Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by Charlie T Waite


  1. A judge in Iowa ordered 50,000 absentee ballot requests to be voided after President Donald Trump’s campaign argued a county elections commissioner acted improperly when he sent the requests out with voter’s personal information already filled out.

    Judge Ian Thornhill issued a temporary injunction, The Associated Press reported, which requires Linn County Auditor Joel Miller “to notify voters in writing that the forms should not have been pre-filled with their information and cannot be processed.”

    When Miller sent absentee ballot request forms to 140,000 voters in July, personal information – including names, dates of birth, even voter identification numbers – were already filled out. Miller, a Democrat, violated a “clear directive” from Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, who said in July that county officials must provide blank absentee ballot request forms to voters, Thornhill ruled.

    Miller said he was just trying to make voting easier by having the information already filled out, including the four-digit voter identification numbers that most people don’t know. Republicans argued that having voters fill out their own forms would make absentee voting more secure.

    Democrats argue otherwise, claiming that such requirements will “disenfranchise” voters and lead to suppression.

    In June, the AP reported, Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a law that required voters to fill in their own information instead of allowing auditors to fill in that information ahead of time. If there are any errors on the ballot request, auditors must reach out to voters by email or mail to get the mistakes corrected.

    “Miller and elections commissioners in Johnson and Woodbury counties said contacting voters who leave the information blank would have been too burdensome and potentially disenfranchised people, so they mailed forms with that information already filled in. They contended that the law did not block them from doing so,” the AP reported. “Trump’s campaign and state and national Republican Party groups filed lawsuits against the three counties, seeking to invalidate all forms returned in response to the mailings. They warned that any ballots cast in response to the mailings could be challenged later.”

    More from the AP:

    Thornhill’s ruling, issued after he heard arguments Thursday, is the first so far. Another hearing is set for Friday in Woodbury County, where 14,000 of the absentee ballot requests have been returned. A hearing in the Democratic stronghold of Johnson County, where thousands more have been returned, is planned for next week.

    Thornhill, appointed by Democratic Gov. Chet Culver in 2009, ruled that the Trump campaign and Republican groups had legal standing to bring the case. He found that they demonstrated a likelihood of being harmed, noting that not all Iowa counties have the money to send out pre-filled absentee ballot requests.

    He found that Trump and the GOP would likely prevail on the merits, saying Miller’s decision to populate the forms sent to voters went against Pate’s directive and the intent of the new law.

    Thornhill added that Miller’s “words and actions show he was aware of the risk he was taking” and that now steps would have to be taken to rectify Miller’s actions, adding that voters still had time to acquire new request forms.

    The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-tosses-50000-absentee-ballot-requests-after-commissioner-fills-out-voter-information


  2. BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has joined in a lawsuit challenging California’s use of bureaucracy and the COVID-19 pandemic to undermine and restrict citizens’ access to firearms in violation of the state’s 10-day waiting period law.

    SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego Gun Owners PAC, Five Five Six, Inc., dba Firearms Unknown, PWGG L.P., dba Poway Weapons & Gear & PWG Range and four private citizens. They are represented by attorney Bradley A. Benbrook. The case is known as Campos v. Becerra.  

    Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Brent E. Orick, director of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities.

    “California DOJ and the Bureau of Firearms are using the state’s Dealer Record of Sale and the coronavirus outbreak to violate the state’s 10-day waiting period by extending it as long as 30 days to complete a firearms transaction,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb explained. “The agency is essentially violating its own law to perpetuate its anti-gun political philosophy needlessly delaying the ability of law-abiding Californians to exercise their rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in San Diego County Superior Court, notes this policy delays firearm transfers “beyond what is authorized by law.” Plaintiffs note state law allows anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom to suspend state law based on emergencies like the pandemic, but he did not suspend the state Penal Code dealing with firearms “because it would have invited a wave of litigation over whether an up-to-30-day delay violates the Second Amendment.”

    “Such delay tactics are unconscionable,” Gottlieb stated, “and this is just one more example of anti-Second Amendment politicians exploiting the COVID-19 crisis to infringe on the rights of Golden State residents. They are also exploiting the state’s so-called ‘universal background check’ requirement to cloak this strategy. As we explain in the lawsuit, California DOJ is essentially rewriting provisions in statute in an effort to cover themselves, and we’re not going to let them get away with it.”


