Connect with us

News

Major Victory for Gun Rights Out of A Very Liberal Court…This Is Gratifying

Published

on

At the end of the day, no matter how much Democrats and their media lapdogs try to undermine the Second Amendment, it undeniably still stands as one of the most important Constitutional Amendments in our history.

The only Democrats who are being honest with themselves are those who are looking to repeal the Second Amendment, but most of the time, liberals won’t even go there because they know that 100 million gun owners and proud Second Amendment patriots would never allow it.

Which is exactly why we needed the Second Amendment to begin with.

Trending: As If The Matt Gaetz Case Couldn’t Get Any Weirder…

So as long as a court is ruling on 2A issues, they simply can’t, at the end of the day, ignore exactly what 2A says:

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The rights of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This is exactly what the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to grudgingly rule in favor of a man who took a bold stand against Hawaii’s unconstitutional carry bans.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense. Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain was joined by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta in the majority while Judge Richard R. Clifton dissented. The majority reversed the lower court ruling that upheld Hawaii’s effective ban on all forms of gun carry in the state.

“For better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Judge O’Scannlain wrote for the majority. “We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, ‘in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.’ While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.'”

Hawaii has long had some of the most restrictive gun-carry laws in the country. It currently employs a “may issue” gun-carry law, in which state officials may deny permits to applicants even if they’ve passed a background check and training requirements.

According to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Hawaii did not issue a single gun-carry permit to any civilians in 2017. The same was true in 2016. They are the only state in the country to not issue a single gun-carry permit in either year.

George Young, a native Hawaiian and Vietnam veteran, was denied a gun-carry permit in 2011 and filed a lawsuit against the state. Young had to act as his own lawyer because he couldn’t find a lawyer in the state willing to work on his behalf. After his first two attempts at legal action failed, Alan Beck, a California-based lawyer with ties to Hawaii, offered to help him with his suit on a pro bono basis.

“Today the Ninth Circuit secured the Second Amendment right to carry firearms outside the home,” Beck told the Washington Free Beacon. “We are very pleased by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and are committed to litigating this case further.”

This is exactly what standing up for your Second Amendment rights looks like, and what 2A supporters everywhere should be doing in their own communities where infringement exists.

God bless George Young, and God bless America. This is an awesome victory for liberty lovers anywhere who know that the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote our Constitution.

News

US Pop Star Offers to Pay Fines For Olympic Team Protesting Skimpy Outfits

The IOC wants the women to remain scantily clad, and this is undoubtedly on account of their incessant greed.

Published

on

The Olympics may have built themselves as some sort of prestigious and untouchable global event in years past, but the last few decades have revealed just what a shady cash-grab the games have become. It all began in the 90’s when the financially-struggling Winter Olympics added snowboarding to the games, in a move that was blatantly meant to generate ad revenue from the emerging sport and its fans.  In this quest to cash in, the International Olympic Committee refused to allow any actual snowboarding organizations participate in the operations, which drove several of the world’s best to boycott.  This, in turn, completely ruined the concept that the gold medalists were truly the best in the world, and exposed the IOC as nothing more than a marketing firm. Now, in 2021, a number of female athletes are complaining that they are being forced to wear skimpier clothes than their male counterparts, (often in the same discipline), to which the IOC responded with a “be quiet and play” sort of attitude. Again, the skimpier outfits equate to more ratings, so Olympic organizers are refusing to make accommodations. This has led US pop star Pink to step up.  US pop star Pink has offered to pay the fines handed out to the Norwegian women’s beach handball team, after they wore shorts like their male counterparts instead of bikini bottoms. The team was fined 1,500 euros (£1,295) for “improper clothing” at the European Beach Handball Championships last week. “I’m very proud of the Norwegian female beach handball team for protesting sexist rules about their uniform,” tweeted the singer on Sunday. “Good on ya, ladies,” she added. “I’ll be happy to pay your fines for you. Keep it up.” In doing so, the Olympics will get their coveted cash and these female athletes will be able to perform…

Continue Reading

News

GOP Rep. Says There’s ‘Credible’ Evidence of Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory

China has been avoiding any such investigation for months now.

Published

on

From the very moment that the COVID-19 pandemic began, there were concerns that China wasn’t telling us the truth. This was primarily based on Beijing’s horrendous record of dishonesty when it comes to the international community, which has been ever-so frequent in cases in which the Chinese government could be made to appear cruel or uncaring. To be fair, it doesn’t take long for most to realize that this is, in fact, reality, especially as we continue to receive credible reports of the nation’s use of concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. In the case of the coronavirus, not only did the world discover that the data coming out of Beijing was wholly incorrect, but that a laboratory specializing in the exact type of coronaviruses that caused COVID-19 happened to be just a few miles away from the epicenter of the pandemic. Now, despite numerous attempts to stall or stymy efforts to investigate the theory that pandemic began as a lab-leak, one US lawmaker is claiming that there is credible evidence of just such a possibility.  Sunday, on FNC’s “The Next Revolution,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) stressed the importance of investigating the origins of COVID-19, and in particular, China’s role. His statement was stern. “As you know, we still have yet to have any notice that there will be an investigation. And so I think, rightfully, we used the powers of oversight that we have in Congress and we convened a hearing. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats attended that hearing. But the expert testimony from the witnesses was quite profound and quite significant. “And I think as they said, and I would tend to agree that this virus came from the laboratory, whether it was a leak, whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, whether it was manmade or whether it…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week