed to sign the self-submission form.

Another case involved a Massachusetts man who was arrested for vandalism in 2017 after “he broke several apartment windows” and allegedly told police, “I’m gonna kill all you white cops,” according to FBI notes. Three months later, he was interviewed at a redacted location by the FBI and was transported to a hospital after he “became agitated, began sweating profusely and complained of muscle pains.”

Once at the hospital, the man signed the self-submission form in the presence of a doctor and an FBI agent, according to bureau notes.

Reed Martz, a lawyer who runs a Second Amendment blog, told the DCNF “there is implicit pressure any time the FBI is asking you to sign a form.” There is naturally “an adversarial relationship” between everyday people and the FBI, he said.

“The FBI presented this to people,” said Martz. “That is terrifying to me. Think about that. The whole thing is chilling.”

It is unclear whether FBI agents threatened anyone with arrest if they didn’t sign.

Click here for Screenshot/FBI Notes, 2017 Involving Church Incident/FBI

Unanswered Legal Questions

Records do not show when the FBI form was created, who created it and whether or not it was distributed to federal agencies. However, the form was apparently “reviewed by legal counsel,” an FBI employee told a colleague in a November 2016 email obtained by the DCNF. At least 10 people had signed the forms by November 2016, the same FBI employee told their colleague.

Two days later, on that same email thread, one of the FBI employees said they “shared” the forms with “agencies who use these forms like Secret Service and Social Security.” The Secret Service declined the DCNF’s request for comment and the Social Security Administration did not respond.

Federal law requires government agencies to get public comment and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. Likewise, all official federal forms are supposed to be assigned a “control number,” experts told the DCNF.

However, the forms unearthed by GOA do not have a control number — a fact that underscores the FBI’s glaring lack of transparency — lawyers say.

“This is a form that’s designed for outside the office,” said Martz. “It raises my level of suspicion that it doesn’t have an official form number that you can look up and can download.”

The form also contains space for a “physician or mental health professional” to affirm the signatory “has adequate mental capacity to voluntarily execute this document,” which is a huge red flag, according to John Harris, a lawyer who heads the Tennessee Firearms Association.

“I don’t see how a licensed physician could ever competently sign the declaration that the person has the mental capacity to voluntarily execute the agreement but lacks the ‘mental capacity adequately to contract or manage the details of my life.’” said Harris.

If the signatory does not have the “mental capacity” to own, buy or use firearms, they “could not possibly have the competence” to agree to sign a form waiving away their gun rights, said Martz.

Click here for Screenshot/Signed And Redacted Physician Or Mental Health Professional Verification On FBI form/FBI

There are also questions about the form’s compliance with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. The GCA holds that someone may be barred from owning guns if they are “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.”

However, the GCA makes no mention of people being able to declare themselves as mentally unfit to own firearms. Likewise, the forms do not indicate that courts ruled signatories as unfit to own firearms.

“By definition, the people targeted with these forms are those who are not otherwise ‘prohibited persons’ and have not committed any actual crime with which they can be charged,” said Olsen. “Otherwise, there would be no need to use the form.”

Harris noted the GCA does not necessarily render anyone with a “mental condition” a “prohibited person” to own firearms. Both those labels “require adjudication,” he said.

“The form seeks to deceive and mislead not only the individual, but perhaps even a medical provider to believe that a mental health issue is adequate to render someone a prohibited person under the statutory language, when the form itself lacks any information or disclosures that make it even remotely an accurate representation of the law,” Harris told the DCNF.

The FBI declined to identify any statutory justification for the forms, and OMB did not respond to a request for comment.

‘You Can’t Waive Constitutional Rights’

Those who signed the FBI forms could have standing to sue should the government ever prosecute them for trying to buy a gun, lawyers say.

“How would such unilateral waiver of a constitutionally protected right give rise to a basis for subsequent denial of that right and or form the basis for a valid criminal conviction?” Harris asked. “Could, in contrast, someone waive the right to vote or run for office and have that enforced?”

More fundamentally, the FBI forms call into question whether or not Americans can sign away their constitutional rights. Ken Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, says you can’t.

“You can’t waive constitutional rights,” said Cuccinelli, now a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America. “They’re natural rights.”



Investigative reporter.


ATF Agents, Officer Show Up ‘Warrantless’ To Demand Info On Man’s Guns, Video Appears To Show

Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to categorize gun store sales separately

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

WATCH: Biden Holds Midterm Election Rally in Pennsylvania—And Nobody Came!

Well, well. Joe Biden is on the midterm campaign trail and he held a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania on Thursday, August 30th, 2022.

The theme of the rally was a “Safer America.”

Interesting in that this comes after the FBI raid on a former president’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida and the U.S. Marshals armed raid on organic Amish farmer Amos Miller in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania.

QUESTION: Safer for who, exactly?

BTW, I guess someone forgot to send out invitations to his event because hardly anyone showed up. I guess there aren’t many Biden supporting Democrats in Pennsylvania?

Here’s a Fox News video of the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania rally:

Notice how few people showed up. I’ve seen bus stops with more people than this. It seems that Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. just doesn’t have the power to draw in the crowds that his predecessor did.

I wonder why? Was it gas prices are so high that people decided that they couldn’t afford to drive to Wilkes-Barre?

Maybe it was the cost to enter the event? Did Joe’s people charge for this event to make up for the massive spending to pay for the salaries of 87,000 new armed IRS agents or maybe the cost estimated to be between $469 billion to $519 billion to pay off student loans over the next ten years? Just saying.

Maybe it was the U.S. Marshals raiding an organic farm owned by Amos Miller who’s Amish in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania? Maybe the Amish are boycotting Uncle Joe?

Maybe it was because Biden fearlessly defended the FBI, that he sent to ransack his political opponent’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida?

Or maybe it was because at the rally Biden pledged to take away every Americans right to keep and bear arms stating, “We beat the NRA. We took on them and beat the NRA straight up. They have no idea how intimidating they are to elected officials. We don’t stop here. I am determined to ban assault weapons in this country! Certainly. I’ve done it before. And I will do it again.

