The justice criticizes the Court’s endorsement of coercive plea bargaining and its embrace of dubious Fourth Amendment doctrines.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announces on Wednesday DOJ will prioritize prosecutions of birth tourism schemes involving visa fraud as foreign nationals continue exploiting U.S. The post DOJ Launches New Crackdown on Birth Tourism After Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Just days before America's 250th anniversary celebration of our independence, the Democrats' latest attempts to take away American citizens' gun rights are being called out by the Department of Justice.On Wednesday, the Department of Justice sued two different states, both of which are run by increasingly notorious Democrat governors, over their latest attempts to ban certain firearms. 'On April 10, I promised Governor Spanberger that we would sue Virginia if she signed this unconstitutional weapons ban into law. I keep my promises.'The DOJ sued California and Virginia for their so-called "Glock ban" and the semi-automatic-weapon ban, respectively.The lawsuit against California is in fact two-fold: First, the DOJ is challenging the ban of Glock-brand firearms, a popular choice of handgun among gun owners.RELATED: 2A win: Appeals court in DC strikes down high-capacity magazine restrictions Jim Vondruska/Getty ImagesSecond, the DOJ is challenging the legality of California's "Gun Roster," which shows which pistols are allowed and which are banned.The law triggering this ban was signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on October 25. The specific "Glock ban," as well as the ban on any other guns removed from the gun roster on January 1, was set to take effect on Wednesday. Nearly 40 Glock models were removed from the gun roster at the beginning of this year, meaning they "may no longer be sold, offered for sale, imported for sale, or manufactured in California." Additionally, more than 70 models from Auto-Ordnance; Magnum Research; Kimber; Sturm, Ruger & Co.; Kahr Arms; Phoenix Arms; Franklin Armory; Sig Sauer; and Nighthawk Custom were removed from the approved gun roster on the same day. In a state Senate hearing last year to discuss the bill before it was signed into law, the group Gun Owners of California argued against the passage of the bill, warning that the language was "overly broad" and not primarily concerned with the safety of the public: "By specifically targeting the potential for modification, this bill disproportionately affects potential Glock purchasers and restricts access to one of the most popular handguns available, further demonstrating that this legislation is not about safety but about incremental firearm prohibition." Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release Wednesday: “The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California. California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America. We will work to stop this blatant trampling of our rights by the California government to protect the rights of lawful gun owners.”In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Newsom told Blaze News:The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California's commonsense gun safety laws. Our response is simple — these laws save lives. California has proven that strong, evidence-based gun safety measures can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. That's why we have one of the lowest gun death rates in America and historically low crime rates across the board. We won't be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit. We'll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.In addition to the DOJ's challenge to California, the Department of Justice is also suing Virginia for its newly enacted law that bans the purchase and sale of ordinary semi-automatic rifles. The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14, essentially freezes the markets for sales of "assault firearms" in the commonwealth.Similar to the California law, Virginia's ban was set to take effect on July 1, thus triggering the two lawsuits on the same day. “On April 10, I promised Governor Spanberger that we would sue Virginia if she signed this unconstitutional weapons ban into law. I keep my promises,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a press release. “Law-abiding Americans should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction for simply exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms owned by millions of their fellow citizens.”Spanberger's office did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Oversight Project unveils a plan to combat birthright citizenship effects through mass deportation, ICE at hospitals, and birth tourism crackdowns.
The justices position themselves at the center of American public opinion.
'We should no longer wait for illegals to commit crimes before they are deported'
The Justice Department on Tuesday directed its staff to bring fraud charges in alleged cases of birth tourism as a response to their loss in the birthright citizenship ruling from the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In the wake of the 6-3 ruling, a memo from the Justice Department’s office of the deputy attorney general said…
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can acknowledge that biological reality matters when it comes to women’s sports. In a 9-0 ruling regarding Title IX and a 6-3 ruling on equal protection, the Supreme Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that protect safety and fairness for women and girls in athletics. Alliance […]
Fox News commentator and right-wing talk radio host Mark Levin lashed out at the Supreme Court's decision upholding their century-old birthright citizenship precedent — but swiftly got called out by experts and observers for getting a basic fact about the decision incorrect.Levin, who declared the ruling "one of the dumbest decisions I’ve seen" on "Hannity" after it was handed down, took to X to complain that "The 14th amendment was adopted by more than 2/3rds of the members of Congress and thereafter ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Yet, nowhere can the Court or its proponents point to all those elected representatives at the federal and state level who argued for birthright citizenship for the children of aliens — illegal aliens of all matter!"That issue, Levin said, "wasn’t even on their collective mind. They were dealing with Reconstruction, which was going poorly. No, this is not a constitutional decision. It’s a cowardly decision. An abomination giving constitutional protection to what is illegal conduct."There's just one problem, as many observers pointed out: the Supreme Court did, in fact, address the exact issue Levin is claiming they did not address."Mark Levin is either outright lying or tacitly admitting he did not read the decision, because the Court explicitly discussed in great detail how 'those elected representatives' intended the 14th Amendment would apply to children of immigrants," wrote American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, quoting a passage from Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that notes, "the bill's sponsor, Senator Lyman Trumbull, enthusiastically agreed with the bill's critics that it would make citizens of 'the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.'""Tell me you didn't read the Roberts opinion without saying you didn't read that history lesson," wrote immigration attorney and Emory University law professor Charles Kuck."The history of the 14th Amendment is, literally, laid out extensively in the text of the majority opinion," wrote Tangle News founder Isaac Saul. "The entire first 20 pages is Roberts citing all the drafters of the 14th Amendment and their understanding exactly what they were doing. Does anyone read anymore?"