Tag: police state

Colorado Republicans Warn New Gun Control Legislation Would Ban ‘Majority of Guns’ in the State

New gun control measures being considered in Colorado would effectively ban the ‘majority of guns’ in the state, according to the Colorado GOP.

This is a reminder that the left will never stop pushing for greater gun control, even after an election like the one we just had in November.

It also does not matter to them that people want to be able to protect themselves from crime, no matter how bad it gets, thanks largely to progressive governance.

From Just the News:

Colorado GOP concerned as committee considers ban on ‘majority of guns’ in the state

A bill further restricting firearm access in the state will appear before a committee Tuesday in the Colorado General Assembly.

Colorado Senate Republicans labeled Senate Bill 3 “one of the most extreme gun control bills in Colorado’s history.”

“If passed, SB-003 will ban the sale of the majority of guns in our state,” a statement from Republicans said.

The bill would prohibit the purchase, manufacturing, distributing, or transferring of a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazine.

Democrats introduced the bill on the first day of legislative session and it has received support since then, with 17 of the state’s 35 senators already joining in sponsoring the bill.

With Democrats holding a trifecta in the state, it is likely that Republicans will be able to do little to stop the passage of the bill, which would take effect Sept. 1, 2025

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do these people just not get?

Keep reading

UK Circling the Drain – Crisis what Crisis?

It is now almost five years since the start of the COVID event. The public was told there was a deadly disease that would affect the entire population, and everyone was at risk.

However, in order to truly understand COVID, that event must be situated within a framework that examines the underlying economic determinants. In fact, many on the “left” are notable for having failed to undertake such an analysis and merely capitulated to the mainstream narrative.

The COVID event had little if anything to do with public health. It was a policy mechanism deployed to manage an impending financial crisis.

COVID policies served as a pretext for halting economic activity in a controlled manner to address systemic contradictions within neoliberal capitalism. Unprecedented fiscal and monetary interventions were strategic tools to stabilise the economy and prevent a deeper collapse of financial markets. 

The lockdowns, framed as public health necessities, effectively suspended economic activity in ways that allowed capital to regroup and restructure. This included consolidating corporate power (e.g. through increased reliance on digital platforms), and creating conditions for new rounds of capital investment post-crisis, facilitated by a convenient debt crisis and World Bank loans with pro-neoliberal strings-attached conditionalities. 

Keep reading

Roger Ver’s Pardon Plea: ‘Lawfare’-Victim Or Tax-Evader?

Early Bitcoin adopter Roger Ver has launched a social media campaign pleading with US President Donald Trump to pardon his tax evasion and mail fraud charges, claiming he is the victim of “lawfare” — just like recently pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht and Trump himself.

Currently awaiting extradition to the US, Ver says he faces “109 years” behind bars for crimes he did not commit. In his view, US authorities unjustly pursued him.

However, crypto proponents appear divided over whether Ver deserves a pardon.

Some argue he did commit these crimes and that his character is what makes him worthy of the sheer size of the punishment.

“No one deserves to spend life in prison for tax evasion,” one X user wrote. “But Roger has definitely earned it.”

Tesla founder Elon Musk feels that Ver’s denouncement of his US citizenship makes him unworthy of a pardon.

“Roger Ver gave up his US citizenship. No pardon for Ver,” he posted on Jan. 26.

In the moments that followed, the Bitcoin Cash founder’s odds of a pardon plummeted on prediction market Polymarket.

Keep reading

Questions Raised After Pardoned J6 Protester Fatally Shot During Traffic Stop

Matthew W. Huttle, a 42-year-old J6 protester who was pardoned by President Donald Trump last week, was fatally shot by an Indiana police officer during a traffic stop near the Pulaski County line, reports FOX32 Chicago.

The incident has sparked outrage and suspicion among those who view Huttle’s death as part of a larger pattern of targeting Trump supporters and J6 protesters.  

According to local law enforcement, Huttle resisted arrest during the traffic stop, leading to an altercation in which the officer fired his weapon, killing him. 

“An altercation took place between the suspect and the officer, which resulted in the officer firing his weapon and fatally wounding the suspect,” the Jasper County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

The officer, whose name has not yet been released, is currently on paid administrative leave, as per protocol. Jasper County Sheriff Patrick Williamson has requested an investigation by the Indiana State Police, promising transparency in the process. In a statement, Sheriff Williamson expressed condolences to Huttle’s family, saying, “Our condolences go out to the family of the deceased as any loss of life is traumatic to those that were close to Mr. Huttle. I will release the officer’s name once I have approval from the State Police Detectives.”

