Preparedness
Supreme Court Backs NRA in Crucial Free Speech Victory
In a recent affirmation of free speech rights, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a unanimous green light to a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against a New York state official. The decision, penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal justices of the nation’s highest court, represents a clear victory for the gun rights advocacy group.
“Government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups.”
Sotomayor’s ruling revealed that a New York state official, Maria T. Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, had crossed the line. She reportedly used her role to discourage companies from maintaining business relationships with the NRA, particularly after the devastating Parkland school shooting in 2018.
The lawsuit brought forth by the NRA accused Vullo of interfering with the group’s constitutional right to free speech. During her tenure, Vullo’s department issued two memos to financial and insurance companies respectively, suggesting that they “review” their associations with the NRA.
Sotomayor’s ruling highlighted that while it was within the rights of government officials to criticize the NRA and take action against any acknowledged violations of New York insurance law, it was unconstitutional to use state authority to “threaten enforcement actions” against regulated companies as a means to “punish or suppress the N.R.A.’s gun-promotion advocacy.”
She restated an established legal principle, declaring, “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
Initially, the NRA found favor with the district court, but was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which sided with Vullo. This latest ruling by the Supreme Court reverses that decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the NRA, welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Today’s decision confirms that government officials have no business using their regulatory authority to blacklist disfavored political groups,” expressed David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director.
“We represented the NRA before the Supreme Court, arguing that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint violates the First Amendment — and the highest court in our nation agreed,” the NRA stated on social media.
“Today, in a stinging rebuke of New York’s ‘blacklisting campaign’ against the NRA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the NRA in its case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo,” the NRA added.
On the other side, Vullo’s attorney, Neal Katyal, simply reasserted the argument that the Supreme Court has now debunked. “Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights,” he maintained.
Despite the significance of this free speech ruling, it was somewhat eclipsed by the news of the guilty verdict handed down by a Manhattan jury against former President Donald Trump.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
The attorney for the 17-year-old accused of attempting to murder Ricky Pearsall, a first-round draft pick for the 49ers, is challenging the charges. According to the defense, the incident, which occurred during an attempted robbery earlier this month, does not constitute attempted murder.
“It was a rather extended struggle between Mr. Pearsall and my client,” stated public defender Robert Dunlap in an interview with David Lombardi of TheAthletic.com.
“They were really fighting back and forth on the sidewalk. As you might imagine, Mr. Pearsall gets the best of it. He does kind of — I don’t know if you’ve ever wrestled or not — a nice hip toss and throws my client to the ground and ends up on top of him. . . . I think [the video] supports that this is an attempted robbery and not an attempted murder.”
Dunlap also addressed and refuted a report alleging that his client had brought a gun to school.
“My client did not have a gun at school,” Dunlap said. “It’s a false report.”
Despite these arguments, prosecutors have chosen to charge Dunlap’s client with attempted murder. However, they have not yet determined if the young defendant will be tried as an adult.
The next court hearing for this case is scheduled for September 26.
Watch a local news report about the incident below:
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
A son, armed and vigilant, responded to a potential burglary at his mother’s unoccupied home in West Virginia during the early hours of the morning. The encounter ended fatally for the alleged intruder.
Authorities reported that the son, checking on the residence around 3:45 a.m., encountered an individual who turned toward him holding an object.
“Unwise move on the part of the intruder.”
The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office received a call from a male stating he had just shot an intruder at his mother’s Inwood home on Winchester Avenue.
Upon arrival, deputies discovered a male lying face down with a gunshot wound. Immediate life-saving measures were administered until emergency medical services arrived, but the individual was pronounced dead shortly after.
The deceased was identified as 38-year-old Joshua Boone from Williamsport, Maryland. The sheriff’s office confirmed that Boone’s next of kin had been notified.
The investigation revealed that the son, identified by WDVM-TV as Michael Marshal, had gone to the home after hearing about a possible break-in. Marshal told deputies that Boone turned toward him “with something in his hand,” prompting Marshal to fire his handgun.
Boone was located in the garage of the residence, where the fatal shot occurred.
The Department of Criminal Investigators processed the scene for evidence and is conducting a thorough investigation into the shooting. Once the investigation is complete, the case will be presented to the Berkeley County Prosecutors Office.
Authorities are urging anyone with information regarding this case to contact the Criminal Investigations Division at 304-267-7000.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
A tragic incident in Michigan has resulted in a teenage boy facing severe charges after allegedly shooting another teen and fatally wounding the teen’s mother, who was trying to protect her son.
Anthony Deshawn Sneed, 15, is being charged as an adult with multiple serious offenses stemming from the incident that occurred on September 4th in Clinton Township.
The charges against Sneed include felony murder as a juvenile defendant, second-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, armed robbery, and four counts of felony firearm possession.
According to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, the conflict began when Sneed got into a fight with the son of Tanseen Sherrod.
During the altercation, Sneed allegedly stole a handgun from the other teen.
When Sherrod attempted to intervene in hopes of calming the situation, she was tragically shot by Sneed, authorities reported.
Details surrounding the exact nature of the fatal confrontation have not been made public.
The other teen involved in the incident was also shot and sustained critical injuries, though his current condition has not been disclosed.
Following the shooting, Sneed fled the scene but turned himself in to Detroit authorities the following day.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
-
Survival Stories12 months agoEmily’s 30-Day Experience of Being Stranded on a Desert Island
-
Tactical5 months agoMidnight SUV Theft Interrupted by Armed Homeowner’s Retaliation
-
Preparedness2 months agoEx-Ballerina’s Guilty Verdict Sends Tremors Through Gun-Owner Community
-
Preparedness11 months agoMethods for Communicating During Power Grid Failure
-
Nature and Wildlife12 months agoDefending Yourself from Dog Attacks
-
Tactical12 months agoTop Handguns for Personal Protection in the Wilderness
-
Preparedness1 week agoChicago Mom Defends Daughter from Intruder with Concealed-Carry Firearm
-
Tactical5 months agoArmed Robber Meets Surprise Resistance at California Gaming Store
Joan Santkuyl
June 18, 2024 at 12:23 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court. Free speech is the basic need of all people. Our flag stands for this. Long may it wave!!
Gerald Hallman
June 18, 2024 at 4:31 pm
If the government decides any organization can be limited in any capacity of free speech, it affects us all. If your church prints a pamphlet informing you that a group is wanting to put up a pornography distribution center nearby, the government could accuse the church of interference in free speech.
daisy girl
June 18, 2024 at 4:51 pm
Yes, I agree with Mr Hallman and in addition, as evidenced by Mr.Trump’s trial, the next criteria will be the government deciding what THEY think was your intent.