Podcaster <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-rogan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Rogan</a> absolutely destroyed a recent New York Times headline that warned about the dangers of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that there’s no amount of “gaslighting” the news organization could do to make him see their side.
During “The Joe Rogan Experience” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOQdjgdRcfA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a>, Rogan and his guest evolutionary biologist, podcaster, and author Dr. Bret Weinstein talked about the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review/constitution-secession-democracy-crisis.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline</a> that read, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?”
“One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document,” the subheadline added.
“This isn’t the Babylon Bee,” Rogan told his guest, referencing the satire news source. “This is an actual New York Times article.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Joe Rogan Experience #2198 - Bret Weinstein" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iOQdjgdRcfA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“This is so crazy. It&#8217;s really hard to believe that someone would print this and the New York Times would say ‘yeah we like it, put it out there,'&#8221; he added, reading the headline and subhead. “What the f*** are you talking about?”
“One of the biggest threats to America&#8217;s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country was ever founded on if not the greatest ever,” Rogan continued. “That could be a threat to America&#8217;s politics? What politics are we talking about?”
Rogan asked how the NYT could “possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?”
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723831707612000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0pyrv88A5nsmWM2F2Wr9As">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
Weinstein called it “incredible,” noting how on one hand, it was “completely predictable” because “there&#8217;s obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do.”
“So, of course they&#8217;re, like, scratching their heads like, ‘can we come up with an argument for why it might be time to get rid of that thing?&#8217; And of course, if you&#8217;re a normal thinking person, this is complete insanity,” he added. “But if you&#8217;re a New York Times reader, I&#8217;m sure that fits with the kind of ethos that&#8217;s been cultivated.”
The podcast host then suggested this is why a person like former President Donald Trump is so important to the Left because they can claim his return to the White House is a so-called “imminent threat,&#8221; allowing them to justify headlines that claim the Constitution is “dangerous&#8221; or that it&#8217;s time to get rid of things like the First and Second Amendments.

Joe Rogan Questions Everything – Season 1

‘What The F***’: Joe Rogan Destroys NYT Headline Warning About Dangers Of Constitution

'What The F***': Joe Rogan Destroys NYT Headline Warning About Dangers Of Constitution

Celebrities

Constitution

Donald Trump

Entertainment

First Amendment

Joe Rogan

Kamala Harris

New York Times

U.S.

Many radical positions of Minnesota Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tim-walz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tim Walz</a>, now Kamala Harris’s running mate, are well documented, but a lesser-known measure shows his support for a dangerous scheme to manipulate future presidential elections.
Last May, Walz signed a massive spending <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1830&amp;version=latest&amp;session=ls93&amp;session_year=2023&amp;session_number=0&amp;format=pdf">bill</a> with a curious provision tucked near the end: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV). This “<a href="https://politicaldictionary.com/words/logrolling/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">log rolling</a>” was necessary because even some Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature opposed to the scheme. Putting it in a “must pass” bill was the only way to force the anti-Electoral College compact through the legislature so that Walz could sign it.
Here’s how I described the compact in a recent <a href="https://amzn.to/46K0fWR">book</a>: 
<blockquote>The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The original intent is to allow legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The Electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. But NPV supporters argue that this power allows legislatures to ignore their own state’s voters and instead appoint Electors based on the popular vote nationwide. This is what the compact would require states to do. 
Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states that they control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections.</blockquote>
Today, Minnesota is one of <a href="https://saveourstates.com/electoral-college/the-status-of-npv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17 states</a> (all blue states) and DC that have joined the NPV compact. Together they control 209 electoral votes, which puts it more than three-fourths of the way to taking effect.
Should it reach that threshold, there are ample reasons why judges should strike NPV down. For starters, it ignores the requirement for Congress to <a href="https://saveourstates.com/blog/npv-compact-quirks-ignoring-non-compact-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener">consent to compacts</a>, co-mingles votes from states with different <a href="https://saveourstates.com/blog/unfinished-recounts-and-litigation-could-thwart-the-compact" target="_blank" rel="noopener">election laws</a>, and subverts the core purpose of the constitutional provisions at issue. Yet judges often sidestep election issues to avoid appearing partisan.
If NPV did take effect, it would be a disaster for everyone—except perhaps the far-Left. Consider that NPV gives states more power for having more votes, no matter what. A state that looks the other way when <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nearly-all-house-dems-vote-against-bill-requiring-voters-prove-citizenship">non-citizens vote</a> would have more say in who becomes president. California could simply lower its <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-city-to-decide-on-lowering-voting-age-for-certain-elections">voting age</a>—it has more 16 and 17 year olds than there are registered voters in several entire states.
Even worse, NPV state officials might get choosy about accepting vote results from other states. Would the California Secretary of State really accept results from Texas if it meant giving 54 electoral votes to the Republican ticket? And what if her progressive voter base was convinced that elections in red states were somehow <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegitimate</a>?
The Electoral College is a brilliant system that works even better than the American Founders thought it would. So well, in fact, that Germany and India have their own versions of electoral colleges in the constitutions they wrote in the middle of the twentieth century. It prevents regional candidates from winning and forces political parties to build vast, diverse coalitions.
The NPV compact would undo all this. It’s revealing that politicians like Tim Walz would rather manipulate the election process than figure out how to attract more voters into their coalition. Like Walz, the NPV Compact is sometimes presented as moderate when it is, in fact, a tool of the far-Left and a threat to our constitutional order.
* * *
Trent England is founder and executive director of <a href="https://saveourstates.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Save Our States</a> and a producer of the film <a href="https://www.safeguard.film/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Safeguard: An Electoral College Story</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Democrats and advocates celebrate $72 billion budget