Exactly, Biden clearly understands that an armed citizenry is a direct threat to each and every tyrannical elected official—like Biden.

Maybe its about defunding the police because that what his base, i.e. Black Lives matter wants. But wait Biden stated, “It’s disgusting to see the new attacks on the FBI threatening the lives of law enforcement agencies and their families for simply executing the law and doing their job. I am against defunding the police; I am also opposed to defunding the FBI.

So Biden doesn’t want to defund his private police force—the FBI. Now I get it.

Since the armed raid on Mar-a-Lago the FBI has been held accountable and is under fire by many American for their actions. It now appears that the FBI is nothing more than the enforcement arm, of and for, the Democrat Party, much like the Nazis Gestapo, East German Staci and Russian KGB.

Wait a minute. I don’t know anyone who has threatened any FBI agent or his family, do you? But we do know that the Florida Seminole County GOP office was vandalized over the weekend with the words “eat s*** Fascists” smeared on the windows.

QUESTION: Was this attack in Seminole County directly because Biden called Republicans “semi-fascists?”

On August 25th, Aljazeera reported, “Biden spoke on the need to save the country from the ‘semi-fascism’ of Donald Trump’s Republicans and prevent those ‘extremist’ Republicans from taking control of Congress in the November 8 vote.”

As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis noted in an email, “It’s no coincidence that this vandalism comes after Joe Biden called conservatives ‘semi-fascists.’

Rhetoric kills. Just ask the Jews in Nazi Germany and those anti-Stalinists in the former Soviet Union. Using language like this leads inextricably to violence.

BTW, the media reported that 500 people showed up for Biden’s Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania rally. Looking at the above video it appears to be less than 100 people.

We report, you decide.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


REALITY! Joe Biden Speaks in Pennsylvania, Can’t Even Fill High School Gym

Mass Shootings Sweep Democrat-Run Cities During Labor Day Weekend

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Lawyer, “We’ve learned today that Trump’s files were taken by the FBI”

Governor Ron DeSantis on the Recommendation of a Grand Jury Removes 4 Broward County School Board Members

The gross negligence surrounding the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shootings in March 2018 was astounding including failures by the School District, the local FBI, the Broward Cowards in the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, including Sheriff Israel, and even the Administrator’s of the High School itself.

Parents of children murdered sued the School District for negligence and received $130 million after settling with the Department of Justice.

Remember that the School District had taken a large Grant from Obama/Holder called the “Promises Program” to suppress the criminal activity of minority students including the killer Cruz.  Also both the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and FBI had numerous reports on social media warning about Cruz that they failed to follow up on.  Sheriff Israel had a terrible policy in regard to response to active shootings; his Deputy stationed at the school was a coward hiding behind those policies and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Administration failed in many ways.

These terrible mass murders were preventable.

This was outlined in the Special Commission’s Report on the shootings.

Sadly, the result was a knee jerk reaction by Republicans under pressure in the Legislature to quickly drum up a Red Flag Law modeled after existing Blue State Laws which reduced the rights of law abiding gun owners.

DeSantis removes more local elected officials from office. This time, it’s school board members

Zac Anderson Tallahassee Democrat:

Gov. Ron DeSantis is removing more local elected officials from office, this time on the recommendation of a grand jury.

DeSantis announced Friday he is removing Broward County School Board members Patricia Good, Donna Korn, Ann Murray and Laurie Rich Levinson. They serve the nation’s sixth-largest school district and second-largest in Florida.

A grand jury investigating school safety issues in the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County recommended that the school board members be removed. The grand jury accused the elected officials of “incompetence and neglect of duty.”

“We recommend that the Governor remove them from their elected offices,” the grand jury report states.

DeSantis immediately appointed four people to replace the suspended school board members:

  • Torey Alston, a former Broward County commissioner and president of Indelible Solutions;
  • Manual “Nandy” A. Serrano, a member of the Florida Sports Foundation Board of Directors, and CEO and Founder of Clubhouse Private Wealth;
  • Ryan Reiter, a U.S. Marine veteran and Director of Government Relations for Kaufman Lynn Construction;
  • Kevin Tynan, an attorney who previously served on the Broward County School Board and South Broward Hospital District.

©Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.


DeSantis suspends Democratic state attorney he accuses of being ‘woke,’ not enforcing laws

Supreme Court Rules on Firing of Catholic School Teacher Over Same-Sex Marriage

The Australia Model for Gun Control Is Useless

The case of gun control advocates for the U.S. to move to the Australia model for gun ownership is faulty at best.

In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which left dozens dead and hundreds wounded, a great number of people have laid the blame on America’s relatively lax gun laws and alleged unwillingness to adopt “common sense” gun control.

In particular, gun control advocates tell us America could eliminate mass shootings if only we followed Australia’s lead.

The Australia Model

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in 1996, the national government introduced a mandatory buyback program which forced gun owners to sell certain firearms (mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns) to the state, who promptly destroyed them.

This program, which resulted in the stock of civilian firearms in the country being reduced by approximately twenty percent, was effectively large-scale gun confiscation, as gun owners would have become criminals were they to withhold their firearms from the state.

Since the introduction of these measures, Australia’s firearm homicide rates have fallen and it has yet to witness a mass shooting. Because of these “results,” Australia has been constantly cited as a successful example of gun control in action.

But the reality is much less simplistic than the narrative being promoted by gun control advocates.

Sure, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since it enacted gun control, but that hardly proves anything by itself. A 2011 study published in Justice Policy Journal compared the trends in mass shootings before and after 1996, when gun control was enacted, in Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is Australia’s neighbor and is very similar to it socioeconomically, but unlike Australia, it retained the legal availability of guns that were banned and confiscated in Australia in 1996. It thus served as a useful control group to observe whatever effects gun control had on mass shootings.