The timing of Huttle’s death, coming so soon after his pardon, has led to speculation about whether this was a tragic coincidence or something more sinister. 

Keep reading

The FBI Wrongly Raided This Family’s Home. Now the Supreme Court Will Hear Their Case.

When asked about the evening the FBI mistakenly broke into her home, detonating a flash grenade in the house and ripping her door from its hinges, Curtrina Martin struggles to find a way to describe what that does to a person. “I don’t know if there is a proper word that I can use,” she told me last year.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will evaluate whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled correctly when it barred Martin from suing over that nightmare scenario—a case that has attracted bipartisan attention from Congress.

In October 2017, the FBI arrived at Martin’s house, which she shared with her then-fiancé, Hilliard Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son, Gabe. The agents were searching for a man named Joseph Riley, who lived approximately one block over. After law enforcement found Martin and Cliatt hiding in the closet, police dragged Cliatt out and handcuffed him, while another officer screamed and pointed his gun at Martin, who says she fell on a rack in the chaos.

A panel for the 11th Circuit wrote that the two structures “share several conspicuous features.” For example, they are “beige in color” and have “a large tree in the front.” Since it was dark outside, the judges said, it would have been “difficult to ascertain the house numbers on the mailboxes.” Lawrence Guerra, who led the raid, thus received immunity.

Keep reading

FBI’s Warrantless Search Ruled Unconstitutional in a Blow to Government Spying

A case that started a decade ago with a New York City man’s arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport for allegedly trying to join a Pakistani terrorist group has now dealt a setback to government spying powers.

In a decision that could feed into a looming fight over government surveillance, a federal court ruled last month that FBI agents violated the man’s constitutional rights when they searched National Security Agency databases for information on him dozens of times without a warrant.

The decision gives a boost to the surveillance critics who have long asked Congress to impose a warrant requirement on “backdoor” searches of NSA data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has called for “major reform” of Section 702. He faces a Thursday confirmation hearing where surveillance hawks on the Senate Intelligence Committee could grill him about that position. Trump’s other nominees, however, have lined up to back the law.

The parties to the New York City case have not signaled whether they intend to appeal the ruling in the case against Agron Hasbajrami, who remains imprisoned. But if it stands, the decision could play a role in thecongressional debate over the spying law when it expires in April 2026.

Keep reading

Missing the Forest for the Trees: UK to Add More Restrictions on Buying Knives Online After Southport Stabbings

The British government is reportedly planning on banning doorstep drop-off deliveries of knives bought online following the mass stabbing at a children’s dance party in Southport by second-generation migrant Axel Rudakubana.

While critics have pointed to multiple failings of authorities to heed warnings about Rudakubana’s radicalisation, the left-wing Labour Party government appears intent on pinning the tragic stabbing spree — which left three young girls dead and several others injured — at the hands of supposed loopholes in purchasing knives online.

According to The Telegraph, online retailers such as Amazon will be prevented from delivering a knife to anyone other than the person who purchased it to provide a further ID check to prove the buyer is above 18. This will come in addition to a two-step verification, in which buyers must provide identification and a ‘selfie’ picture to verify the ID is theirs.

Rudakubana, who was sentenced to 52 years in prison this week over the Southport stabbings, had reportedly skirted the pre-existing checks by using software to disguise his internet address and identity.

The delivery of the two knives he bought while under 18 was reportedly accepted by an adult at his residence, believed to be one of his Rwandan parents.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that it is a “total disgrace how easy it still is for children to get dangerous weapons online,” adding: “We cannot go on like this. We need much stronger checks – before you buy, before it’s delivered.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Law Requiring Small Businesses To Report Ownership Information

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 8–1 on Jan. 23 to allow the federal government to enforce an anti-money laundering law that a lower court blocked late last year.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the new ruling.

The statute at issue, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), required millions of business entities to file information returns about their owners by Jan. 1, 2025.

An estimated 33 million small businesses face fines of as much as $591 per day should they fail to comply with the new rule, according to.a Treasury website.

