Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Biden administration has proposed a new rule that would allow federal authorities to seize the patents of costly drugs that were developed using taxpayer dollars and to let third parties use those patents to make the drugs available more cheaply.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, on Dec. 7 published a set of draft guidelines for government agencies to evaluate when it might be appropriate to invoke what are known as “march-in” rights under the legal framework of the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Bayh-Dole Act, which is shorthand for the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, grants the government the authority to suspend the patents of products of inventions that were developed with federal funding if those products or inventions are not made available to the public.

The new proposed guidelines, which were reviewed by The Epoch Times, seek to modify the Bayh-Dole Act in such a way as to make high price alone (of a product or invention developed using taxpayer dollars) a sufficient condition to trigger the government’s exercise of the act’s march-in provisions.

The march-in provisions—which the government has been asked to invoke in the past but never has—would let authorities seize the patents of drugs deemed too expensive (when offered for sale by the original patent holder) and grant licenses to third parties to produce those drugs to sell more cheaply.

“We’ll make it clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,” White House adviser Lael Brainard said on a call with reporters.

The draft will be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 8 and is being subjected to a 60-day public comment period.

President Joe Biden hailed the draft proposal as a way to rein in “Big Pharma price gouging,” while the main pharmaceutical industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said it would be a loss to American patients by causing government-funded research to sit “on a shelf, not benefiting anyone.”

Competing Takes

Under the new draft guidelines, the government would be allowed to consider “reasonableness of the price” when considering whether to invoke the march-in rights.

It gives federal agencies the power to act “if it appears that the price is extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need.”

While the initial price of a given drug when it’s first launched is to be considered, another possibility for triggering the use of the march-in provisions would be a “sudden, steep price increase in response to a disaster.”

President Biden said in a statement that his administration is proposing that if a drug is made using taxpayers funds and it’s “not reasonably available to Americans,” then the government could “march in” and license that drug to a producer who can make it and sell it for less.

“It’s good for competition. It’s good for our economy,” the president said. “And it’s good for the millions of Americans who can’t afford their medications—who know all too well that fine line between dignity and dependence that the price of a prescription drug can draw.”

The proposal drew a critical reaction from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade group.

“This would be yet another loss for American patients who rely on public-private sector collaboration to advance new treatments and cures. The administration is sending us back to a time when government research sat on a shelf, not benefitting anyone,” PhRMA said in a post on X.

The trade group argued that the reason America leads the world in medicine development is precisely because the current structure of the law enables the private sector to work with government and academic research centers “for the benefit of patients.”

“This latest proposal is yet another bad policy from an administration intent on ceding our life science leadership to other countries and robbing Americans of hope that comes from new treatments and cures,” the group added.

In a blog post, PhRMA said that the Bayh-Dole works well in its current form and that, over the past 25 years that it has been in effect, it has contributed $1.9 trillion to the U.S. economy and created 6.5 million jobs.

What Do the Authors of the Bayh-Dole Act Say?

The authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, the late senators Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Robert Dole (R-Kan.), have publicly stated that the law they developed did not intend for the government to be able to set prices on products.

“The law makes no reference to a reasonable price that should be dictated by the government,” the pair wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “This omission was intentional; the primary purpose of the act was to entice the private sector to seek public-private research collaboration rather than focusing on its own proprietary research.”

The two senators raised the argument that, for every single taxpayer dollar that the government spends on research of a given product or invention, private industry must spend “at least $10” to bring it to market and that the aim of their law was to “spur interaction” between public and private research so that patients could benefit from scientific innovations sooner.

“Government alone has never developed the new advances in medicines and technology that become commercial products,” the pair wrote, adding that the intention of the law was newer to allow the government to revoke a licence on the basis of the pricing of the product or in some way tied to the profitability of a company that has commercialized it.

“The law we passed is about encouraging a partnership that spurs advances to help Americans,” they wrote.

Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the government has the power to seize the patents of federally funded medicines but not using price as a criterion.

The proposal comes as the Democrat Party’s more progressive wing has heaped criticism on drugmakers over high prices of their products and has called on the Biden administration to use march-in power to lower prices.

The little known Packard Motor Company, previously known for high-quality, luxury automobiles manufactured before World War II, is on the cusp of its revival.

James Ward Packard and his brother William started Packard Electric Company in 1890 to make carbon arc lamps. In 1893, they teamed up with George L. Weiss, an investor in Winton Motor Carriage Company, to form Packard & Weiss.

