Articles by Herschel Smith

Military.com.

Some 40,000 National Guard and 22,000 Reserve soldiers who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer allowed to participate in their military duties, also effectively cutting them off from some of their military benefits, Army officials announced Friday.

“Soldiers who refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to service, and official reprimands,” an Army spokesperson said in a statement.

At this point even semi-literate people know what’s happening and what has occurred.  Steve Kirsch observes that:

1. a 6.6% rate of heart injury (>10M Americans)
2. 2.7% are unable to work after being vaccinated (>5M Americans),
3. 6.3% had to be hospitalized (>10M Americans)
4. you were more likely to die from COVID if you’ve taken the vaccine.
5. Almost as many (77.4%) households lost someone from the vaccines as from COVID. If you believe that 1M people in the US have died from COVID, then this survey indicates that ~750,000 people died from the vaccine (10.18/13.15*1M) with a 95% confidence of at least 600,000 deaths.

Dr. David Martin thinks this is only the beginning.

Dr. David Martin has a deep medical science and investment resume. Dr Martin also runs a company (M·CAM International) that finances cutting edge innovation worldwide.  He is also one of the key people seeking justice in lawsuits suing medical companies and the federal government involved in delivering the so-called vaccines for CV19.  In simple terms, according to Dr. Martin, the CV19 vaccines are “bioweapons.”  Big Pharma and the government knew it and also knew it would cause massive deaths and permanent injuries.  Dr. Martin says, “It’s going to get much worse. . . . It is not a Corona virus vaccine.  It is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin. . . . The fact of the matter is the injections are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism.  They are not a public health measure.  The facts are very simple.  This was premeditated. . . . This was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept the universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon.  That is their own words and not my interpretation.”

How many will die from the CV19 bioweapons?  Dr. Martin says, “By their own estimate, they are looking for 700 million people globally, and that would put the U.S. participation in that of the injected population as 75 million to 100 million people. . . . There are a lot of reasons why they hope it will be between now and 2028 because there is this tiny little glitch of the illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs.  So, the fewer recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better.  Not surprisingly, the recommendation was people over the age of 65 were the first ones to get injected.”

Dr. Martin thinks the catastrophic effects of the CV19 injections will hit the medical industry soon.  Dr. Martin explains, “The dirty secret is . . . there are a lot of pilots having micro vascular and clotting problems, and that keeps them out of the cockpit, which is a good place to not have them if they are going to throw a clot for a stroke or a heart attack.  The problem is we are going to see that exact same phenomenon in the healthcare industry and at a much larger scale.  So, we now have, along with the actual problem . . . of people getting sick and people dying, we actually have that targeting the healthcare industry writ large.  Which means we are going to have nurses and doctors who are going to be among the sick and dead.  That also means the sick and the dying are also not going to get care.”

The full interview can be found here.

I hope and pray that this is all wrong.  I fear that it is not, and I know men and women who have suffered from the shots.  And they sure are going to an awful lot of trouble to convince people that health problems like heart disease, arrythmia, and all sorts of killer diseases are part of every day life and caused by hot nights, solar flares, gardening, and a host of other activities in which men and women have been engaged for millennia.

In the mean time, there are ~60,000 Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors who apparently won’t be on this list of sufferers.

70,000 trucker contractors to be forced off the roads in California (which also affects the balance of the U.S.).

Did you know this was happening?

As I’ve said so many times before.  Droughts are natural.  All famines are man-made.

Source.

A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns.

Jim Wallace, writing on behalf of the Gun Owners Action League, is urging Gov. Charlie Baker to step in and block the AG’s move.

“We are aware of the joint ‘guidance’ released by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security,” Wallace wrote. “We are officially demanding that the so-called ‘guidance’ be retracted and revised as it does not reflect the decision handed down by the Court!”

Wallace is referring to guidance issued by Healey’s office and the EOPSS on July 1 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the nation’s highest court ruled a New York law restricting firearm licenses to those who could show “proper cause” to carry was unconstitutionally infringing on residents’ 2nd Amendment rights.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court in a 6-3 decision, specifically cited Massachusetts as a state with similar licensing laws.