The authors of the study found that, after taking into account difference in population size, Australia and New Zealand did not have statistically different trends in mass shootings before or after 1996. Indeed, New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997, “despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

Well, what about firearm homicides in general? Or firearm suicides?

View Firearm Homicide Deaths by Calendar Year — 1979-2009

These questions were answered by a 2016 American Medical Association (AMA) study, which examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adoption of gun control in Australia in 1996. The authors found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate.

This is in accordance with past research. For example, the authors of a paper published in the International Journal of Criminal Justice report that, “Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.”

The authors of the AMA study did find that the decline in firearm suicide rates accelerated in the wake of gun control, but concluded that “it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms” because the “decline in total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths were of greater magnitude.”

In other words, since non-firearm suicide rates were reduced to an even greater extent than firearm suicide rates in the wake of gun control, one cannot firmly conclude that gun control is the reason firearm suicide rates fell.

Basically, gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all. If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.

A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.


Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a Master of Business graduate student at the University of Rhode Island with a bachelor’s degree in Pharmaceutical Science and a minor in Economics.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report on “Unprecedented” Criminal Firearm Misuse in Melbourne Undermines Hillary and Obama’s Calls for Australia-Style Gun Control

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Karl Marx Supported Gun Rights—but Marxists Don’t

Karl Marx didn’t support the right of workers to bear arms because he saw it as an inalienable right. He supported gun rights because they were a means to an end.

For just $10.77, people can go on Amazon and buy wall art of Ronald Reagan apparently defending the Second Amendment.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered,” the text reads next to a picture of Reagan; “any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary.”

There are a few problems with the quote, but the biggest one is that Reagan never said it.

As numerous fact checkers have noted—including, and Politifact—the author of the quote is none other than Karl Marx, the German philosopher and author of The Communist Manifesto who used language nearly verbatim to this in an 1850 address in London.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary,” Marx said in his “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.”

In fairness to the many internet users duped by the fake Reagan meme, the quote sounds a bit like something Reagan could have said (though it’s highly unlikely the Gipper, a skilled and careful orator, would have ever said “by force if necessary”).

Reagan, after all, generally—though not universally—supported gun rights and was skeptical of efforts to restrict firearms.

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens,” Reagan famously noted in a 1983 speech.

Some might be surprised that Marx and Reagan had similar views on gun control. Marx was of course the father of communism, whereas Reagan was famously anti-communist. Moreover, Marx’s modern disciples are staunch supporters of gun control, whether they identify as socialists or progressives.

“Guns in the United States pose a real threat to public health and safety and disproportionately impact communities of color,” Nivedita Majumdar, an associate professor of English at John Jay College, wrote in the Marxist magazine Jacobin. “Their preponderance only serves corporate interests, a corrupt political establishment, and an alienated capitalist culture.”

This distaste for guns goes beyond socialist magazines. As The Atlantic reported during the last presidential election cycle, progressive politicians are increasingly embracing more stringent federal gun control laws.

“No longer are primary candidates merely calling for tighter background checks and a ban on assault weapons,” journalist Russell Berman wrote in 2020; “in 2019, contenders like Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas were calling for national licensing requirements and gun-buyback programs.”

The point here is not to disparage politicians like O’Rourke and Booker as “Marxists,” a label they’d almost certainly object to. The point is that progressive politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) might channel Marx in their class rhetoric, but they are not embracing his messaging when it comes to the proletariat’s access to firearms.

As it happens, this is a common theme with Marxists throughout history.

Some may find it odd that Marxists don’t support gun rights when Marx himself did, but there’s an explanation as to why, and it stems in part from Marx’s conception of rights.

Classical liberals of the American founding saw human rights as inviolable because because they are natural rights “endowed by their Creator.” As Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1824 letter, rights—including the right to bear arms—are “inherent in the people,” which makes them inalienable.

Unlike the American Founders (and Reagan for that matter), Marx didn’t see the right to bear arms as a natural, individual right. In fact, Marx didn’t believe in individual rights at all. Instead, Marx saw firearms as a means to an end, and the end was revolution.

“The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition,” he explained, “and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed.”

Marx continued:

“Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.”

We see here that Marx supported the right of workers to bear arms not because of some inalienable right, but because firearms were necessary tools in his revolution against the despised bourgeoisie.

We can surmise from this that Marx likely would have supported the peoples’ right to bear arms—right up until the point it no longer served his revolutionary purpose, at which point his support for gun rights would be jettisoned. And this is precisely what Marx’s followers did.

In his essay Letters from Afar, the infamous Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin called for an armed proletariat militia, writing that organizers should “arm all the poor, exploited sections of the population in order that they themselves should take the organs of state power directly into their own hands.”

Once Lenin achieved power, however, he immediately turned to a proven method of oppression: gun confiscation. On Decc 10, 1918, less than six months after the Bolsheviks butchered Tsar Nicholas II and his family at a house in Yekaterinburg, Soviet citizens were ordered by the Council of People’s Commissar to turn their firearms over to the state.

The penalty for refusal was ten years in prison.

Lenin was hardly an outlier. Marxists who followed in his footsteps, including Mao in China and Castro in Cuba, also turned to gun confiscation shortly after gaining power.

Marx was not wrong that firearms were the path to power, but his followers came to realize an obvious truth: firearms were also a threat to their own power.

“Political power,” Mao famously observed, “grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Mao, in a twisted way, was right. An armed citizenry was a double-edged sword. While it served the masses as a bulwark against political oppression, it also threatened the vehicle socialists used to usher in the people’s utopia: the state. And this explains why modern Marxists tend to despise gun rights.

“There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms,” US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) recently said. “Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate.”

Massie is not wrong, and it helps explain why so many Marxists part ways with Marx on gun rights.

It’s also an important reminder that rights are not really rights at all if they can be discarded once they have served the ends one seeks.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Guns Have More Rights Than Women in Polk County, Florida? What!

Two unhinged Letters to Ledger Editor were printed on August 7th, 2022 stating that guns are inanimate objects—they don’t have rights—however, we know that law abiding, gun owning citizens do under the 2nd Amendment to both defend themselves and defend against a tyrannical government, which we now have.