The first Packard car debuted in 1899, and in 1902, the company became known as Packard Motor Car Company.

Now, the company has opened a new plant in Medina, Ohio several weeks ago and is going to be producing a 1934-style convertible as its flagship product. 

In record amounts, handcrafted cars were shipped to Europe, where they matched up well with brands like Rolls Royce and Mercedes Benz. They were priced nearly 2-3 times more than their American counterparts.

But how did the little known brand wind up back in business? It started in 2019 when Scott Andrews, an internet consultant, was on his way to work when a car on sale caught his eye. Unfamiliar with its make, he reached out to his dad, an experienced car mechanic, for insights.

When he asked his father if he had ever heard of a “Packard”, the discussion began and Andrews “fell in love with the Packard history,” he told Cleveland.com. 

“What really impressed me was that most of the innovations made in the automobile were patented and brought to the market by Packard,” he said. Now, the Packard revival hinges on Andrews. 

Andrews, a watchmaker, learned that J.W. Packard was also a watch collector. He noted the coincidence. He then found out that his alma mater, Cleveland State University’s James J. Nance Business College, was named after the last President of Packard Motor Car Company. 

“Pretty cool I graduated from the business college he helped start,” he said. He has since worked with a friend “12 hours a day” to hand-make a copy of the 1934 convertible for display in a local store. They have since moved on to lobbying local officials to open a Packard manufacturing facility in town. 

“The iconic Packard will be available with the latest technology in engines, with myriad options to make each vehicle truly unique,” the report says. 

Healthcare and insurance provider Cigna Group has ditched its proposed merger with health insurer Humana, according to sources from the Wall Street Journal. Initially reported on Nov. 29 by WSJ, this merger, valued at around $140 billion, would have resulted in a health insurance giant challenging the market dominance of UnitedHealth Group. 

Sources said Cigna and Humana hit roadblocks when the two companies could not agree on price and other financial terms. Cigna will now focus on acquiring smaller companies in the same industry and repurchasing upwards of $10 billion of stock. 

Cigna maintains its confidence in the benefits of a potential merger with Humana, citing that a possible merger would have improved consumer access to healthcare and reduced expenses, according to sources. 

The sources said the deal would have been possible on the regulatory side despite the Biden administration’s tough stance on mergers and acquisitions.

However, an S&P Global Market Intelligence report pointed out the merger would have “likely faced regulatory scrutiny” due to an “overlap between the two companies’ Medicare Advantage businesses.” 

Hartmut Schneider, vice chair of the antitrust and competition practice at law firm WilmerHale, told S&P Global that any merger between the two companies would have to occur in an antitrust enforcement landscape currently undergoing a “seismic shift.”

“At least in public communications, [the antitrust agencies] have given up on what used to be a pretty widely held consensus that a lot of mergers are either benign or pro-competitive and only a small number raise problems,” Schneider said, adding, “The tone at the moment seems to be that pretty much every merger is potentially a problem.”

As of the Friday cash close in US markets, Cigna had a market capitalization of $75.5 billion, and Humana’s was $59.3 billion. 

Was the potential merger between Cigna and Humana ever likely to succeed?

Washington Governor Jay Inslee is doubling down on the state’s efforts to address its out-of-control homelessness epidemic. Inslee’s latest maneuver involves a staggering $100 million proposal, aimed at bolstering the Rapid Capital Housing Acquisition (RCHA) fund, a critical arm of the state’s program to clear encampments and provide housing for the unhoused along state highways.

This proposal comes on the heels of $149 million in funds focused primarily on counties west of the Cascade Mountains. Inslee’s announcement during Thursday’s press conference underscored his commitment to this initiative, originally dubbed the Rights of Way Safety Initiative and now rebranded as the Encampment Resolution Program.

“We know we can succeed when we do this, but we essentially are out of money. So, we need to continue appropriating the dollars necessary to get this job done,” said Inslee.

The governor’s office touted the success of the program since its launch in spring 2022, citing the dismantling of 30 encampments and the transition of over 1,000 individuals into more secure living arrangements. However, a closer look at the Department of Commerce’s Right-of-Way Initiative dashboard paints a slightly different picture: 816 people in housing and 149 in permanent housing.

That said, the cost-effectiveness of these efforts has come under fire, particularly given the high price tag per individual successfully placed in permanent housing. Inslee, confronted with questions about the spending ratio, defended the expenditures as necessary investments, brushing off concerns with a reference to the impossibility of expecting such solutions to be cost-free.