Healey was swift to respond to the court’s decision, issuing clarifications for licensing authorities — in the Bay State, that’s usually the local police chief — explaining that the state’s “good reason” rule was no longer applicable.

“Following the Bruen decision, licensing authorities can no longer enforce the ‘good reason’ provision of the Massachusetts law, which allowed license restrictions or denials if an applicant lacked a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property,” Healey and Public Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy’s offices said in a joint release.

However, the state officials also said some restrictions within the law do still apply, specifically the provision that allows chiefs to determine if a person is “suitable for a firearm.”

So it’s no longer “may issue,” it’s now “may issue” depending upon whatever we think today.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Healey is a witch.  You didn’t think they would actually follow the law, did you?

They don’t just want a few guns.  They want them all.  The American controllers want to do exactly what Trudeau is doing now in Canada.

Sometimes my choice of focus may seem odd to readers.  But I try to focus on the things worthy of that focus, and on important trends.  There’s almost always a video to link on somebody shooting yet another rifle into a pile of bricks.  That’s not important.

Recall that we covered the Missouri 2A preservation act in gory detail – the political machinations, the law enforcement resistance to it and desire to buddy up with the federal government, the “sky is falling” predictions of the opponents, and most important, the staunch opposition to it by the federal government and the corollary legal actions to try to stop it.

The federal government hates 2A preservation acts, and for very good reason.  I told you this movement would grow, and it is.  I’ll also predict that what we see in Missouri is only the beginning.  This is Version 1.  There will be a Version 2, and 3, until they achieve the separation they want.  The movement is also growing as I said, and this time the play is being set up for us in NH.

News from NH.

Gov. Chris Sununu will soon need to decide whether to sign a bill to prevent New Hampshire law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal agencies over enforcement of federal firearms laws. But exactly how the law might be applied – and how it might affect a firearms regulation package being negotiated in Washington – has been hotly debated in recent weeks.

Gun safety advocates and Democrats say the bill could undermine New Hampshire efforts to provide information to federal agencies determining who can purchase a firearm. And some, including the New Hampshire State Police, raised concerns that it could interfere with domestic violence protective orders.

Firearms advocates have praised the bill as a first step toward pushing back at perceived federal encroachment. But some of them say the bill does not go far enough and includes too many exceptions.

And few know how New Hampshire law enforcement would respond to the proposed law in practice.

House Bill 1178 prevents any state or local government from using resources to take action “to enforce, administer, or cooperate with” federal firearms laws that don’t exist in New Hampshire law. The bill applies to any “law, act, rule, order, or regulation” of the U.S. government and applies to any federal laws or rules relating to firearms, ammunition, magazines, ammunition feeding devices, firearms components, firearms supplies, or knives.

The bill, which cites Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution – the state’s’s right to bear arms – would apply that prohibition to “any person acting under the color of state, county, or municipal law.”

[ … ]

But the bill also contains exceptions. Under the bill, state or local law enforcement agents are allowed to cooperate in federal firearms investigations or arrests as long as there is a “reasonable suspicion” that that person has committed or is about to commit an additional offense not tied to a federal firearms rule or law. That exception includes any state law or a federal law that does not apply to firearms.

The exception means that New Hampshire State Police could assist in an operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or the FBI against a New Hampshire resident with an illegal modification to their firearm, provided that they were suspected of doing something else illegal in the state, such as trespassing or firearms trafficking.

Firearms rights groups argue that that caveat is broad, and means that State Police and other agencies would be able to participate in many federal investigations or arrests.

NH isn’t willing to take anything but baby steps at the moment, those steps rendering the bill all but useless.  It isn’t necessary for state law enforcement to “cooperate” with the federal government – they can always do the investigative work themselves and effect the arrests they need under state law.

“There are very rarely going to be circumstances where there is a federal law enforcement activity occurring, criminal law enforcement activity occurring, where state and local officials are going to be prevented from cooperating,” said Sean List, an attorney with Lehmann Major List, PLLC and a firearms rights advocate.

