Here’s what happened in oral arguments today in the AR-15 Open Carry case – Walker v. Donahoe

This afternoon, oral arguments were held in the case of Walker v. Donahoe – the AR-15 open carry case out of Putnam County, West Virginia. I’ll discuss what happened in a live debriefing at 6:30 pm, which is in 4 minutes…..

Here’s a link to the actual recording of the arguments, if you missed it live:

Here’s an excerpt of my argument, as taken by my staff:

Here’s the video of the underlying incident, if you haven’t seen it:

If you love FREEDOM, should you be using CRYPTOCURRENCY? I talk with co-Founder of TUSC

If you love life, liberty, property, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and basically all civil rights, you should understand the potential lifeline of freedom that is made possible due to cryptocurrency. The easiest way to destroy the Second Amendment is to make it impossible for the firearms industry to transact business through corporate suppression of free speech and free enterprise. Even worse, the mainstream corporate financial institutions have a history of partnering with the federal government to share your private data for use in criminal prosecutions and other activities against your consent and constitutional rights.

As suggested by John Crump of the GOA (Gun Owners of America) from FIS Episode No. 45, I’m talking tonight with the co-Founder of TUSC (The Universal Settlement Coin), a decentralized, non-ICO cryptocurrency project that is focused supporting the retail firearms industry with their payments issues. Rob McNealy is a serial entrepreneur, podcaster, cryptocurrency advocate, self-defense activist and recovering corporate MBA.

Join me tonight on Freedom is Scary Live, Episode No. 46. Tonight at 6:30 p.m. Eastern:

TUSC, The Universal Settlement Coin, is an open source, pure payments cryptocurrency project built on a delegated proof of stake (DPOS) blockchain. TUSC is a decentralized, non-ICO, community project with on-chain governance. TUSC was purpose built for retailer adoption using a unique marketing model with an elected and term limited third-party vendor called the Marketing Partner, whose role is to support the onboarding of retailers and to promote TUSC through aggressive marketing and sales strategies to vertical markets and industries with recognized problems with existing payment systems.

More about Rob McNealy and TUSC: Rob McNealy: Podcast Website: https://robmcnealy.com​ Twitter: https://twitter.com/robmcnealy​ (365,000+ followers) IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11393442​ LBRY: https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@robmcnealy:e​ Minds: https://www.minds.com/robmcnealy​ Rarible:https://app.rarible.com/robmcnealy​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robmcnealy​ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/robmcnealya…​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/robmcnealy​ Everipedia: https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/r…​ Parler: https://parler.com/robmcnealy​ Medium: https://robmcnealy.medium.com​ TUSC: Twitter: https://twitter.com/tuscnetwork​ TUSC Website: https://tusc.network​ TUSC Marketing Partner Website: https://tuscmp.one​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tusc…​ LBRY: https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TUSC:a​ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tuscnetwork​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tusc…​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/tuscnetwork​ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/23371…​ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TUSCNetwork​ Recent media: https://freebeacon.com/guns/cryptocur…https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun…

Update on the Battle for the Second Amendment – as of February of 2021

Here’s a live video I did last night on Youtube with John Crump, from the gun rights advocacy organization, Gun Owners of America.

The big danger right now is our very own Senator Manchin siding with the anti-gun lobby in ending the filibuster. If that happens, there’s nothing stopping Biden and the Democrat Congress from doing what John Crump believes they will pass by federal legislation:

  1. An outright ban on AR-15 style rifles; and
  2. A federal NFA registry of all existing AR-15 style rifles (even where legal in any particular state).

Check out all of the recent articles by John Crump at Ammoland News, some of which we discussed.

Check out all of the recent articles regarding gun rights at Ammoland News.

Here’s the payment host discussed by John in the video (TUSC) which offers a method of buying and selling firearms and firearms accessories, ammunition, etc., in the era of Big Tech censorship and suppression:

Information on Caniglia v. Strom, currently pending at the SCOTUS, where the Court will be deciding whether law enforcement can enter and search your home without a warrant based on the so-called “community caretaking exception”:

Gun Owners of America:

Can a Family Court Judge Search a Litigant’s Home?? The Question is Briefed to the Judicial Hearing Board

By now everyone knows about the case of the Family Court Judge searching my client’s house. Despite being formally charged before the WV Supreme Court, and despite agreeing to the recommended discipline, she is now trying to back out of it, with the assistance of another Family Court Judge, who happens to be on the Judicial Hearing Board. It’s apparently headed to the WV Supreme Court on the issue of whether it’s legal for a family court judge to search a litigant’s home. The briefs are in. Here’s what’s going on. It’s crazy.