But, according to the latest numbers dated Oct. 31 on the Department of Commerce’s Right-of-Way Initiative dashboard, 816 people are in housing, and 149 have been placed in permanent housing. The initial funding for the program was $149 million.

When asked if $1 million for every one of the 149 in permanent housing was an acceptable spending ratio, Inslee replied, “No, I wish everything was free. And we all believe in Santa Claus. But Santa can’t take care of this problem; we need to make investments.”

“So, yes, everybody has sticker shock looking at those numbers. But those are necessary investments. And they’re paying off, and we’re going to keep doing it,” he emphasized. –Mynorthwest.com

The governor’s new proposal alleges to go beyond a simple expansion of funding, and claims to be a multi-faceted strategy to tackle homelessness from various angles. As My Northwest notes, it includes;

• Incentivizing landlords to lease properties to rental assistance recipients.

• Increasing access to civil legal aid for tenants facing eviction threats.

• Addressing funding deficiencies for local housing organizations statewide.

• Sustaining the continuity of local emergency shelters and affordable housing programs.

• Allocating resources for short-term rental assistance.

• Facilitating housing provisions for victims of human trafficking.

• Exploring innovative approaches to support homeless youth and preempt individuals at risk of homelessness.

Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell weighed in as well, emphasizing the city’s ongoing struggles with encampments. Harrell highlighted the considerable strain on emergency services, with alarming statistics from the Seattle Fire and Police Departments regarding incidents and responses near these encampments.

“Our data shows we still have 28 active encampments on (WSDOT) sites as of Nov. 30,” he said, adding “There were 845 reported crimes either at or adjacent to these sites, averaging 77 per month.”

Inslee’s proposal, set to be part of a supplementary budget package, will be a focal point of state legislative discussions come January.

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former President Donald Trump has several viable avenues to have the Supreme Court throw out federal charges he’s facing for his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election, several lawyers and Constitution experts told The Epoch Times.

His best case is that the charges encroach on his First Amendment rights, but he might also successfully assert presidential immunity or argue the law was impermissibly stretched by prosecutors, the experts said.

President Trump was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith on Aug. 1 with obstructing electoral vote counting by Congress on Jan. 6 and conspiring to do so in order to stay in power.

The conspiracy was allegedly carried out by spreading false claims that fraud and illegalities swayed the election outcome and using those false claims in attempts to convince various officials to overturn the results.

President Trump’s lawyers have launched a barrage of motions to have the charges dismissed on constitutional grounds, statutory grounds, due to presidential immunity, and for malicious prosecution. While some of the claims are weak at best, others appear persuasive, according to the experts.

In practice, however, President Trump’s arguments will need to convince his judge, the appeals court, or, in the final instance, the Supreme Court.

The experts predict that the District of Columbia federal judge on the case, Tanya Chutkan, will almost certainly deny all the motions to dismiss. On Dec. 1, she indeed denied about half of them. They also acknowledged that the arguments would likely encounter resistance in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, given its political leanings.

President Trump’s best chance will be in the Supreme Court, they contend.

Free Speech Argument

President Trump’s lawyers have asserted that the indictment runs afoul of the First Amendment by trying to criminalize political speech and advocacy.

“The prosecution seeks to install itself as America’s censor, with roving authority to criminally prosecute all who speak out against its approved narratives,” the lawyers wrote in a Nov. 22 brief.

“The prosecution has no such mandate. Accordingly, the indictment is unconstitutional on its face and must be dismissed.”

If prosecutors can claim that President Trump’s efforts to reverse election certifications amounted to a conspiracy to obstruct the government, then people advocating against other government actions, such as COVID-19 lockdowns or mask mandates could also face such charges, the lawyers argued.

The prosecutors retorted that such hypotheticals wouldn’t apply “absent additional information about the conduct and mental state of the individuals.”

But if that’s the case, the defense lawyers responded, it would give the government a license to probe said individuals for such additional information—”inquire into their mental state, knowledge, and associations.”

“The implication is that to get that information, investigation is necessary. Under the prosecution’s misconceived legal theories, then, every public statement a constituent makes to a member of Congress concerning a hotly debated topic is a license to open a federal criminal investigation into the person who made it—unless it is indisputably true,” the lawyers said.

“That, of course, contradicts the very nature of hotly debated topics, where the truth is, by definition, in dispute.”