“If someone is illegally selling machine guns … we don’t have a state law that says you can’t sell machine guns, but that’s probably a pretty bad dude,” he added. “And we can very easily figure out an articulable suspicion that this individual is also violating state law.”

Instead, supporters of the legislation say the law would more likely limit state officials from helping the enforcement of federal rules from the ATF or presidential executive orders.

One example is a rule passed by the Trump administration’s ATF in 2018 that would ban “bump stocks,” the devices that allow semi-automatic firearms to fire continuously, like a machine gun. That component was used during a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 59 people in 2017. The ATF and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office used the federal statute banning machine guns and applied it to bump stocks; that rule has been upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court after legal challenges.

Under HB 1178, state law enforcement agencies would not be able to help the ATF or FBI arrest someone who had modified their firearm with a bump stock, unless other laws were broken.

The shootings in Las Vegas weren’t perpetrated by a gun with a bump stock.  The event was a running gun fight down main street for miles based on 911 calls.  What you’ve been told is a lie.

Furthermore, one side says this, the other side says that.  This will cause confusion in the legal system, confusion to be exploited by law enforcement who wants to cooperate with the federal government, and confusion among the folks of NH.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  They could make it clear.  No cooperation.  Period.

You can read the rest of the article, but while I hope this gets signed by the governor, I consider it to be weak tea.  This should be considered Version 1 and needs to be modified as soon as possible.  Get it signed, make incremental advances, and take the issue on again next session.

I consider this to be bad reporting.  The writer gives us no hint concerning the predilections of the governor.  Is he disposed to sign this bill into law, or not?

Again, keep track of this movement.  This is one of the more important trends in America for gun rights as the Balkanization of America continues apace.

This seems like a bad move to me.  If they’re concerned about lawsuits (as she points out near the end of the analysis), the answer to me is as clear today as it was years ago.

Ditch controller states.  I’m not talking about UPS.  I mean gun manufacturers.  If gun manufacturers would simply refuse to distribute to states like California, New York and New Jersey, this problem would come to an abrupt end.

Here’s the catch.  They would have to stop distribution to LEOs too.  No sales to anyone.  No replacement parts to anyone.  No ammunition to anyone.  That includes especially law enforcement.

Let them have what they asked for.  No more guns to controllers, not more lawsuits.

But in the end, that’s not going to happen, so we’re left with UPS ditching gun owners, and gun owners having to find other ways to transport parts.

Readers are well aware of the typical things I recommend when going hiking, even for a day hike with no plans to spend the night.  You make plans to spend the night anyway.

A large bore handgun, redundant fire starter, poncho, parka, paracord, knife, light, compass, energy food, and plenty of water (or a water filtration device), and minimalistic IFAK.  This simple kit, while fairly light, gives you water, food energy, means to find your way out if you can navigate, cover for the night by use of the poncho and paracord, warmth for the night with the parka, and means to have fire.

Unprepared hikers rarely thing about these things, and often have to be rescued.  Take for example these native Texans who went hiking in Colorado.

Hikers left the Texas heat to a camp on a cold, rainy Colorado trail, officials said. The duo hiked up Lake Como Road and into Colorado’s Sangre de Cristo range on Monday, June 27, the Alamosa Volunteer Search And Rescue team said. They never made it to Lake Como and set up camp about a quarter-mile from the lake.

Lake Como is an 8.3-mile out-and-back trail near Blanca, about 210 miles south of Denver. It’s considered a challenging route, according to AllTrails. After some time, they started experiencing hypothermia. They called for help and said they were cold. One of the hikers started throwing up and was severely dehydrated with a headache.

Rescuers brought the hikers hot water bottles and sugary drinks to help them warm up and rehydrate. They were brought down the road and checked by medical professionals. Nearly six hours after the call for help, the rescue was complete. Officials said it was a difficult operation because of the rain making the road rocky. “Lake Como Rd was exceptionally dangerous this trip due to heavy rain, high chance for rockfall and extremely slippery rock,” officials said in a news release. “On the descent down, there was a river running down the entire road.”