Here’s the Post Hearing Order from the Judicial Hearing Board, following what was supposed to be a routine hearing to receive and recommend the joint settlement agreement between the parties, which provided for a $5,000.00 fine and a censure. It posed a number of questions to the parties, requesting briefing on the posed questions, which from my understanding is pretty un-heard-of:

Here is Judge Goldston’s brief, which now apparently makes a 180 pivot, and argues that she did nothing wrong.

Here is the Judicial Disciplinary Counsel’s brief, which explains in detail what she did wrong:

Since my client is a “complainant,” rather than a party, we filed an amicus curiae brief, which is just sort of advisory guidance to the Judicial Hearing Board. Note that once they make their decision, their recommendation goes to the WV Supreme Court for a final decision.

Tonight’s live video on the topic:

We Reply to the State GOP in the Lawsuit Against the Governor

This morning we submitted a Reply to the WV Supreme Court to the brief submitted by the State GOP in the lawsuit we filed against the Governor in the District 19 legislative vacancy dispute. Here is the filing, which hopefully clears up the confusion and uncertainty between the legal structure and authorities of state political party committees and local political party committees. As discussed in the last post on the topic, everyone from the top down seems to be confused. Hopefully this clears things up.

It should be noted that there are 100 legislative districts in the WV House of Delegates, each representing about 18,000 voters. 43 out of the 100 districts are contained wholly within a single county, and therefore vacancy nominations for those 43 single-county districts go to the county political executive committee. The state committee has no authority under the law to inject a veto or control the process. If the State GOP is allowed to do so, that would equal roughly 774,000 voters who lose their representation in vacancy nomination decisions. Note: the Democrat Party has not attempted to inject their state committee into the local legislative vacancy process.

Here’s my handy diagram on how all political party committees are structured under West Virginia law. Note that all committees have the right to elect their own officers, make their own internal rules, and contain a body of voting members elected by voters. They are limited, however, in that they cannot create internal rules that are inconsistent with state law.

Therefore, while the State GOP claims to be able to control the legislative vacancy process through making new bylaws, their argument is flawed because doing so is entirely inconsistent with State Code, which gives the local committees exclusive authority to nominate seat vacancies. You can’t get around that by changing the internal rules in the bylaws. That seems obvious, but apparently they did it anyways…..

The Supplemental Appendix (Exhibits) referenced in the Reply:

Oral arguments are currently scheduled for Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. at the WV Supreme Court. It should be available live on the Court’s website. I go over many of these details in the live video from Wednesday night. Not the most exciting topic, but important:

Suppressing Dissent and Criminalizing the Opposition

The scary new world we find ourselves in is nothing new. The similarities to one of the worst periods in world history is compelling.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]” ― Harry S. Truman

As the Nazis worked to consolidate their power and build a cohesive “national community,” suppression of dissent played a key role. In 1933, the Nazis issued a decree that required Germans to turn in anyone who spoke against the party, its leaders, or the government. 

That decree, “For the Defense against Malicious Attacks against the Government,” stated: 

1. Whoever purposely makes or circulates a statement of a factual nature which is untrue or grossly exaggerated or which may seriously harm the welfare of the Reich or of a state, or the reputation of the National government or of a state government or of parties or organizations supporting these governments, is to be punished, provided that no more severe punishment is decreed in other regulations, with imprisonment of up to two years and, if he makes or spreads the statement publicly, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

2. If serious damage to the Reich or a state has resulted from this deed, penal servitude may be imposed.

3. Whoever commits an act through negligence will be punished with imprisonment of up to three months, or by a fine. 

In December 1934, the government replaced the decree with the “Law against Malicious Attacks on State and Party,” adding a clause that criminalized “malicious, rabble-rousing remarks or those indicating a base mentality” against the Nazi Party or high-ranking government or party officials. 

While the Nazis were focusing on putting Germans back to work in the midst of the Great Depression, they also unleashed attacks on their political opposition as soon as Hitler became chancellor. On the evening of February 27, 1933, alarms suddenly rang out in the Reichstag as fire destroyed the building’s main chamber. 