Tim Walz Is Part Of Effort To Rig The Electoral College

2024 Election

Democrats

Electoral College

Readers Pass

Tim Walz

Voting

On his latest episode of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/facts-ep-16-the-25th-amendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facts</a>,” Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro analyzed President Joe Biden’s abrupt ending to his campaign last month and how it raises further questions about his fitness to serve and the potential invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Biden has maintained that he still has the fitness to serve as president despite announcing via social media on July 21 that he was ending his re-election campaign. Shapiro laid out what would happen if those around Biden disagreed with his assessment of his mental and physical capabilities, or “if he falls ill, or God forbid, falls into a coma.” 
“The need for a clear line of presidential succession became evident early in American history. The original constitution was vague at best about what would happen if the president died, resigned, or became incapacitated,” Shapiro said. This ambiguity was first tested in 1841 when President William Henry Harrison died just a month into his term. Vice President John Tyler boldly declared himself the new president. Setting a precedent known as the Tyler Precedent.” 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/facts-ep-16-the-25th-amendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE LATEST EPISODE OF &#8216;FACTS&#8217; </a>
Throughout history, presidents have faced health scares on multiple occasions, including in 1919 when President Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated due to a stroke. Wilson’s wife and doctor hid his health condition from the public, “effectively leaving the nation without a functioning president,” Shapiro noted. 
“The need for a formal process became even more urgent during the Cold War era, particularly after President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack and a stroke in the 1950s. Eisenhower, made informal arrangements with Vice President Richard Nixon, but these were not legally binding,” the Daily Wire host said. 
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 forced Congress to act and led to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
“The 25th Amendment has four sections. Section one: If the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the Vice President becomes the president,” Shapiro said. “Section two: If there&#8217;s a vacancy in the vice presidency, the president nominates a new vice president, who must be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. 
“Section three: The president can voluntarily transfer power to the Vice President by notifying both the Senate and the House. The Vice President becomes the acting president until the president declares that he or she is able to resume his or her duties,” he added. “Section four: The Vice President and a majority of the cabinet can declare the president unable to discharge his or her duties, making the Vice president the acting president. The president can challenge this declaration. Congress must decide the issue with the two-thirds vote within 21 days.” 
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1722626094761000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3s4PU2t9VgUHTMpivaKLFE">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; — MATT WALSH&#8217;S EXPOSÉ ON DEI</a> 

The 25th Amendment has been invoked multiple times since its ratification — first in 1973 after Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned and section two of the amendment was invoked to allow President Richard Nixon to nominate Gerald Ford to fill the vice presidency. President Ronald Reagan invoked section three of the 25th Amendment in 1985 when he underwent surgery, transferring presidential powers to Vice President George H.W. Bush. 
“Reagan&#8217;s willingness to invoke the amendment underscored its importance in addressing issues of presidential incapacity, even for short durations,” Shapiro said. “And the smooth transition back to Reagan&#8217;s administration after his recovery demonstrated the amendment&#8217;s efficacy in maintaining stability and continuity in the executive branch.”
President George W. Bush similarly invoked section three of the 25th Amendment during procedures in 2002 and 2007. 
“Let&#8217;s say that Joe Biden becomes incapacitated, suddenly he falls into a coma and is unable to communicate his inability to govern. This is where section four of the 25th amendment comes into play,” said Shapiro.
“Right now, should Kamala Harris invoke the 25th amendment? Well, it doesn&#8217;t appear that Joe Biden is with it. So it&#8217;s an open question,” he added. “No matter what happens, the 25th Amendment ensures the executive branch can maintain continuous and effective leadership even in the face of presidential incapacitation, whether through a voluntary or involuntary transfer of power.”

Ben Shapiro Facts

What Happens If Biden Resigns? Ben Shapiro’s Latest ‘Facts’ Episode Highlights Importance Of The 25th Amendment

Ben Shapiro

Joe Biden

The Louisiana governor signed into law legislation that requires a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms. 
And the Left absolutely lost its mind. 
The ACLU, who used to stand for free speech but now stands for radical leftism, immediately announced this was unconstitutional and they were going to stand up against it. 
CNN&#8217;s Elie Honig was asked if the display violated the First Amendment. He replied: 
<blockquote>Yes, flagrantly, in my view. If you wanted a perfect example of what the First Amendment prohibits, I think this is it. The First Amendment says Congress, government, shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, meaning state entities can&#8217;t do things that endorse any particular religion or religiosity in general. 
 