The woman writing the letter actually stated that guns themselves have more rights than women. I corrected this by stating that guns are inanimate objects = they don’t have rights – however…….

Guns have more rights than women

As of right now, AK-47s and other guns have more rights than women in Polk County and the United States. This is the first time in my lifetime that a class of citizens has been stripped of a right they have had for 49 years.

This was done by a politicized Supreme Court made up of five constitutional fundamentalists and one handmaiden of the conservative Republican Party.

It is also sad that in Polk County we two Republican state representatives that voted for Florida’s 15 weeks ban on abortion and have been reelected with no opposition.

That would be Melony Bell and Sam Killebrew. Both, to my knowledge, have never considered women’s health as an important issue, except to restrict it. These are the same two elected officials that manage to put gun rights before women’s rights. I am offended that that the rights my generation worked so hard to have, have been taken away from my granddaughters.

It is time for all women and men who support restoring these rights to send a message on this radicalized agenda.

I sincerely hope you will join me and become energized in voting this extremist view out of office and out of our private lives.

Sheryll Strang, Winter Haven

Gun rights are not ‘inalienable rights’

The Declaration of Independence affirms the ‘self-evident’ rights as ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ It says these ‘inalienable rights’ have been given to all humans by their Creator, and that governments were created to protect them.

The Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Blasé J. Cupich, reacted after a gunman attacked attendees at the Highland Park Independence Day parade. His words cut to the heart of the gun-violence crisis:

‘The right to bear arms does not eclipse the right to life, or the right of all Americans to go about their lives free of the fear that they might be shredded by bullets at any moment. Gun violence is a life issue.’

Cardinal Cupich is right. Loving our neighbors means no longer allowing angry, violent individuals to use weapons of war against our families, friends and communities. We do applaud the limited gun-safety bill that just passed Congress, but it’s going to take more to make our communities peaceful and safe.

The mass shooting in Highland Park is not unique; families’ lives are torn apart daily by gun violence.

We need to demand stronger gun-safety laws now – including a ban on assault rifles. Our government was created to protect us; it is time for them to honor this duty.

Bernice S. Warren, Bartow

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Karl Marx Supported Gun Rights—but Marxists Don’t

Swipe For Tyranny, Oppression and Insane Lies

“The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end, you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up their minds. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such people, you can then do what you please.” — Hannah Arendt

Democrats election and fundraising emails read like a homicidal madman’s manifesto accusing their victims of the crimes they have committed. They accuse us of the crimes they are committing with impunity.

Evil madness. Irrational and anti-real. Their modus operandi. That’s expected. Any American buying into is nothing short of astonishing.

Look at this – it’s evocative of  Nazi party propaganda where the Jews were the oppressors and the Nazis their victims. When you control the press, you can sell anything.

Here is the full text of their election campaign:

The November election is crucial because everything we care about is at stake.

  • Whether abortion is legal – or doctors are jailed and women die
  • Whether assault weapons are banned – or our children are massacred
  • Whether global warming is reduced – or our planet becomes uninhabitable
  • Whether our votes are counted – or we live under a Trump Dictatorship

If Democrats win, we will move forward as a nation. If Republicans win, we will descend into tyranny.

We know we can win because we beat Donald Trump in 2020 by turning out 81 million Democratic voters for Joe Biden – the most votes ever.



Misery Index Spikes: ‘America First’ vs. American Carnage

Food Now Being Kept Behind Lock and Key After Soaring Prices Make It More Expensive Than Ever

Police officer shot and killed during traffic stop in ‘senseless act of violence’

Manchin-Schumer Tax and Spend Bill Raises Taxes on Millions of Americans, Even on Lower and Middle Class

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Yes, Elisjsha Dicken Is a Good Samaritan—and He Deserves a Medal

On Sunday evening—July 17, 2022—at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana, a gunman opened fire in a food court. He killed three people and wounded two others. He might have murdered many more but for the quick work of a man named Elisjsha Dicken, who pulled out his own gun and blew away the assailant.

Dicken, who was legally carrying a firearm under the state’s constitutional carry law, was hailed as a “Good Samaritan” for saving lives. The next day, the Greenwood police chief added, “Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen.”

Gun control advocates immediately condemned the police chief for his “Good Samaritan” reference, drawn from a famous parable told by Jesus Christ. A local reporter exclaimed,

The term, ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured and ignored. I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone.

Who is correct here, the police chief or the reporter? A related question is, Did Jesus support self-defense, or the taking of a guilty life to save the lives of innocents?

In Chapter 10 of the Book of Luke in the New Testament, Jesus tells his parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan is judged “good” because when he came upon a man who was beaten and robbed, he chose of his own free will to help the injured man with his own resources. As I wrote in my 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist?, if the Samaritan had ignored the man or expected the government to help him, we would likely know him today as the “Good-for-Nothing” Samaritan.

The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable did not commit a violent act himself. The injured man’s assailants were presumably long gone. He stepped in to assist the assailed. So strictly speaking, the Greenwood police chief’s reference was not entirely analogous to Elisjsha Dicken’s action in taking down the shooter at the shopping mall.

For centuries, many people have employed the term “Good Samaritan” to describe anyone who isn’t compelled to come to the aid of the innocent but takes the initiative to do so anyway. A Good Samaritan takes charge of a bad situation, improves it as best he can, and prevents further harm. That is exactly what Elisjsha Dicken did in Greenwood.

Undoubtedly, the critical reporter in this instance is a person of good intent. He can’t imagine Jesus endorsing Dicken’s action because Jesus was a man of peace. He might even cite Matthew, chapter five, in which Jesus urges us to “turn the other cheek” if someone insults us or physically slaps us in the face.

“The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist,” writes Lars Larson in Does Jesus Christ Support Self-Defense?. To “turn the other cheek” means to refrain from a needless escalation of a problematic situation. Elisjsha Dicken did not escalate anything; in fact, he dramatically and decisively de-escalated it in the only possible way, given the circumstances.

