>>21310798

2/2

Yet, Ullstein’s decision is particularly chilling as a publishing house.Again, we have seen editors at publishing houses sign petitions to bar books by conservative figures like Justice Amy Coney Barrettfrom being published.

In 1933, thousands of books by Jewish and leftist writers were burned throughout Germany. Publishing houses further banned the printing of these books.The books were announced as corrupting the minds of German citizens. Many books were banned or burned on the basis of the authors being Jewish or known socialists or anarchists.

Now the left has developed a taste for censorship and blacklisting. Editors and publishing houses are blacklisting those with conservative or libertarian views as forms of dangerous viewpoints or disinformation.

Ullstein will, of course, not stop people from reading the work of JD Vance. While it may make it more difficult for Germans to find copies, ideas like water have a way of finding their way out.Blacklisting and censorship have not succeeded in killing a single idea. What it does is reveal the true character and values of those who want to prevent others from hearing opposing viewpoints.

(Reminder Germany was involved in the 2020 election fraud that occurred, the Nazi’s will never stopThey have always interfered in the USA and our society. If you think the Nazi’s were defeated, you don’t know the history of the CIA transporting and embedding Nazi’s into America and maintaining the 6-7 bases in Ukraine.)

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/07/28/german-publisher-stops-all-printing-of-vance-book/

Supreme Court Sets Date For ‘Ghost Gun’ Case

By Mark Chesnut - July 26, 202419

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that oral arguments for its upcoming case involving the government’s ban onso-called “ghost guns” will begin on Oct. 8. It is the lone gun-related challenge on the court’s fall docket.

The case, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenges the Department of Justice’s 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.

At issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their boundsin promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and overstepping their bounds by making laws instead of enforcing them.

That was, in fact, what the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled last November, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter. In the ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion,agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.

“ATF,in promulgating its Final Rule,attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion.

“But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”

Judge Engelhardt further wrote that theFinal Rule “flouts clear statutory text”and “exceeds the legislatively imposed limits” on agency authority.

“Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will,” the judge wrote. “Unless and until Congress acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text’s existing limits.”

The lawsuit was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of itself, two individual FPC members and Tactical Machining LLC. A brief filed last month by the FPC spelled out what the court needs to decide.

“The questions presented are: 1. Whether ‘a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,’ is a ‘firearm’ regulated by the Act,” the brief stated. “2. Whether ‘a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver’ that is ‘designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,’is a ‘frame or receiver’ regulated by the Act.”

Biden-Harris gun-ban schemes have been taking a beating in the courts lately, and the Supreme Court has been no exception. Hopefully this will be yet another in a long line of pro-gun victories.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/supreme-court-sets-date-for-ghost-gun-case/