And if you look at those 10, there are some — I know one of the defenses is, well, these are themes that are consistent throughout civilized society and throughout religion. Shall not kill, number six, I&#8217;m cheating, because I&#8217;m looking. But you know, don&#8217;t kill, don&#8217;t rob, don&#8217;t steal, that kind of thing. But there are some Commandments that are inherently religious. Observe the Sabbath day. I&#8217;m the only God that you may worship. So, it&#8217;s an inherently religious document.</blockquote>
Here is the problem with this particular argument: The United States is not a fundamentally secular country. 
The First Amendment was designed to guarantee the practice of religion against the federal government. The idea that there is a separation wall between church and state in the sense that religion was never supposed to impact people&#8217;s values in how they vote, or religion could never be promoted in the public square, or religion could never be promoted against irreligion generally by the government is also untrue. There is no historical basis for this. 
The First Amendment specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This was never originally supposed to be implemented in the states. It took all the way until the 1940s for the Supreme Court to declare that this was now going to be applied at the state level.
In fact, nine of the 13 colonies had established churches at the time of the Revolutionary War. Connecticut maintained its Congregationalist church, a state-sponsored church, until 1818. New Hampshire had one until 1819. Massachusetts had one until 1833.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1988-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
Well past the establishment of the First Amendment, there were states in the United States that established religions. Why? Because the goal here was to stop the federal government from establishing its own generalized religion that would prohibit people at the state level from having their own religions.
The idea that secularism was supposed to predominate in the United States is obviously untrue; none of the Founders believed that. Even the Founders who leaned toward atheism tended to believe religion had an extraordinarily positive effect on the body politic. The promotion of religion generally was considered a good thing by the Founding Fathers.
As President, John Adams wrote <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter</a> to the Massachusetts militia, saying: 
<blockquote>We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government for any other.</blockquote>
George Washington <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-first-inaugural-address-1789" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in his first inaugural address: 
<blockquote>The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality … there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness. </blockquote>
Thomas Jefferson, the guy everyone talks about in terms of coining the phrase “separation between church and state,” <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jefferson/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recognized</a> “the moral branch of religion” as “how to live well and worthily in society.”
But for the last several decades, the courts have done something that is completely unprecedented and stupid: They have read the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as being opposed to one another.
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There are two ways to read that, and the Supreme Court has read this in the dumbest possible way. One way is that Congress shall not prohibit you from freely exercising a religion. The second way is that Congress shall not establish any religion. And the Court has read them completely separately.
What that&#8217;s done is put them in conflict with one another because it turns out that if you express your religion freely in the public square, then the Supreme Court might say you&#8217;re violating the establishment clause.
But that&#8217;s never how these provisions were meant to be read. They were meant to be read in tandem. The basic idea was that you couldn&#8217;t establish any religion as the official religion of the United States, because in doing so, you would quash the free exercise of people of other religions via compulsion.
That is what the Constitution was designed to prohibit: compulsion in religion.
But there&#8217;s nothing compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall. If there were something compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall, there&#8217;d be all sorts of serious free speech issues in a classroom because it turns out classroom walls are filled with all sorts of stuff.
The argument is made that if I walk into a public school and there is a sign that quotes the Bible in a nondenominational way, it still violates my free speech. And the Ten Commandments are nondenominational because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and they agree on the content of the Ten Commandments. 
In 1971, the Supreme Court took up the case Lemon v. Kurtzman. And they came up with an incredibly stupid test to determine whether some sort of government action violated the separation of church and state. They said that any law had to fulfill three conditions. One, it had to have a secular purpose. Two, it had to have a predominantly secular effect. And three, it had to not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.
When you read that, it is, on its face, nonsensical. It basically doesn&#8217;t set any standard at all because you can make an argument for virtually any religious display that it both violates the Lemon test and also does not violate the Lemon test.
In 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled in Stone v. Graham, there was a law that required classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, and the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional because it had no secular legislative purpose. They said the Ten Commandments convey a religious undertone because they include the religious duties of believers worshiping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord&#8217;s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath day. 
But that was based on a fundamental misreading that is enshrined in Lemon, that the government of the United States has to take no position between religion and irreligion, that the government of the United States has no interest in promoting public morality via generalized religion, that the government has to be absolutely agnostic about whether it is promoting the Ten Commandments or whether it is promoting paganism. 
In 2005, there was a similar case about a public display of the Ten Commandments. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in this case. He <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html">wrote</a>, “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”
He was ripping the Lemon test. He was saying there&#8217;s no consistently applied principle. He continued:
<blockquote>That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate. … the Court acknowledges that the “Establishment Clause doctrine” it purports to be applying “lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes.” What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not. …
Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today’s opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, or where the free exercise of religion is at issue … but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator. 
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.</blockquote>
In other words, every time Joe Biden finishes his speech and says, “God bless our troops,” why isn&#8217;t that an establishment of religion in the same way it would theoretically be an establishment religion to put the Ten Commandments in a public school classroom? 
The answer is because it&#8217;s not establishing religion. Biden isn&#8217;t forcing you to do anything, and neither is the sign on the public school classroom. It is encouraging you to abide by the central fundamental moral premises of the West.
The attempt to remove the Ten Commandments says more about the society than the attempt to replace them. All of Western civilization is based on a merger of Judeo-Christian ethics found in the Old and the New Testaments and Greek reason.
Here’s why the Ten Commandments are important: They take certain fundamental principles and put them beyond the scope of debate, which is good. You don&#8217;t want to live in a society where “thou shalt not kill” is a debatable proposition. How about “honor thy parents”? We&#8217;re now a society that does not honor our parents and scorns our parents as racists and bigots and white supremacist and vestiges of the past.
How about “do not bear false witness”? We live in a society in which you are allowed to bear false witness so long as the political motivations of the person against whom you are bearing the false witness are suspect.
A society that abides by the Ten Commandments is going to be better than a society that does not.
The centralizing philosophy of the United States used to be grounded in Judeo-Christian virtue. That is why it is good to put the Ten Commandments back up on the wall. Not everyone will abide by them, but they will remind people that a functional society has to have a functional philosophy.
And the most functional philosophy over the last several thousand years has sprung from those Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments Standing In The Desert