The reporter likely shares the widely-held, radically pacifist or “namby-pamby” view of Jesus—the view that he would never endorse an act of violence for any purpose, even if it’s necessary to save lives. It implies that Elisjsha Dicken should have run for cover and allowed the Greenwood shooter to kill another dozen or two people. That’s wrong, if not downright blasphemous.

When Jesus dined at The Last Supper, he gave his disciples specific instructions, including this one (Luke 22:36):

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 

Note that he did not advise anyone, then or at any other time, to stand idly by and allow wanton slaughter of innocents. And he offered support for the threat of force to prevent the theft of property as well. In Luke 11:21, Jesus said:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and divides up his plunder.

This is the same Jesus who, in Luke 12:39, says, “If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” It’s the same Jesus who never criticized anyone for possessing a lethal weapon such as a sword, though he certainly condemned the initiation of force or the impetuous and unnecessary use of it.

In Jesus, Guns and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say?, Gary DeMar maintains that

Being armed and willing to defend ourselves, our family, and our neighbors is not being unchristian or even unloving. Self-defense can go a long way to protect the innocent from people who are intent on murder for whatever reason.

The Greenwood reporter’s errant perspective is not untypical of people who think they know Jesus and Christianity but spend more time criticizing them than learning about them. I see evidence of this all the time, most recently from a speaker at an April 2022 conference in Prague, Czech Republic.

“When it comes to the source of individual rights,” the speaker pontificated with misplaced confidence, “there are only three possibilities.” One, he said, is a Creator (God), which he summarily dismissed as a ridiculous, untenable proposition. The second is government, which he ruled out as equally ridiculous and untenable. The only logical option, he said, was “nature”—something which he suggested evolved out of nothing from nobody. As I listened with the largely student audience, I thought to myself, “This supposed expert hasn’t even considered a fourth option, namely, a combination of the first and third—which is to say that God, as the author of nature, is in fact the author of individual rights as well.”

The speaker added another uninformed dig at Christianity by claiming it was stupid for Jesus to ever suggest you should love your neighbor. “What if your neighbor is an axe-murderer? How much sense would that make?” he asked derisively. If he had known of the passages I cite above, he would have been embarrassed by his own ignorance. As a general principle, Jesus argued, you should love your neighbor but the same Jesus would urge you to arm yourself if your neighbor threatens your life or property.

In The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time, Christian theologians Norman Geisler and J. P. Moreland write:

To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.

When Elisjsha Dicken pulled out his gun to stop a shooting spree, he had every reason to believe he might attract the shooter’s aim and be killed himself. Fortunately, he was not, and he is among the living whose lives he saved.

If Elisjsha Dicken had been killed, the rest of us could at least take comfort in the words of Jesus as quoted in John 15:13. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Elisjsha Dicken is not only a Good Samaritan. He’s a very good one. Give him a medal.

Science is Affirming Creation, Not Accident by Lawrence W. Reed

What Does the Bible Say About Self-Defense?

Was Jesus a Socialist? by Lawrence W. Reed


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is


Black women who once hated guns are embracing them as violence rises

The Myth That Australia’s Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Law Firm Forces Out Own Lawyers Who Won Landmark Supreme Court Gun Case

There is a reckoning coming. These fascists are pushing Americans too far.

Law firm forces out own lawyers who won Supreme gun case

‘We were given a stark choice’

By Art Moore, WND, June 27, 2022:

Two lawyers who successfully argued the landmark Supreme Court case affirming a constitutional right to be armed outside the home have been forced out of their Washington, D.C., law firm.

Amid pressure from clients and other attorneys at the firm, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, no longer will handle Second Amendment cases, Politico reported.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, who argued successfully before the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, said they had to resign.

“We were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Clement said in a statement reported by Politico.

“Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client’s position is unpopular in some circles.”

Kirkland spokesman Jon Ballis told Politico he hoped the firm could continue to work with the two attorneys on matters not related to guns.

The announcement of the dropping of gun cases and the resignations took place on the day the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down New York’s law requiring anyone who wishes to obtain a concealed-carry permits to demonstrate a “proper purpose” to have weapons outside the home.

Politico noted that one decade ago, Clement left Atlanta-based King & Spalding after the firm distanced itself from Clement’s work to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act. Signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, DOMA defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed individual states not to recognize same-sex marriages recognized by other states.

At the time, Clement explained: “I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do.” The Supreme Court overturned DOMA in 2013 in a 5-4 ruling.


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Responding to the Risk Protection Article in The Lakeland Ledger

Reference the article below on Risk Protection Orders in the Lakeland Ledger. While I don’t subscribe to the Lakeland Ledger—this article was sent to me by a friend.  I think it was published on July 15th, 2022.  It illustrates several points we  have been making about the unconstitutional Florida’s Risk Protection Order (RPO) or Red Flag Law codified within SB 7026, Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act signed into law in June 2018 following MSDHS, school shootings in Parkland, FL.

See our points in BOLD letters below. As always, your comments are welcomed.

Florida judge denies ‘red flag’ request over gun at Polk County

Polk Sheriff’s Office makes first appeal of RPO denial

by Gary White  –  The Ledger

Three weeks before the slaughter at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, a school resource deputy at Kathleen High School received an anonymous tip that a student had brought a gun to campus.

The deputy found the student, a senior, in a reading class on the afternoon of May 4. He asked the student to give him his backpack, and the student replied, “Why?”

When the 18-year-old student finally handed over the backpack, the deputy found another pack inside it that contained a Glock 42, a subcompact, semi-automatic pistol, loaded with four rounds, according to an arrest affidavit. The deputy also discovered two boxes of ammunition holding 43 rounds, the report said.

The student, Terrance Broome, made the unprompted statement, “I’m scared. Someone is trying to kill me,” according to the deputy’s report. He didn’t elaborate.