This argument appears “sound” to Rob Natelson, one of America’s preeminent constitutional scholars who’s written extensively on the original meaning of the Constitution and the First Amendment in particular, including for The Epoch Times.

“Lying is protected by the First Amendment, except in a few cases such as fraud, lying to law enforcement, and defamation,” he said.

“It has to be so: Otherwise, as Trump’s lawyers claim, every statement would be open to investigation into the speaker’s motives. The effect would be, as the Supreme Court says [in previous cases], a severe ‘chilling effect’ on speech.”

The argument that the basis for the charges against President Trump “appear to primarily stem from his political activity” belongs to the “stronger” ones his lawyers put forward, according to Horace Cooper, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research who formerly taught constitutional law at George Mason University.

“At least the Supreme Court is reticent to allow a charge based on constitutionally protected behavior,” he said.

Conspiracy, by law, doesn’t require any crime to actually be committed. At least two people simply need to agree to do something illegal and then at least one of them needs to engage in at least one physical act—however minor or innocuous—in furtherance of the plan.

In the Trump case, however, it appears to Mr. Cooper and others that the entirety of the alleged conspiracy and even its objective were in fact legal.

“They have identified no specific behavior in and of itself in terms of the president’s advocacy that constitutes illegal behavior,” Mr. Cooper said.

The prosecutors argue the activity became illegal as it was done in bad faith.

But the real-world result seemed to be the same.

“There is no distinction … between a person doing exactly that without a bad motive,” Mr. Cooper said.

To have the trial hinge on whether President Trump, in the deep recesses of his mind, truly believed his claims about the election, is troubling to Mr. Cooper.

“I’m really concerned about the idea that we know the mindset of a person,” he said.

The strength of one’s subjective beliefs is nigh impossible to gauge, he said.

“The court is not going to give credence to the argument that the perception of Donald Trump and his team, even if you show at some period that it appears to waver, that that covers all of the legally protected behavior,” he said.

Judge Chutkan’s rejection of the First Amendment argument was so blanket that it rendered it “very weak” he said.

“She would have been better served by saying that there is behavior besides communication [protected by the First Amendment] that would constitute the conspiracy to act here,” he said.

Instead, the judge argued that “the crimes Defendant is charged with violating may be carried out through speech alone.”

Regardless of whether President Trump’s election challenges were illegitimate, the legal standard pursued by the prosecutors is dangerous, suggests a career attorney who has gained popularity analyzing the Trump cases through his anonymous X account “KingMakerFT.”

“It is an invitation to turn this country into a banana republic where the losing side, if it speaks out, if it tries to right a wrong, if it tries to argue that there was corruption in the election itself, they could put you in jail—if you lose, you go to jail,” he told The Epoch Times.

The lawyer, who retired several years ago after a 45-year career, asked for his real name to remain withheld.

Presidential Immunity Argument

President Trump’s lawyers have argued that his actions fell within the bounds of his presidential duties and thus can’t form a basis of a criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court has ascribed the presidency broad legal immunity, but only from civil suits, not criminal charges.

“If the argument is that the mere fact that the president undertook this activity immunizes it from any legal scrutiny, the court has not been willing to go that far in a criminal case,” Mr. Cooper said.

“If, instead, the argument is that the activities were those of a constitutional officer and within the ambit of authority that the Constitution allows and therefore cannot be an element for a crime, I think that’s a much more robust argument.”

Judge Chutkan denied this argument, opining that criminal activity is automatically not within the bounds of presidential duties and presidents, much less former presidents, thus don’t enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.

But that sidesteps the issue, according to KingMakerFT.

“If it’s within presidential duties it can’t be criminal … by implication, at least that’s the argument,” he said.

The issue goes back to the criminal intentions the prosecutors need to prove. Courts have been reluctant to probe motivations of government executives on matters that fall within their duties, he said.

The motivations of the executive lose relevance in such cases, Mr. Cooper said.

“If you are an office holder, you do not get struck of your status as an office holder because your actions are intended to effectuate your either continuing to stay in office or your attempt to be reelected,” he said.

“The Justice Department is creating a distinction that almost is completely without merit.”

Mr. Cooper provided the example of President Joe Biden’s pronouncement of support for Israel.

“Did he do that because that’s America’s national security [interest]? Did he do that because he says that when he was a young man, he got a chance to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel? Or did he do it because he sat down with his advisers and realized that this is a chance for him to bolster his support within the Jewish community? Did he do that because he sat down with his wife and she just simply said, ‘I will divorce you if you don’t make this statement?’” he asked.