Bring Back The Ten Commandments

Bill of Rights

Judeo-Christian Values

Louisiana

Opinion

Secularism

Supreme Court

A judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/washington" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Washington</a> ruled that the state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional, but the state Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal to pause the judge’s decision, meaning the restriction stays in effect for now.
On Monday, Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Gary Bashor <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24536660-state-of-washington-v-gators-custom-guns-inc-ruling-and-orders-23-2-00897-08" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in favor of a Washington gun shop that sued the state after lawmakers banned magazines holding more than 10 rounds in 2022. Bashor rejected the state&#8217;s arguments that the magazines were not suitable for self-defense and that the legislation was common sense. 
“This Court must find there exists no set of facts where the Court can find such a generalized ban or restriction on an am (or an instrument that facilitates self-defense) as constitutional under the Washington Constitution,” Bashor <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24536660-state-of-washington-v-gators-custom-guns-inc-ruling-and-orders-23-2-00897-08">wrote</a> in his 55-page decision. “The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist to define the outer limits of what Legislatures and Courts are allowed to do. Amending the Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot be done simply by enacting a law, or by a pronouncement from a Court.&#8221;
Bashor added that he found that large capacity magazines (LCMS) are classified as arms under the State Constitution and that members of the public commonly owned them for lawful purposes. 
“The State has not provided evidence that LCMs are NOT commonly and lawfully owned or possessed by civilians for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The State: instead chose to provide expert opinions concluding only that LCMs are not commonly ‘fired for self-defense purposes’, or are not the best choice for self-defense, neither of which are relevant metrics,” he wrote. 
Bashor, who has been a judge in the rural county since 2011, also pointed to the Founding Fathers in his decision. 
“There was no appetite to limit gun rights by the Founders. Though the specific technology available today may not have been envisioned, the Founders expected technological advancements,” Bashor wrote. “The result is few, if any, historical analogue laws by which a state can justify a modern firearms regulation.”
After Bashor&#8217;s ruling, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/was-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines-ruled-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> an emergency appeal before the state’s high court, arguing magazine capacity limits are constitutional. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Every court in Washington and across the country to consider challenges to a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines under the U.S. or Washington Constitution has either rejected that challenge or been overruled. This law is constitutional,” Ferguson said. 
Washington State Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston sided with Ferguson, keeping the law in effect while the appeal continued. 
The magazine restriction was one of the many gun control policies adopted in recent years by Washington’s Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic Governor Jay Inslee, including a ban on the sale of AR-15s and similar rifles.

State Of Illinois Passes Illinois  Assault Weapons Ban

Judge Says Washington’s Restrictions On Gun Magazine Capacity Are Unconstitutional

Courts

Gun Control

Gun Laws

Gun Rights

Second Amendment

Washington

President Biden’s refusal to enforce our southern border has wreaked havoc in Texas and it is spreading across the country. Texas has boldly taken matters into its own hands to protect its citizens. The conflict between Texas and the Federal government is coming to a head with the Supreme Court, at least initially, siding with the Biden administration. No one can predict exactly what will happen, but we are certainly heading toward a tipping point in American history.
Last week, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-republican-governors-band-together-to-support-texas-in-its-fight-to-secure-the-border">25 governors</a> from around the country signed a statement of solidarity with Gov. Abbott and the state of Texas, supporting Texas’ right and duty to secure the southern border with Mexico. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen anything like this in American politics. Even the very moderate Gov. Chris Sununu from New Hampshire signed on to the letter.
According to <a href="https://www.governor.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt336/files/inline-documents/sonh/20221219-biden-letter-public-health-emergency.pdf">the statement</a> signed by the governors and issued jointly:
<blockquote>President Biden and his Administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border. Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden Administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country. </blockquote>
It is not just the states who are rising up to counter the lawless Biden administration, there are confirmed reports of vigilantes engaging (and more forming) to stop this invasion. This is not simply an isolated incident of federal misuse of power bringing the country to the verge of coming apart. This travesty at our border, pitting states against a seemingly united front of federal and judicial power, may very well be the spark that will fracture our nation. Or can we avert this calamity?
Thanks to the wisdom of our founders, who anticipated existential conflicts between Washington and the states, the answer lies in our Constitution. It may surprise some to learn that our founders believed in federalism and a system of checks and balances. That’s why in Article V of the Constitution they gave the states the ultimate authority to counter a tyrannical federal government.
Today, out of the 34 necessary states, 19 have passed an application for a convention of states under Article V to adopt amendments that would restrain the scope and power of the federal government. Under this application, an amendment could (and should) be proposed and ratified allowing the states joint jurisdiction over our international borders with respect to border crossings. The states should be specifically enabled to pass and enforce laws to prevent people from entering their state and the country illegally.
Under our Constitution, it is clear that the states don’t need to beg the federal government to protect their legitimate sovereign interests, like protecting the safety of their people. Article V of the Constitution gives the states the power to amend the Constitution to protect the people from both federal abuse or misuse of power without the permission or involvement of the President or Congress. If 15 more state legislatures would assert their authority, Texas could go from razor wire and court pleadings to giving themselves the power to protect their citizens.
The founders most feared an authoritarian central government, so they created a Constitution where the states, not the federal government, were at the top of the food chain. They also realized that such steps should not be taken on a whim or without broad consensus, so any amendment proposed at a convention of states would need to be ratified by 38 states to be added to the constitution.
With all due respect to the states supporting Texas, a letter complaining to the president when the states hold the right to correct this problem themselves, is being seen for what it is, weakness not strength. For decades, states have let the federal government run roughshod over them and their citizens. It should come as no surprise that the people are leading the charge and forcing state politicians to finally push back.
If all of those states were serious about the letter they signed they would act and fire a shot across the bow of the massive federal ship of state and immediately pass a resolution to begin the process of securing our borders and our freedoms, while striking a blow against our increasingly authoritarian federal government.
* * *
Mark Meckler is the co-founder and President of Convention of States Action. @MarkMeckler
Rick Santorum is a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, two time Presidential candidate and a Senior Advisor to Convention of States Action. @RickSantorum
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Migrants Continue To Cross Mexico U.S. Border As D.C. Lawmakers Continue To Debate Border Funding