After the arrest of the student on multiple charges, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office decided that the circumstances fit the state’s guidelines for seeking a risk-protection order. Under a law passed in 2018 in response to the killing of 17 people at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, law-enforcement agencies can petition a court to have weapons temporarily removed from someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Two weeks after the incident, the request for a risk-protection order went before Judge Ellen Masters, the chief judge for the 10th Judicial Circuit, based in Bartow. Masters denied the petition, writing that the allegations the PCSO presented were “insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent poses a significant danger of committing personal injury to himself or others by having in his custody or control or by purchasing, possessing or receiving, a firearm or any ammunition”

The Sheriff’s Office has appealed the denial to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, which has administrative offices in Lakeland and holds hearings in Tampa.

The case illustrates the limits that law-enforcement agencies face in seizing weapons from citizens under the 2018 legislation, often described as a “red-flag law.” All petitions for risk-protection orders, or RPOs, must be approved by a judge, and judges don’t automatically concur with the arguments agencies make.

Not So – the power of the RPO is almost unlimited including ignoring Due Process.  Shows how bias Gary White is.

The Polk County Sheriff’s Office reported filing for 984 RPOs since the law took effect in 2018, with 858 petitions granted. That means that 12.8% have been denied or dismissed.

This means that 126 of those respondents accused of being a threat had to go thru the nightmare of  receiving a no notice ex parte seizure without Due Process and were later found not to be a threat. 

 It also means they most likely incurred the personal expense of hiring an attorney to represent them at the Hearing which took place 2 weeks post-seizure  to counter the evidence presented by the PCSO attorney before the Judge.  LE attorneys have a definite edge without private attorney’s present to defend the respondent.  White is mistaken when he implies they get to attend the “compliance hearing”.

 The accused person (“respondent”) also must go thru a bureaucratic procedure to be removed from state and federal criminal data bases and retrieve their property without any guarantee in the law that their property be returned in same condition found.

126 people having their property seized without Due Process is far too many law abiding citizens having to go thru this stressful process which implies one or more of the following conditions:  e.g.  those accusing them of being threats lied; a faulty investigation was performed and/or the reviewing judge rubber stamped these petitions. 

 The law allows 3rd degree misdemeanor charges to be filed against an accuser who deliberately lied about the respondent being a threat.  To our knowledge this part of the laws has not been prosecuted.\

Nothing was stated in this article that other existing means to legally seize firearms and ammunition already were in place in FL law e.g. Baker Act, Marchman Act; Court Injunctions.

A spokesperson for Polk County Public Schools said confidentiality rules prevented the district from disclosing whether Broome had been expelled after the incident.

Broome did not appear for the court hearing, just as he had missed a previous compliance hearing after being released on May 5. John W. Lees, a lawyer for the Sheriff’s Office, sought a default order. Lees did not present any testimony, saying the petition was based on an arrest affidavit and witness statements. Masters, who has been a judge since 1999, was not persuaded of the need for an RPO.

“I don’t think I can enter this one, Mr. Lees, based on those facts, even though it’s a default, which is pretty rare,” Masters said during the hearing, according to a court transcript.

Lees added that the student had been arrested in January 2021, while a minor, on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. That case is still pending.

Masters acknowledged that it was “a serious violation” for the student to bring a weapon to school but said she didn’t see grounds for issuing a risk-protection order.

“I cannot make a finding based on those facts that the Sheriff’s Office has presented clear and convincing evidence that the incident or the circumstances involving this respondent indicates that there is a significant danger of personal injury to the respondent or to some other person,” Masters said.

Agree with Judge Masters.  This is exactly the kind of decisions which should be made.  Clear and convincing evidence is very subjective and is used because the RPO is a civil and not a criminal law.  However, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard before these seizures occur.

The judge declined a request from The Ledger to discuss her decision.

Reached by phone, Broome ended the call without answering any questions.

He is charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, possession of a firearm on school property and disrupting a school function, as well as possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

These charges are grounds for seizing firearms using a regular Court Arrest Order – why was an RPO even necessary.

The Sheriff’s Office filed a notice of appeal with the Second District Court of Appeals on May 26. Judd said it is the first time his office has appealed a denial of a risk-protection order.

Judd emphasized that he respects Masters but said he found the denial difficult to understand. He noted that Broome did not even appear in court to contest the request for an RPO.

“Certainly, we believe that an 18-year-old high school student with a fully loaded handgun, semi-automatic, and two boxes of ammunition is a danger to all of the students in the school,” Judd said. “So we were shocked to see that the RPO was denied.”

Judd said that in some other situations a student has made a direct threat against others when the Sheriff’s Office sought to have weapons removed. He acknowledged that Broome claimed to fear for his own safety but said personal protection did not require a loaded gun and two boxes of extra ammunition.

“I’m shocked because I don’t believe she nor any other judge would want it on her conscience if he would have taken that handgun and those two boxes of shells and shot up a school,” Judd said. “Fortunately for us, another student saw something and said something and we were able to intervene before a potential shooting occurred.”

One of main arguments against using Risk Protection Orders to seize firearms is they are based on what “might occur in the future” or in Sheriff Judd’s words above “if he had taken” based on “reasonable suspicion” and not what has actually occurred.  This is not  a good standard to be using to take away 2nd Amendment rights or any rights for that matter.

Further, there is no evidence that any school shooting which has occurred or one that might occur in the future would be prevented by use of Red Flag Laws.  This certainly was not the case in any School Shootings of the recent past. Existing laws including the Baker Act, Marchman Act and Court Injunctions should be used instead. 

School shootings are a societal problem based on grossly deteriorated morals; insensitivity to violence brought on by the entertainment industry; lack of mental health intervention and; in some cases, including the FL MSDHS and TX Uvalde school shootings, a failure of LE, school districts and school administrations to take actions to either prevent or at least marginalized these active shooting events by performing their jobs. .

Some lawmakers in Florida and elsewhere have criticized red-flag laws as an infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, speaking privately to supporters at a Polk County restaurant in April, said he would have vetoed the law if he had been governor when it passed under his predecessor, fellow Republican Rick Scott.