  3. As they proudly acknowledge, Democratic presidential nominee Joseph Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris represent a clear and present danger to liberty, freedom, the Constitution, and the values that have made America the greatest country in the world. Because they pose a uniquely grave threat to all that we hold dear, Firearms Policy Coalition expressly and unequivocally opposes Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris in the strongest possible terms. If elected, the Democratic nominees would:

    • Nominate radical, constitutionally regressive, anti-rights federal judges and Supreme Court justices;
    • Act to ban common, constitutionally protected firearms, magazines, and other arms;
    • Push to criminalize common transfers of firearms between friends and family members, further restricting access to the right to keep and bear arms;
    • Abuse executive authority to ban the importation of firearms, ammunition, and accessories;
    • Infringe on core First Amendment rights by banning gun-related speech, computer design files, and 3D printing;
    • Ban the home-building of firearms, a deeply rooted American tradition protected by the Constitution;
    • Direct reforms to the ATF and the Department of Justice to expand enforcement of unconstitutional gun control laws and burden retailers;
    • Direct the use of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund anti-gun studies to support anti-gun policies;
    • Enact policies to eliminate the lawful acquisition of arms through modern sales channels;
    • Enact legislation and take executive actions to compel states to require licenses before exercising fundamental, enumerated rights;
    • Direct the FBI and ATF to confiscate weapons from people they believe may be prohibited based on shoddy, inaccurate databases and bureaucratic whims;
    • Promote dangerous “red flag” prohibition and confiscation orders;
    • Radically expand the classes of persons federally prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition;
    • Establish a “task force” to use people’s speech against them, targeting those who say things the government disfavor for bans and confiscation;
    • Punish gun owners who have children in the home;
    • Make gun ownership prohibitively expensive for the average American and accessible to only the wealthy;
    • Require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, effectively victimizing them twice;
    • Direct the FBI to target gun purchasers who fail the NICS background check and report them to state and local law enforcement, even if the background check result was false and based on inaccurate data;
    • Restrict the rights of the elderly and disabled by giving the Social Security Administration the authority to effectively prohibit their purchases of firearms;
    • Repeal legislation that protects firearm manufacturers and retailers from frivolous lawsuits, forcing critical industry members out of business and closing small businesses;
    • Require all firearms to contain expensive and unreliable “smart gun” technology.

    FPC is all too familiar with Senator Harris, having battled her in the courts when she was California’s aggressively authoritarian attorney general. Then-California Attorney General Harris used her massive Department of Justice to promote and defend restrictions on speech and firearms, among other fundamental rights. We have no doubt that a Biden/Harris administration would abuse its powers to attack political enemies, including those of us who cherish and fight for the Republic, liberty, and freedom. 

    We take no joy in observing that Mr. Biden’s health and mental faculties are suffering. But in a system that has allowed the executive branch to aggregate power and wield force in a manner never imagined or intended by our Founders, such cannot be ignored. Neither can the fact that, if Mr. Biden were unable to complete a term of office, Ms. Harris would rise to a position of power that would imperil our Republic. 

    FPC remains a fiercely non-partisan organization. When President Trump took unconstitutional measures to prohibit certain arms, we directly engaged him and his administration in substantive legal action. When the President made statements promoting policies that conflict with our principles we opposed them and promoted better policies. And when President Trump nominated individuals who could not be trusted to protect our rights and property, FPC opposed those nominations. We stand for the People, not a political party or politicians.

    In our view, the United States is at a crossroads. Broken political parties that ignore and redline the Constitution, expand government, and steal more power for themselves from the People are putting our rights and future at risk. Violent mobs and “cancel culture” are expediting the Balkanization of America and destroying the free marketplace of ideas in favor of a monolithic and oppressive system of hegemonic rule. And the American people now have a choice to make that carries incredible risk and consequence for this and future generations.

    Their history and agenda show that a Biden/Harris administration would immeasurably damage our Republic, the American people, individual liberty, freedom, the rule of law, and our constitutional system as a whole. FPC strongly opposes the election of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.