Why Texas Does Not Need To Beg The Feds To Protect Its Interests

Border Crisis

Federal Government

Greg Abbott

Texas

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/arkansas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas</a> attorney general rejected a ballot measure proposing a constitutional right to abortion on Tuesday.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin <a href="https://ag-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023-107.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> in a seven-page response letter to the proposal that the popular name of the ballot, “The Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment,” and the ballot title, which offers a summary of the constitutional amendment, were ambiguous and partisan, and therefore likely to mislead voters on the issue.
“Your proposed popular name is tinged with partisan coloring and misleading because your proposal is solely related to abortion, not ‘reproductive healthcare’ generally,” said Griffin.
Griffin’s rejection prevents signature collection to qualify the proposed constitutional amendment for the 2024 ballot.
Abortion is banned in Arkansas, thanks to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/all-lives-matter-arkansas-gov-signs-near-total-abortion-ban-that-supporters-hope-will-force-scotus-to-revisit-roe-v-wade?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=benshapiro&amp;fbclid=IwAR30gWM8OEmy_yxog8qQHFBIIBcsgE8fCkgmaUqqEuFDvI70uubtChoTzaA">trigger law</a> that went into effect following the Supreme Court’s reversal last year of Roe v. Wade.
An Arkansas resident named Steven Nichols submitted the proposed constitutional amendment. On Monday, an entity named “Arkansans for Limited Government” (ALG) tied to the ballot initiative registered with the Arkansas Ethics Commission. ALG is chaired by Hershey Garner, an oncologist.
In a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ARlibertynow/posts/pfbid0eFf5MQekuvTCTVp5hAuaYUCJMPvcwEU6TvvqkMmsaBU5sDri9XVXSD2QxeR8kmkEl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">response</a> to the attorney general’s rejection, ALG said it appreciated Griffin’s review and would work on a revised amendment.
ALG is <a href="https://forarpeople.org/for-ar-people-announces-formation-of-arkansans-for-limited-government-ballot-question-committee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">part</a> of the progressive nonprofit <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/for-ar-people/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">For AR People</a>, led by founding director Gennie Diaz and content director Sam Watson. Diaz was the communications director for former Democratic state representative Megan Godfrey until she founded For AR People in 2020.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Government overreach is killing Arkansas women,” stated For AR People. “The Arkansas Reproductive Healthcare Amendment will restore personal liberty, permit doctors to properly care for patients, and make our state safer and healthier for everyone.”
Arkansas law allows the attorney general to reject the ballot initiative based on its popular name, should the attorney general determine that the ballot title is misleading or that the proposal is designed in a manner that one’s intended vote yields the opposite effect.
Additionally, Griffin cited Arkansas laws and court rulings requiring the proposal’s popular name to not be misleading or partisan, and must complement the ballot title. Griffin also cited laws and rulings that require the ballot title to offer an impartial and fair understanding of the issues presented; required content includes those essential facts that merit serious reflection, while prohibited terms include those deemed technical and not readily understood by voters.
The proposed constitutional amendment would have banned government from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying, or restricting access to abortion within 18 weeks of conception, or in the cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies, or the jeopardization of a mother’s life or health. Griffin took issue with the use of the word “access.” He opined that the word had dual meanings as written and was therefore unclear.
“Is your intent to limit government action regarding abortion itself or regarding access to abortion?” wrote Griffin. “Under the Arkansas Supreme Court’s case law, the ballot title would need to describe the nature of the restriction you intend to propose.”
Griffin also took issue with the proposal’s meaning of the word “health,” because the proposal didn’t include a definition. He questioned whether the term encompassed physical health only, or mental and physical health, and whether the term concerned only emergent medical conditions or those pregnancies that increase the risk of certain medical complications.
According to the attorney general, the proposal also contradicted itself in multiple ways.
While the proposal allowed lawmakers to prohibit or restrict abortion access, it prohibited any penalization of individuals who request, receive, or assist with abortion services. And, while the proposal allowed the government to exercise a compelling interest to prohibit or restrict abortion access, it prohibited declaration of compelling interest where an individual’s decision-making would be infringed.
“[A]ll regulations necessarily restrict people’s choices,” stated Griffin.
The attorney general went on to take issue with the proposal’s phrase “incompatible with life outside the womb” to describe a fatal fetal anomaly. Griffin wrote that the phrase lacked further definition, leading voters to speculate its full meaning.
Griffin added in the closing of his rejection letter that the proposal failed to explain its effect on existing constitutional law.