Rick Scott was under pressure to sign this bill into law and knew he was leaving office soon.  He should have declared a special session to give legislator’s more time other than the 3 weeks remaining in regular session to consider the Bill and all its consequences before signing it.  Although outgoing FL Senate President RINO Wilton Simpson has taken credit for writing this bill the fact is the 48 pages covering the Risk Protection Order are almost an exact lift from the existing laws of Blue States like Oregon.

A caveat is that not all of this law is bad.  We fully support the part establishing Sheriff Judd’s Sentinel or Guardian Program requiring a trained, armed LE officer or security guard in every school.  We further support the follow on Law signed by Gov DeSantis, SB 7030 which authorized trained school officials/teachers to be armed as additional security.  Unfortunately, few school districts including PCPS have availed themselves of this opportunity to even better protect our children.

Judd has repeatedly defended the use of RPOs as a way to prevent potential violence and said he doesn’t know what to expect from the Second District Court of Appeals.

“We need to find out what the courts believe is the parameters of the RPO,” Judd said. “And I think that will give either direction to us or it will give direction to the Circuit Court judge.”

We are hopeful the 2nd District Court of Appeals will rule in favor of Judge Master’s decision.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.


New York Demands All Concealed Carry Permit Holders Surrender Their Social Media Account to the State

UPDATE: Supreme Court: The Government Cannot Require That Citizens Prove The Need For Self-Protection In Order To Carry A Gun Outside Their Home by John Whitehead of The Washington Standard.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a 6-3 decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York law which allowed government officials to pick and choose which class of citizens were deemed worthy of self-protection.

Affirming that the Second Amendment “right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right,” the Court ruled that individuals do not have to demonstrate some special need to the government for approval before exercising any other constitutional rights. In an amicus brief, The Rutherford Institute argued that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution must be available to all law-abiding citizens and not parceled out at the whim of government bureaucrats.

Affiliate attorneys Michael J. Lockerby, Eli L. Evans, W. Bradley Russell, Jr., A.J. Salomone, and John Sepehri of Foley & Lardner LLP assisted in advancing the arguments in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn.

“When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership. As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.”

Read more.

The Concealed Coalition reports that,

New York is one of America’s most densely populated states, with over 19 million people, yet only 1% of them are licensed to concealed carry (CC). This equates to around 196,000 licenses issued as of August 2021.

[ … ]

NY has a stricter stance on dispensing licenses than other states. It’s a “may issue” state, which means there’s no guarantee that applicants will receive a CC license even if they meet all the necessary criteria. It’s up to local law enforcement or the courts to apply their discretion to every request.

Applicants must prove that there’s proper cause for them to CC, defined under NY state law as: “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

According to Sandy Hook Promise,

Guns used in about 68% of gun-related incidents at schools were taken from the home, a friend or a relative.

93% of school shooters planned the attack in advance.

The Violence Protection Center reports that people have been killed by 37 mass shooters who had a concealed carry permit from May 2007 and May 2022, citing media reports. As of 2021 there have been 21.52 million concealed weapon permits issued in the United States. The likelihood of a concealed carry permit holder carrying out a mass shooting is .00000017209.

A reader sent us an article from stating:

Starting in September [2022], New York conceal-carry permit applicants must surrender their social media accounts to the state.

If hindsight reviews of Facebook or TikTok lets us see what a crazed mass-shooter said before his atrocity, will the state be able to intercept these killers in advance?

WATCH: Background Check: Want to Conceal Carry a Firearm? Cough Up Your Social Media to the State

The Bottom Line

What New York is doing is create a law that allows them to either deny or revoke a person’s concealed carry permit if that person doesn’t agree with them politically.

Some examples of issues you might be putting on your social media that could get your concealed carry permit cancelled or revoked:

  • You’re a Republican or worse a supporter of Donald J. Trump.
  • Pro-Second Amendment.
  • Pro-Life.
  • Posts that calls the J6 Committee a “show trial.”
  • Posts that label those harass Supreme Court Justices as criminals for violating 18 U.S. Code § 1503. And because they are violating the law that they should be investigated, arrested and tried by a jury of their peers.
  • Disagree with New York City or State policies on any number of topics.
  • Disagree with getting the Covid-19 vaccines.
  • Disagree that Islam is the religion of peace.
  • Disagree with some of the policies of the Build Back Better agenda.
  • Won’t buy an all electric car because your love your vintage Ford mustang or Chevrolet Corvette.
  • Read and share articles from the eMagazine.

This is just another way to put law abiding citizens into harms way by not allowing them to carry their weapons, i.e. disarming them. We have contributors and members of our staff who have concealed carry permits. On person was notified by the FBI that they are on an international ISIS hit list. To disarm this person is a travesty. Luckily this person lives in a state where concealed carry and even open carry are codified is state laws.

We can’t help but wonder if New York will now look at all those individuals providing private security and have concealed carry permits. You know those who protect wealthy individuals, actors and actresses, politician and companies.

One example is Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez paid thousands for personal security to a former Blackwater contractor. Will AOC’s security detail have to turn over their social media accounts to the state?

Time will tell.

To learn about your states concealed carry laws and how many fellow gun owners are in you state click here.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Concealed Coalition database.

Number of Mass Shootings Committed By Concealed Carry Killers

You Know What Would Deter More Shootings Than Red Flag Laws? Executing Mass Killers Quickly

Instead, the Democrats release them, unleash them on innocent Americans……

You Know What Would Deter More Shootings Than Red Flag Laws? Executing Mass Killers Quickly

By: Kylee Griswold, The Federalist, July 07, 2022:

If politicians are serious that they’re sick of ‘living with this carnage,’ the Highland Park shooter should be executed immediately.

The usual suspects are at it again, and I’m not talking about isolated, mentally ill young men. I’m talking about the politically motivated talking heads who don’t even wait until bodies are cold after tragic mass shootings to spout off about the need for red flag laws, “assault weapons” bans, and “universal background checks” because — you’ve heard this one before — “Why are we willing to live with this carnage?”