Businesses with upwards of 20 employees, $5 million in annual sales, and a U.S. office qualify for exemptions from CTA reporting requirements.

The law provides that affected corporate entities must file reports with the federal government about their beneficial owners, which means individuals with substantial control over the entity or who own or control 25 percent of the entity.

Entities are required to provide the government with the names of their beneficial owners, along with their birthdates, addresses, and identifying information such as passport or driver’s license numbers.

The CTA’s reporting requirement was put on hold on Dec. 5, 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sided with challengers, granting a nationwide preliminary injunction—also known as a universal injunction—against the CTA.

The court found that the challengers would likely succeed with their claim that the act was unconstitutional.

On Dec. 13, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a federal agency, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay the injunction.

The agency argued the law was constitutional and that the challenge to it would probably fail in the end.

The circuit court’s motions panel granted the government’s request on Dec. 23, 2024, and suspended the injunction pending appeal. FinCEN then extended the filing deadline for corporate entities to Jan. 13, 2025.

Keep reading

State ‘Bias Response Hotlines’ Encourage People To Snitch on Their Neighbors for ‘Hate Speech’

By the end of this year, as many as 100 million Americans could live in a state where they can be reported to a “bias response hotline” for a wide range of protected speech. While states claim that these reporting mechanisms don’t punish people for non-criminal speech acts, many also claim to attempt to stop hateful speech incidents “before they occur.”

According to a recent report in The Washington Free Beacon by reporter Aaron Sibarium, these reporting systems allow people to “snitch” on their neighbors. Connecticut allows people to report “hate speech” they “heard about but did not see.” Vermont encourages citizens to call the police over “biased but protected speech.” Philadelphia actually directs people to give the names of alleged offenders so they can be contacted.

“If it is not a crime, we sometimes contact the offending party and try to do training so that it doesn’t happen again,” Saterria Kersey, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told Sibarium.

Oregon’s Bias Response hotline encourages citizens to report not only hate crimes, but also “non-criminal hostile expression motivated in part or whole by” someone’s protected identity. These incidents can include “hate speech,” “displaying hateful symbols or flags,” and “telling or sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity.”

What happens when someone calls this hotline? The Free Beacon called the hotline and reported a fictional incident—a man, identifying himself as a Muslim said that he felt “targeted” by his neighbor’s Israeli flag. 

“Within 20 minutes, a hotline operator had logged the display in a ‘state database,’ referred to it as a ‘warning sign,’ and suggested installing security cameras in case the situation ‘escalates,'” Sibarium writes. “He also informed this reporter that, ‘as a victim of a bias incident,’ he could apply for taxpayer-funded therapy through the state’s Crime Victims Compensation Program, which covers counseling costs for bias incidents as well as crimes.”

Even though nothing criminal had allegedly occurred—or even something that could be fairly described as objectively offensive—the operator nonetheless treated the report with immense gravity.

“Even if it is not very explicit, we go with whatever the victim is experiencing,” the operator said during the call. “And if your sense is that this is based on discrimination against your faith or your country of origin…that’s how I would document it.”

Keep reading

UK Gov’t Wants Sweeping Powers to Spy on Your Bank Account

The UK’s Labour government announced plans this week that would further erode civil rights in the country, this time in the name of “preventing benefit fraud”.

The plans include revoking the driver’s licenses of those convicted of benefit fraud, “early morning raids” by “crack teams” from the DWP, and –  most shockingly – permitting the government access to private banking information so they can take back money they believe they are owed, without the knowledge or permission of the accused.

In their own classically impartial fashion, the BBC reported this as:

Benefit cheats could be stripped of driving licenses

But this isn’t about “benefit cheats”. Even the government’s own figures say that benefit fraud makes up only ~3% of the welfare budget, and this move will only save £1.5 billion over the next five years.

£300 million per year is nothing in government terms. They just pledged 10x that amount, per year, to Ukraine.

They don’t care about the money, they care about power and precedent.

  • They want to be able to take away your driver’s license.
  • They want to be able to monitor your bank account.
  • They want to be able to take your money without your knowledge.
  • They want to be able to search your electronic devices and track your spending.

Maybe it will start with “reclaiming benefits”, but do you think it will end there?

Remember they also want to introduce Universal Basic Income, which would mean – technically – everyone is on “benefits”.

This is clearly a pathway to a “Social Credit” system.

Keep reading