The hikers weren’t prepared for their trek. They didn’t pack extra clothing to stay dry, and their tent had no rain fly, officials said. The hikers also didn’t have extra food or water, and they didn’t have layers to survive the night temperatures. “These hikers said they did not understand why it was so cold and rainy in Colorado, because it has been ‘so hot in Texas’ where they hike all the time,” rescuers said. “They never checked any weather forecasts.”

I’ve hiked in Colorado in the middle of summer near snow covered peaks.  Their actions were very dumb, and could have cost them their lives.

Perhaps worse still was this hiker who tried to brave a swamp in the Adirondacks.

NORTH HUDSON — It’s known by forest rangers as the Dix Pond Swamp, and may be one of the more miserable and foreboding places to find oneself in the Adirondack High Peaks backcountry.

Created by a “blowdown” — a mass knockdown of trees — 50 years ago and characterized by knee-deep muck, jungle-thick new-growth trees and voracious black flies, a solo hiker from Singapore earlier this month was rescued after wandering desperately and aimlessly in the swamp for three days after leaving a marked trail and becoming disoriented.

 

“He told his wife that he was never going to hike that mountain range again,” Forest Ranger Jamison Martin said during an interview with fellow Ranger Andrew Lewis about the Wednesday, June 22, search-and-rescue effort.

Great lessons learned.  Know your season.  Know your terrain.  Have maps.  Be able to navigate.  Have various foods.  Have clean drinking water or filtration.  If you can’t rest, you begin to hallucinate and make awful decisions.

And if you’re in a swamp, retrace your steps and get out.

From Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke University (I don’t go behind paywalls).

Before Bruen, lower courts had held that national parks and the parking lots of rural post offices were sensitive, and had indicated that libraries, museums, hospitals and day-care centers may also ban guns.

I responded with this note.

National Parks haven’t been ruled “sensitive places” or any such thing.  You should check your facts before running your mouth (or cutting loose on your keyboard).

In 2010, Congress passed, and the president signed, a law legalizing guns in national parks (they were already legal in national forests, of course, as too with wilderness areas).

I did a FOIA request several years later to find out if there had been any increase in homicides.  There hadn’t.

To the contrary, within a year, the first person (after that law was signed) engaged in self defense and saved his life by killing an attacking bear as a result of being allowed to carry.

Dummy.

Degrees on top of degrees, all backed up by layers and layers of fact checkers.

To no avail.

BREAKING: SCOTUS overturns mag bans, assault weapons ban, and carry ban," Go back and redo in light of what we said in Bruen." This means: The 9th Circuit now has to apply text, history, and tradition to those anti-gun laws. pic.twitter.com/LazvjbePQH

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) June 30, 2022

Via WoG, Bloomberg.

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home.

Known as a “GVR”—for grant, vacate, and remand—the justices often allow lower courts another shot at cases after a high court decision that could potentially change the analysis or outcome of a case.

The cases sent back Thursday include challenges to bans in New Jersey and California on high-capacity magazines that hold ten rounds or more, Maryland’s assault weapons ban, and Hawaii’s restrictions on open-carry.

In each case, the lower courts had upheld the restrictions.

The justices didn’t explain why they sent the cases back, but presumably it was to apply the new test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in New York State & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major Second Amendment case in over a decade and limited the restrictions that states can place on where gun owners can take their firearms.

Courts should look only to the constitutional text and that nation’s history of gun restrictions in determining whether a state has run afoul of the Second Amendment, Thomas wrote, adding that they should not defer to legislative determinations about whether gun restrictions are necessary for public health and safety.

“While that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here,” Thomas said.

I talked with Dave Hardy a day or two ago and asked about the status of Young v. Hawaii.  He thought it would be vacated and remanded to be consistent with the findings in Bruen.

These are all the right decisions, and everybody knows it.

I hope Young is handled soon and Hawaii has to begin the process of issuing permits.  Actually, I wish they would legalize open carry, consistent with the what the founders did and how they lived their lives.

But leave it to the controllers in Hawaii.  They apparently want to require that permit holders go through the same qualification that LEOs do.

The upshot is that most LEOs aren’t as good with their weapons as most permit holders I know (including me).