After the mass shooting in a wealthy Chicago suburb over the holiday weekend that left seven dead and dozens more wounded in one of the most gun-controlled areas of one of the most gun-controlled states in the country, local State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart did exactly that. He touted the state’s “strong” red flag law and insisted on the need to “ban assault weapons in Illinois and beyond.” Vice President Kamala Harris likewise made an unscheduled visit to the community to call for more gun control, however incoherently. And the typical Twitter blue checks all had something to say.

Meanwhile, as the armchair class prattles on about how our first freedoms are an existential threat, the face and name of the 21-year-old alleged shooter are plastered all over every news channel as he sits remorseless in jail facing a slew of charges that will probably amount to life in prison at worst. The upper echelons of chattering politicos will accomplish nothing but celebritizing murderous cowards — but hey, anything to signal virtue, pick up a few progressive voters, and pad their pockets with a little extra donor cash.

You know how we know they aren’t accomplishing anything? Because the reforms Rinehart called for are both already on the books in Highland Park where the shooting occurred. Despite a local so-called assault weapons ban plus red flag laws and a state with some of the strictest gun-control laws in America, many people died. If the latest shooting taught us anything about guns, it’s that even tightly restricting them doesn’t deter killers.

It’s time for a new approach, and this case presents the perfect set of circumstances to justify it. The Highland Park shooter should be executed, and he should be executed quickly.

There would be nothing “just” about criminal justice if we dispensed with due process, but it’s not much more than a formality that we use the word “alleged” to describe this particular shooter. Not only have authorities confirmed that the male suspect dressed as a woman to conceal his identity, hide his face tattoos, and blend into the frantic crowd. Not only were these facts captured on video, with a witness apparently watching the suspect wrap his firearm in a red blanket before ditching it. Not only has he had multiple run-ins with local law enforcement that were ultimately relayed to state police in a report identifying him as a “clear and present danger,” plus an incident wherein police confiscated 16 knives, a dagger, and a sword from him after he threatened to “kill everyone” in his house.

But he also already told police he’s the shooter. And if his confession of guilt weren’t enough, he also admitted that he almost attacked another July Fourth celebration in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided against it because he just hadn’t had enough time to plan out a murderous scheme.

There’s a more effective deterrent to this carnage than catapulting mass murderers into the limelight by detailing every step of their grisly crimes or featuring their faces on the cover of Rolling Stone. There’s a better way than making impassioned speeches about gun violence, but then helping to bail out violent rioters and advocating for low bail that enables offenders to violently mow down women and children with a vehicle. It’s time to be honest about the fact that bans on AR-15s and red flag laws, in addition to stomping out due process and being ripe for political weaponization, simply don’t work to deter crime. Illinois tried that experiment. It failed.

There are a handful of things that become apparent about deterrence, but here’s a pretty basic idea: Swiftness and certainty are more important than severity. Of course, if punishment must be proportional for justice to truly be just, then execution is warranted in cases of mass murder, the perpetrators of which cannot die enough deaths to make up for the many they stole.

But it isn’t the mere execution of a known mass murderer that deters other disturbed individuals from shooting up jubilant innocents. The reality of taxpayer-funded eons on death row wouldn’t appear to have any concrete deterrent effect, much like lengthy incarceration. But what about a visual representation of this chilling message: You will be caught, and you will be put to death — soon. Certainty and swiftness accomplished.

Read the rest….




Florida’s “Red-flag” Law Has Red Flags Of Its Own

Why Indiana’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Failed to Stop the FedEx Shooting

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Why Red Flag Laws Failed Miserably in the Case of ‘J4TH Mass Murderer’ Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo, III

Our contributors have written extensively on how Red Flag Laws do not work here, here, here and here.

Why? Because criminals and mass murderers find ways around them.

Red Flag Laws didn’t stop the criminals like Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo, III from massacring seven people and injuring dozens of others on July 4th, 2022 in Highland Park, Illinois.

This J4th massacre, which ironically happened less than a month after the U.S. Senate passed a Red Flag law by a voter 224 for (including 14 republicans) to 202 against.

This law create what is known as a federal red-flag law that allows family members or law enforcement to obtain an “extreme risk protection order” for a person considered to be a danger to themselves or others.

It appears that law enforcement just wasn’t interested Bobby Crimo given his multiple red flags. Here are tweets from citizens about the J4TH massacre.

Watch the below video of the Highland Park Police stating that Bobby popped up on their radar at least twice since 2019. BTW, Highland Park and Chicago gun laws are among the strictest in the country.

On the day after the massacre The Gateway Pundit uncovered information indicating Crimo is a radical progressive with ties to Antifa, progressive groups, and the occult.  How did they uncover this? Why by looking at his social media accounts!




So why didn’t the Highland Park police take a rudimentary look at Bobby’s social media accounts?

Why didn’t the Highland Park police discover a social media video of Bobby’s fantasies to kill others including Donald J. Trump?

The Bottom Line

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in an August 17th, 2019 article titled “7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws” stated,

Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.

Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.

Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?

“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.

With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.

The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”

Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”

Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.

In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.

While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.

In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.

In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.

“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said.

“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.” Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.

As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.

Thus ends the lesson Red Flag Laws.

They’re called “Red Flag” to symbolize the amount of blood shed by innocent victims spilled by those, like Bobby, who simply ignore the laws because, you see they’re lawless! Get it? Got it? Good!

We are wondering if the Democrats will now have a J4TH Committee to look into the failure of their recently passed Red Flag Law? 

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: The Tucker Monologue on the Highland Park Shooting Everyone Is Talking About


Red flags failed! In 2019 cops took 16 weapons from homicidal killer’s home, he went on to buy 5 guns with help of his dad

Highland Park Gunman Wore Women’s Clothing During Mass Shooting, Cops Say

Chabad Rabbi: July 4 Chicago Mass Murderer Entered His Synagogue On Passover

The Real Insurrectionists