Abortion protest

Arkansas Attorney General Rejects Ballot Measure Proposing A Constitutional Right To Abortion

Abortion

Arkansas

Social Issues

The Minnesota Supreme Court <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> dismissed a legal challenge from a left-wing group to block former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot using a constitutional provision known as the “insurrection clause.”
The state’s high court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Free Speech For People, who <a href="https://freespeechforpeople.org/the-14point3-campaign/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allege</a> Trump &#8220;incited hundreds of violent insurrectionists to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,&#8221; in a so-called effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The group turned to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies anyone from running for office who had previously taken an oath of office who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
But the state’s high court blocked the group’s effort by reportedly ruling that the state law allows political parties to put anyone they want on a primary ballot.
“There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled.
However, the court’s ruling only applies to the state’s primary ballot and left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could make another attempt to block Trump from appearing on the general election ballot in November 2024.
Free Speech For People has not yet publicly commented on the ruling.
Trump took to his social media platform on Wednesday, celebrating the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“Ridiculous 14th Amendment lawsuit just thrown out by Minnesota Supreme Court,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111377205337385444" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Congratulations to all who fought this HOAX!”
In response to the ruling, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in part: &#8220;Today’s decision in Minnesota, like New Hampshire before it, is further validation of the Trump Campaign’s consistent argument that the 14th Amendment ballot challenges are nothing more than strategic, un-Constitutional attempts to interfere with the election by desperate Democrats who see the writing on the wall: President Trump is dominating the polls and has never been in a stronger position to end the failed Biden presidency next November.&#8221;
Efforts to remove Trump from state ballots in the next presidential election have been appearing in a series of lawsuits nationwide from critics of the leading Republican contender.
U.S. officials ratified the Amendment in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War during the Reconstruction Era, which was designed to represent a new birth of freedom for previously disenfranchised citizens, according to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute.
Trump has criticized the lawsuits as “frivolous,” claiming that “radical Democrat dark money groups” fund the legal challenges to interfere with his attempt to retake the White House in 2025.
Trump’s attorneys have reportedly argued that the “insurrection clause” lacks power without Congressional review of how to apply it, noting that the U.S. Capitol breach doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president only used his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
His attorneys also pointed out that the clause does not apply to the office of the presidency because it’s not mentioned in the text.
Other groups in Michigan and Colorado have also brought similar <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/removing-trump-from-2024-ballot-would-reinforce-voter-grievances-about-elections-ga-sec-of-state-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits</a> against Trump. Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to counter an attempt to bar him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Michigan.
But Colorado became the first state last month to bring its challenge to trial under the constitutional measure — which has rarely been used over the last 150 years. A state judge reportedly scheduled closing arguments for next week.
Legal experts reportedly expect the issue to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 30: President Donald Trump talks to me

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State’s Primary Ballot: Report

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Insurrection Clause’ Challenge To Keep Trump Off State's Primary Ballot

Elections

Fourteenth Amendment

Minnesota

Politics

A federal judge overturned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/california" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California&#8217;s</a> ban on so-called assault weapons on Thursday, saying the three-decade-old prohibition against semi-automatic firearms violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that a handful of criminals cannot dictate the rules for millions of law-abiding American households who carry firearms like AR-15 rifles for self-defense.
&#8220;California&#8217;s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents,&#8221; Benitez wrote in a <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnzqnrjvl/10192023california_assault.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">79-page ruling</a>. &#8220;That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.&#8221;
Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of several gun advocacy groups who challenged the Assault Weapons Control Act and other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-faces-legal-challenges-after-imposing-dozens-of-gun-control-measures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state laws</a> undermining the U.S. Constitution, which are some of the strictest in the nation.
John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued the state to overturn the law, praised the judge&#8217;s ruling as &#8220;constitutionally sound and addresses the many inadequacies of the State&#8217;s arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban.&#8221;
&#8220;We will continue to fight for our Plaintiffs&#8217; Second Amendment rights through any appeal until the State is forced to start respecting these rights,&#8221; Dillon <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-laws-86d7a9e9ade7964fab464769f52a3f9c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement to The Associated Press.
California became the first U.S. state in 1989 to enact such a law after five children were killed in a school shooting.
Benitez reportedly struck down the law in 2021, calling California&#8217;s attempt to prohibit residents from purchasing certain firearms a &#8220;failed experiment,&#8221; and used his famous analogy by comparing the AR-15 to common knives. He reiterated that point again in the introduction of Thursday&#8217;s ruling.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, &#8216;assault weapons&#8217; are dangerous, but useful,&#8221; Benitez wrote. &#8220;But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, &#8216;[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.'&#8221;
The federal judge has repeatedly struck down other California laws pertaining to firearms, including last month when he ruled that the state could not ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed California to continue to enforce the law while the case was pending, and state officials appealed the ruling.
Benitez issued an injunction blocking his latest ruling with a 10-day hold so the state could file an appeal.
California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal to overturn the district court decision, calling the judge&#8217;s decision &#8220;dangerous and misguided.&#8221;
&#8220;Weapons of war have no place on California&#8217;s streets,&#8221; Bonta <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeals-misguided-district-court-decision-assault-weapons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a news release. &#8220;This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.&#8221;
The decision marks another victory for Constitutionalists after the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s monumental decision last year in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen that deemed that longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violate Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Benitez&#8217;s ruling came after the 9th Circuit of Appeals sent the case back to him in light of the Bruen decision.