“A court is not going to attempt to drill down into that decision-making if in fact the president has the lawful authority to make the kind of pronouncement that Mr. Biden did.”

Judge Chutkan’s opinion, he says, “fails to give the space for free decision-making that the Constitution does in fact give the executive.”

What the judge could have done was to parse through the indictment for actions that could be argued were within presidential purview and then see if what’s left is enough to sustain the charges.

“She didn’t do that and I think that makes her dismissal decision weaker,” Mr. Cooper said.

Stretching the Law Argument

Lawyers for President Trump have argued that the prosecutors are trying to squeeze his actions into criminal statutes that shouldn’t apply.

The first count falls under Section 371—a conspiracy to defraud the government. But the law primarily deals with fleecing the government for money.

The prosecutors are using an interpretation of the law that also covers obstructing the government. President Trump’s lawyers, however, provided examples that suggest the Supreme Court has framed such obstruction more narrowly.

Read more here…

Update: 

Infighting at the American Civil Liberties Union shortly began after the group revealed on X on Saturday that it would represent the National Rifle Association in an upcoming Supreme Court case. 

Several of the ACLU’s affiliates, such as the ACLU of Montana, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote on X that they disagree with the ACLU’s move to provide legal representation to the NRA. 

X user 2Aupdates was the first to point this out:

*Grabs popcorn* pic.twitter.com/IouTDdvxdm

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) December 10, 2023

As clarified yesterday, the ACLU emphasized that their support is not for the NRA’s Second Amendment goals but instead on the First Amendment issue, opposing the federal government’s blacklisting of an advocacy group based solely on its viewpoints.

*   *   * 

The American Civil Liberties Union, a left-wing advocacy group, has returned to its roots in defense of an ideological enemy: the National Rifle Association. This move is part of their ongoing effort to remain relevant and defend Americans against First Amendment violations by an overreaching federal government. 

“We’re representing the NRA at the Supreme Court in their case against New York’s Department of Financial Services for abusing its regulatory power to violate the NRA’s First Amendment rights. The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint,” the ACLU announced on ‘free speech’ platform X. 

BREAKING: We’re representing the NRA at the Supreme Court in their case against New York’s Department of Financial Services for abusing its regulatory power to violate the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint.

— ACLU (@ACLU) December 9, 2023

ACLU made it very clear that they “don’t support the NRA’s mission or its viewpoints on gun rights, and we don’t agree with their goals, strategies, or tactics. But we both know that government officials can’t punish organizations because they disapprove of their views.” 

We don’t support the NRA’s mission or its viewpoints on gun rights, and we don’t agree with their goals, strategies, or tactics.

But we both know that government officials can’t punish organizations because they disapprove of their views. https://t.co/BPLhxFtH0P

— ACLU (@ACLU) December 9, 2023

ACLU and NRA have joined forces as the Supreme Court agreed to hear the gun rights advocacy group’s free-speech challenge to what it alleges New York officials encouraged banks and insurance companies to blacklist it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“The NRA might be thought of as the 800-pound gorilla on the Second Amendment,” NRA lawyer William A. Brewer III said, adding, “Clearly, the ACLU is the 800-pound gorilla on the First Amendment.”

The civil liberties group’s national legal director, David Cole, said, “It’s never easy to defend those with whom you disagree. But the ACLU has long stood for the proposition that we may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The question of when government advocacy violates the First Amendment is before the justices in another case this term. That one concerns the Biden administration’s efforts to persuade social media companies to delete what the government said is misinformation about topics like the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 election.

In its petition seeking Supreme Court review, the N.R.A., represented by Mr. Brewer’s firm and Eugene Volokh, a prominent First Amendment scholar, said the appeals court’s ruling could have sweeping consequences. -NY Times

Here’s what X users are saying: 

The ironic part is neither the ACLU nor the NRA protect the freedoms they claim to protect.

— Assault Clip, #2A Voter (@assaultclip) December 9, 2023

It’s always refreshing and encouraging seeing institutions stick up for their values instead of their side.

— Matt Odhner (@MattOdhner1) December 9, 2023

Beyond shocking.
I guess this was close enough to home they realized what an oppositional government could do to the vast network of left wing advocacy groups if this was allowed to stand.

