Welcome to Liberty Nation’s top 5 story picks for the week. The editors have chosen their favorite articles and videos that you may have missed. Enjoy!
California Eyes a New Group to Disarm
California is considering a bill to take the right to bear arms away from those convicted of “serious alcohol-related crimes.”
California State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) has an idea to help keep the good citizens of the Golden State safe: Disarm the drunks. If her recently submitted bill becomes law, those convicted of “serious alcohol-related” crimes would lose their right to keep and bear arms for ten years.
While it’s true that firearms and intoxicants don’t mix well, this proposal – much like other “common sense” reforms in the state that we’ve covered – ignore the basic principle behind the Second Amendment. It’s a simple point, really. So why is it that so many politicians – and voters – seem to miss it?
At the federal level, convicted felons nationwide officially lost the right to keep and bear arms with the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 – though the background check designed to enforce that rule wasn’t established in law until the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and wasn’t implemented until 1998. In addition to felonies, the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996 added domestic violence misdemeanors to the prohibited persons list. Read More.
Climate Change Hysteria: Part 1
Eve of destruction or propaganda hoax?
“Climate change will shrink U.S. economy and kill thousands, government report warns.”
So read the breathless, screaming headlines on CNN – and throughout the establishment media – following the release of a government environmental document, the “fourth climate assessment report.”
Are we approaching the eve of destruction, as environmental activists would have us believe? Is the report exaggerated or imprecise? Is the whole climate change issue, so vital to the left, in fact, a hoax, as some conservatives believe? Read More.
Fed Judge Alleges Collusion Between Hillary and State Department
Judge calls government misconduct in case outrageous.
In an opinion lambasting both the Departments of State and Justice, a federal judge this week ordered further inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s emails as Secretary of State. Judicial Watch, a public interest group specializing in government open records research and litigation was granted the extraordinary order, which requires the two government departments to join it in submitting a proposed schedule for document discovery.
They are all required by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lambert to cooperate in investigating whether Hillary Clinton used a private email system to stymie the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by attempting to settle a case despite knowing its disclosure was inadequate. Read More.
The Democrats’ Plan to Steal the 2020 Election
Intimidation is the new weapon in electoral politics, and Democrats are just getting warmed up.
Looking forward to January 2019, when the 116th Congress convenes with a Democrat House of Representatives and a Republican Senate, at the forefront of the minds of political operatives and observers alike is: Why would congressional Democrats go down the road of impeaching President Donald Trump, knowing that the Senate will not convict? The answer, of course, is that they would not. Democrats are likely thinking of 2020 as the year they will depose Trump, and they are not looking to achieve this at the ballot box.
When House Republicans engineered the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in December 1998, they paid a high political price. The Democrats held a majority in the Senate and declined to convict Clinton, but it is hard to say whether the defeat of the impeachment effort made things worse for the Republicans, who may have been punished even more harshly in the next election had they succeeded in removing the 42nd president from office. Read More.
Second Amendment Ignored and Abused in Boulder
City officials claim that being classified a Home Rule municipality allows them to disregard the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
While you might not have heard of the criminologist who first wrote these words in 1764, Cesare Beccaria, you might know that Thomas Jefferson used this quote to help explain the idea that eventually became the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Put simply, as he wrote in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution: “No freeman shall ever be disbarred the use of arms.” This sentiment may be old, but it its by no means outdated. It’s a point the gun grabbers of Boulder, Colorado would do well to understand. Read More.
Calling All Readers: Let us know which article you enjoyed this week in the comments section below.