US-WEAPONRY-ARMS-GUN SHOW

Federal Judge Overturns California’s Unconstitutional Ban On ‘Assault Weapons’ — Again

Federal Judge Overturns California's Unconstitutional Ban On 'Assault Weapons' — Again

California

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/cenk-uygur">Cenk Uygur</a>, founder of The Young Turks, was in a state of denial when he announced on Wednesday that he will run for President of the United States.
The progressive commentator, an immigrant from Turkey, reportedly said he does not believe the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/">&#8220;natural born citizen&#8221; clause</a> will disqualify him in a campaign for the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2024 nomination against President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>.
In <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/10/11/2023/cenk-uygur-running-for-president-as-democrat">speaking with Semafor</a>, Uygur predicted a &#8220;slam dunk&#8221; victory if and when the issue reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting the legal challenge was a &#8220;good reason&#8221; to run. &#8220;I’m tired of 25 million Americans having this albatross around their neck,&#8221; he added.
Uygur, 53, previously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/results-california-primary-elections.html">ran an unsuccessful campaign</a> in 2020 for a U.S. House seat vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), but eligibility for a congressional seat is different from the requirements for the presidency.
As <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/">stated</a> in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: &#8220;No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.&#8221;
Social media became awash in comments mocking the announcement.
&#8220;His first act as a candidate for president is to violate the constitution of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen,&#8221; talk radio host Larry O&#8217;Connor <a href="https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1712265510409195770">said</a> in a post to X. &#8220;Actually this kind of makes him the perfect candidate for the Democrats.&#8221;
&#8220;You weren’t born here so you aren’t even allowed to run for president yet you’re taking donations under the premise that you are? Sounds like fraud Cenk! Not a smart move,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1712273507722137966">said</a> former Tennessee congressional candidate Robby Starbuck.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
They were responding to a post by Uygur linking to a <a href="https://www.cenkforamerica.com/">&#8220;Cenk for America&#8221; website</a> that featured a button for donations. As of press time, his ActBlue page showed that Uygur had garnered 732 donations, though the total amount of money raised was not advertised.
The eligibility issue has come up in recent months with another political figure. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Hollywood actor born in Austria who became governor of California, said in a June interview that <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-president-2024-says-win-1235646563/">&#8220;of course&#8221;</a> he would run for president — if he was eligible.
Uygur&#8217;s entry into the race came two days after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rfk-jr-switches-to-running-for-president-as-an-independent">announced</a> that he was ending his bid for the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential nomination to run as an independent.
Biden has <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_primaries/">dominated</a> the 2024 Democratic Party primary polls, but general election polls showing matches against the GOP frontrunner, former President Donald Trump, and others, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/">have been much closer</a>.
&#8220;Yes, I&#8217;m running against Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination,&#8221; Uygur <a href="https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1712258450384994600">said</a> in his post to X. &#8220;Joe Biden is down 24 points on the economy. He has no ability to make up that kind of ground on the most important issue. We need a new candidate now!&#8221;

Cenk Uygur

Progressive Announces Primary Bid Against Biden — But There’s One Big Problem

Progressive Announces Primary Bid Against Biden — But There's One Big Problem

Democratic Party

The Young Turks

Pro-gun owner groups immediately served a lawsuit to California officials after Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nearly two dozen anti-gun laws on Tuesday — which were designed to control concealed-carry rules and impose a new tax on firearm and ammunition sales.
“This is just the latest assault on our rights in California,&#8221; Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement. &#8220;Just as concerning, Governor Gavin Newsom has already made his anti-gun intentions quite clear: he wants to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. Sadly, his acknowledgment that doing so would be the only way to enact more gun control did not dissuade him from violating his oath when he signed this law into effect, but we are fully prepared to fight back.&#8221;
Pratt and the GOA teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) to challenge one of the 23 laws signed by Newsom this week, which stem from Newsom&#8217;s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation&#8217;s gun control leaders.
The law — SB 2 — requires gun owners to undergo more training hours, increase costs associated with permits, and prohibit concealed carrying in areas deemed &#8220;sensitive places,&#8221; including all private commercial property unless expressly permitted by the owner. Other detailed provisions include requiring gun licensing authorities to conduct in-person interviews with applicants, review character references, and social media activity and other public statements to decide if the person poses a risk to public safety.
&#8220;While radical judges continue to strip away our ability to keep people safe, California will keep fighting — because gun safety laws work,&#8221; Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/26/governor-newsom-strengthens-californias-nation-leading-gun-safety-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a>, which details the new laws and touts California&#8217;s gun death rate that <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2021 data</a> from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranked as 43rd out of 50 states with 9 deaths for every 100,000 people.
But according to the gun activist groups, the measure is &#8220;unconstitutional&#8221; and they have stated they would explicitly go after the &#8220;sensitive places&#8221; provision of the law.
&#8220;SB 2 creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place,&#8221; the legal filing reads.
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF and in his role as the executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement, &#8220;Pro-gun groups in California have had success when pushing back on legislation like this – just look at our victory last week against the state&#8217;s magazine ban.&#8221;
&#8220;And just like in that case, we are confident SB 2 will be overturned,&#8221; Paredes added. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been warning governors and legislatures across the country since the Bruen decision that these &#8216;response bills&#8217; will not stand, but unfortunately, many have still been pushed through. That won&#8217;t stop us however – states should fall in line, or we will make them.&#8221;
The California Rifle and Pistol Association also filed a lawsuit to stop the law, which derived from the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> earlier this year in the case of New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that deemed longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violates Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“These laws will not make us safer,&#8221; Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, told The Associated Press. &#8220;They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family. They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.”
Most of the new gun laws Californians face stem from Newsom’s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation’s gun control leaders. However, SB 2 and another measure stood out among gun owner groups.
Gun and ammunition sales taxes imposed by the federal government already take 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. But under California&#8217;s AB 28 law, the state adds another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition sold by manufacturers and dealers to generate $160 million annually to fund school safety and prevention programs.
The California Rifle &amp; Pistol Assn. <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-26/gavin-newsom-gun-control-bills-signed-taxes-ammunition-concealed-carry-bruen-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> wrote in opposition to AB 28, saying the law would &#8220;unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.&#8221;
Other opponents of the measure reportedly argued it would dissuade low-income communities from hunting and shooting sports as it would become unaffordable for lawful gun owners to bear the tax burden.
Newsom reportedly acknowledged the new measures would likely fail legal challenges already filed against the state.
&#8220;It may mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out,&#8221; Newsom said, according to The Associated Press. &#8220;We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly. But I&#8217;m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.&#8221;