Within 20 minutes, Hitler was on the scene to declare: “This is a God-given signal! If this fire, as I believe, turns out to be the handiwork of Communists, then there is nothing that shall stop us now from crushing out this murderous pest with an iron fist.” Marinus van der Lubbe was the man the Nazis captured that night. He confessed to setting the building ablaze but repeatedly insisted that he had acted alone. Adolf Hitler paid no attention to the confession. He saw a chance to get rid of what he considered the Nazis’ most immediate rival—the Communists—so he ordered the arrest of anyone with ties to the Communist Party. 

Within days, the Nazis had thrown 4,000 Communists and their leaders into hastily created prisons and concentration camps. By the end of March, 20,000 Communists had been arrested, and by the end of that summer more than 100,000 Communists, Social Democrats, union officials, and other “radicals” were imprisoned. Were any of them responsible for the fire? The question was irrelevant to the Nazis. They had been given an opportunity to get rid of their enemies, and they took it.

The day after the fire, February 28, 1933, President Hindenburg, at Hitler’s urging, issued two emergency decrees designed to make such arrests legal, even those that had already taken place. Their titles—“For the Defense of Nation and State” and “To Combat Treason against the German Nation and Treasonable Activities”—reveal how Hitler used the fire to further his own goals. The two decrees suspended, until further notice, every part of the constitution that protected personal freedoms. The Nazis claimed that the decrees were necessary to protect the nation from the “Communist menace.”

Still under Nazi control, the Reichstag passed a new law on March 21, 1933, that made it a crime to speak out against the new government or criticize its leaders. Known as the Malicious Practices Act, the law made even the smallest expression of dissent a crime. Those who were accused of “gossiping” or “making fun” of government officials could be arrested and sent to prison or a concentration camp.

Then, on March 24, 1933, the Reichstag passed what became known as the Enabling Act by a vote of 141 to 94. It “enabled” the chancellor of Germany to punish anyone he considered an “enemy of the state.” The act allowed “laws passed by the government” to override the constitution. Only the 94 Social Democrats voted against the law. Most of the other deputies who opposed it were in hiding, in prison, or in exile.

Then, in June, Hitler outlawed the Social Democratic Party. The German Nationalist Party, which was part of Hitler’s coalition government, dissolved after its deputies were told to resign or become the next target. By the end of the month, German concentration camps held 27,000 people.

By mid-July, the Nazi Party was the only political party allowed in the country. Other organizations were also brought into line. As historian William Sheridan Allen has put it, “Whenever two or three were gathered, the Führer would also be present.”

Federal Lockdown Tyranny Challenge: The Governor files a Motion to Dismiss and Here’s our Response

Update on the Federal Covid Tyranny Challenge: The Governor filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit, and we responded yesterday. I think Samuel Adams said it best on October 14, 1771:

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Here’s the Governor’s motion to dismiss our federal lawsuit on behalf of the Bridge Cafe & Bistro Restaurant, challenging the Stay at Home Order and the Mask Mandate:

Here’s our response we filed yesterday evening:

ATF Raids Polymer80 in Nevada and Obtains Customer Information

Last Thursday, the ATF raided Polymer80 in Nevada, a seller of so-called “Ghost Gun” 80% kits for the home-manufacture of polymer pistols for personal use. The word on the street is, that they’ve been contacting customers. So what rights do you have if you’re a customer and the ATF comes knocking?

Constitutional Mayhem: Freedom is Scary LIVE Tonight at 6:30

As promised, tonight – Monday evening – at 6:30pm eastern, don’t miss my live cast video, an episode of Freedom is Scary. Available at this link, on Youtube, and on our Facebook page as well. Join the live chat and bring your comments/questions.

Read Trump’s Georgia Lawsuit:

Trump’s Pennsylvania Lawsuit, headed to the Supreme Court:

Here’s the link for The European Union Election Observation Handbook.

We took the Governor to Federal Court yesterday – Here’s what happened

Yesterday, we took the West Virginia Governor to federal court on a challenge against the “Mask Mandate” and “Stay at Home” executive orders following the Governor’s threats on Friday the 13th to start having people arrested and charged with “obstruction of justice.” Fortunately, the Governor backed down from his threats, and the West Virginia Attorney General has joined us in our condemnation of those threats, even before we were able to get to court. I’ll unpack what was said, what the Court ruled, and where we’re going from here.