Did Republicans Who Voted For The Gun Control Bill Actually Read It?

Daily CallerIt is now the law of the land, signed last Saturday by President Biden – the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Hidden deep within one of its most controversial provisions, dealing with Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), more commonly known as “Red Flag Laws,” is language that provides a clever way for judges to ignore the “constitutional rights” that purport to guard against abusing these problematic provisions.The bill itself – S.2938 – is 81 pages long; somewhat short by today’s standards, when bills running to hundreds of pages are not uncommon.It is not until a reader is well into the text of the bill that the “Firearms” provisions are laid out in any detail, and this is where the real problem becomes clear – clear, that is, if you read carefully the provisions regarding ERPOs.As is standard operating procedure for federal legislation, S.2938 does not directly mandate that states or local governments implement red flag laws. It does so by offering states money to do the federal government’s bidding. Uncle Sam knows that state and local governments are always eager to receive federal largesse, even with the inevitable strings attached.In this instance, the “bipartisan” legislation (14 House Republicans joined with 15 of their colleagues in the Senate) provides that “Byrne” grants, which have been a vehicle to shovel money to states for criminal justice programs since 1988, can be used to establish “extreme risk protection order programs.” This authorization is linked directly to a list of “due process rights” that attach to such grants. This laudable language is expansive, and warns that no such program can “violat[e] or infring[e] the Constitution...

FTC and Antitrust Lawyers Targeting America’s Business Sector

RealClear PoliticsFrom dialysis to chickens, the U.S. Department of Justice and its regulatory compatriot, the Federal Trade Commission, are flexing Uncle Sam’s antitrust muscles, notwithstanding strong headwinds from skeptical judges and juries. As the United States Chamber of Commerce recently warned in a brief filed with the courts, “Allowing [DOJ] to retroactively criminalize behavior strikes at the heart of the ordered liberty guaranteed to all Americans.”The work of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division receives far less public attention than its bigger brother, the Criminal Division, and the 93 U.S. attorneys who prosecute the vast majority of cases brought each year against individual and corporate defendants. Still, the broad reach of modern federal antitrust laws, dating to the early 20th century (the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1909 and the Clayton Act five years later), can strike fear into the hearts of major corporations and their executives, who can be targeted for either civil or criminal prosecution, with hefty fines possible in either context.While far smaller, the FTC can employ its regulatory reach in tandem with the Antitrust Division to boost policy initiatives favored by an administration intent on punishing the business sector. In this regard, the Biden administration has been particularly aggressive. Fortunately for the free market, the results of this push have been less than impressive. However, recent actions by both the FTC and the Antitrust Division clearly signal this administration’s intent to continue using both its civil and criminal powers to attack the business sector.In a highly unusual if not unprecedented move, the head of the Antitrust Division, Jonathan Kanter, declared that its lawyers would try for a third time...

Progressives Are Cancelling Themselves

TownhallThis month’s public bruhaha among Washington Post writers, stemming from a colleague’s retweet of a banal joke, was a sight to behold. One of the most prominent newspapers in the nation became a national headline itself, as “professional” reporters jumped to social media to air dirty laundry and call each other names. Where were the adults in the room? Where indeed.The dust-up illustrates the progressive playbook. First, take any perceived slight and assume the evilest intent. Then claim it represents some fantastical hyperbole of doom “if not addressed.” Every incident becomes an outrage campaign that makes the participants, who seem perpetually dour and unhappy, insufferable as individuals and ruinously disruptive as employees.This most recent Washington Post drama was unusual only in how public it became, but it is far from unique in its suffering from a plague of progressive employees whose “woke” zealotry bleeds across the workplace. The “cancel culture” mentality leveraged by progressives against their enemies, including those from its own ranks, has become a paralyzing maelstrom within organizations that employ them. As one recently resigned executive director of a Leftist organization told The Intercept — “So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and internal bull____ that it’s had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver .  .  .  I was spending 90 to 95 percent of my time on internal strife.”The Intercept paints a picture of what you might imagine if the same people pushing Cancel Culture were all put into a room and then expected to come up with solutions for cultural issues. Navigating a minefield wearing a blindfold would be easier – and lead to better results. In...