California Gov. Newsom Highlights New State Efforts To Stem Gun Violence

California Faces Legal Challenges After Imposing Dozens Of Gun Control Measures

Gavin Newsom

September 17 is <a href="https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/constitution-day#:~:text=September%2017%20is%20designated%20as,family%20activities%2C%20and%20online%20resources.">Constitution Day</a>, and it will largely go unnoticed. This is shameful and a clear example of our nation&#8217;s decline. American civic education no longer exists, and national pride continues to plummet as we witness an unprecedented assault on the Constitution. Every American should realize that the Constitution&#8217;s demise will inevitably lead to the fall of the United States.
Despite our nation’s youth, America possesses the world&#8217;s oldest codified Constitution. Unlike other constitutions, it curtails governmental power and champions the interests of We the People by explicitly safeguarding our God-given liberties. Our Constitution is much more than just a document, it embodies a way of life with the central theme that the government exists to serve the people.
As Americans, we should be concerned that a staggering <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=20178">90% of my students</a> are unable to distinguish between the American Constitution and the Russian Constitution after at least 13 years of schooling. But it’s not only my students. I suspect the results wouldn’t be much different if I ran this exercise with the general public, especially considering that nationwide only 22% of students <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/civics/results/scores/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">demonstrate</a> proficiency in civics and only 13% in American history.
Our failed education system has led to Constitutional ignorance throughout our society. This is why so many elected and appointed officials – entrusted to uphold the Constitution – have flagrantly undermined it. For example, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has <a href="https://reason.com/2023/09/10/new-mexicos-governor-suspends-the-right-to-bear-arms-saying-the-second-amendment-is-not-absolute/">declared</a> that our Constitutional rights are not absolute as she unilaterally attempts to suspend the Second Amendment in the name of an emergency.
Furthermore, throughout the COVID pandemic, the government controlled when you could leave your home and where you could go. The government decided when, where, and how you could practice your faith. When you could work. What you were allowed to say. Who you could associate with. Livelihoods were threatened and destroyed. State legislative bodies, those elected to represent the people, were bypassed.
When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was asked whether the Bill of Rights was ever considered when he implemented his pandemic decrees, he <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-phil-murphy-bill-of-rights">responded</a> that it was “above his pay grade,” despite the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. Decisions were made by chief executives and a handful of people considered “experts,” which is the very definition of authoritarianism. President Biden even declared that his administration’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7chQfQ67SM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“patience was wearing thin</a>” with the American people when many refused to get the vaccine.
This Constitutional ignorance is the main reason why so many Americans supported, and some even encouraged, the government’s heavy-handed approach. We have been conditioned to turn to the government to “solve” every problem, and it took nearly two years before the majority of the American people would declare that they are done with the mandates. However, history has shown that when power is transferred to the government, the power rarely returns to the people.
The good news is, we can reverse this trend, starting with our education system. We have to revive a robust American civic education throughout the K-12 system that focuses on the Constitution, core American values such as freedom and equality, as well as teach students what it means to be an informed and engaged citizenry. Additionally, colleges need to prioritize critical thinking and provide an accurate portrayal of the Constitution, rather than indoctrinate the student body with the falsehood that many of our problems stem from the Constitution itself.
Second, all Americans should forcefully speak out to defend our founding document, which changed the course of human civilization, and served as the inspiration behind the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. This proactive approach will ensure that the Constitution will survive for the future generation.
This Constitution Day, I encourage everyone to read this remarkable document. Parents should read it with their children and teachers should read it with their students. It is <a href="https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/time-choosing-speech-october-27-1964" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Time for Choosing</a>. We either reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and preserve the idea of self-government, or we allow a minority of elites to take us down a path that more closely resembles that of communist China. I know my choice, what will you choose?
Nicholas Giordano is a political science professor at Suffolk Community College and a Leadership Institute <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/profile?pid=5457422" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Campus Reform Higher Education</a> fellow.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

We the People.

When Our Elected Officials Undermine The Constitution, It’s Time To Defend It

Founding Fathers

Menu