— QTheLibertine (@QTheLibertine1) December 9, 2023

Now do Trump

— Curtis (@BwsCurtis) December 9, 2023

ACLU continued on X: “If the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene, it will create a dangerous playbook for state regulatory agencies across the country to blacklist or punish any viewpoint-based organizations — from abortion rights groups to environmental groups or even ACLU affiliates.” 

Read the NRA’s petition seeking Supreme Court review below:

In a ruling that has both sides claiming victory, a federal appeals court upheld some parts of New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), however other aspects were struck down. This ruling, emerging from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on December 8, marks the latest crescendo in a legal saga that is polarizing the nation.

The court’s decision, which combined four lower court cases due to overlapping issues, overturned some lower court rulings while sustaining others. Notably, the court invalidated the CCIA’s ban on gun possession on private property without explicit permission and lifted the prohibition of gun possession in places of worship. Additionally, it rejected the mandate for concealed carry permit applicants to disclose their social media accounts to authorities.

However, the court upheld several CCIA provisions, including the need for applicants to show good moral character and disclose family members on permit applications. It maintained the ban on concealed carry in designated “sensitive places,” with the notable exception of places of worship, and upheld requirements for an interview, character references, and extensive training.

New York Attorney General Letitia James hailed the ruling as a win, emphasizing in a statement that the court’s decision to enforce key CCIA components. Her statement underlines a commitment to New York’s stringent gun laws and a crusade against gun violence.

“Today’s decision to permit the state to enforce critical provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as the court process moves forward will help keep New Yorkers safe,” said James, adding “My office will continue to defend New York’s gun laws and use every tool to protect New Yorkers from senseless gun violence.”

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), instrumental in two of the four cases reviewed by the court, celebrated the ruling as a triumph for gun rights. SAF’s involvement in the Christian v. Chiumento and Hardaway v. Chiumento cases, which challenged aspects of the CCIA, underscored their strategic legal approach. SAF’s founder, Alan M. Gottlieb, and Executive Director Adam Kraut, highlighted these cases as victories in their mission to safeguard firearms freedom.

“These are just two more examples of SAF carrying out its mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time,” said Gottlieb.

Adam Kraut, meanwhile, said the ruling was the result of a focused legal strategy.

“Our challenges were narrowly constructed, allowing us to win a small but significant victory in the Christian case. Because the legislature changed the law after our lawsuit was filed in the Hardaway case, we consider that a victory as well,” he said.

The ruling is set against the backdrop of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed a constitutional right to public gun carry for self-defense. Following this landmark ruling, a dichotomy has emerged across the U.S., with 27 states adopting “constitutional carry laws” allowing unlicensed firearm carry, while others, like New York, have tightened restrictions.

The CCIA, a direct response to the Bruen decision, introduced more rigorous training requirements, expanded no-carry zones, mandated in-person interviews, and shortened license recertification periods. Its aim: to recalibrate New York’s gun laws in line with the new legal landscape.

Yet, this latest court decision is far from the final word. Advocates for gun rights, such as Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America, vow to continue their legal crusade, signaling an unyielding resolve to overturn the CCIA in its entirety.

“Governor Hochul and her cabal in Albany never seem to get the message, and in turn, GOA is proud to have played a major role in rebuking her unconstitutional law. Nevertheless, this was not a total victory, and we will continue the fight until this entire law is sent to the bowels of history where it belongs,” wrote Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, on the group’s website.

As the legal tussle over New York’s gun laws continues, the implications are clear: the debate over the Second Amendment is far from settled. This ruling, a complex blend of victories and setbacks for both sides, underscores the ongoing, intricate, and often contentious negotiation between gun rights and gun control in the United States. As the case potentially heads to the Supreme Court, it remains a pivotal battleground in the enduring struggle to define the contours of the Second Amendment in contemporary America.

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Because of a “severe revenue decline,” California is facing a $68 billion budget deficit that could accumulate to more than $155 billion over the next five years, according to the most updated projection released Dec. 7 by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.  

A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested some of the state’s approximately $24 billion held in reserves could be used to address the growing deficit—an idea analysts agree will be necessary. 

“The Governor has maintained strict fiscal responsibility since taking office, building up the state’s reserves to historic levels reaching the maximum allowed by the state constitution to be put in reserves and paying down debts—putting California in a strong position to deal with budget shortfalls,” Erin Mellon, communications director for Mr. Newsom’s office, told The Epoch Times by email Dec. 7. 

Budget problems arose after income tax collections dropped 25 percent in the fiscal year 2022–2023—which ended June 30—compared to the year before, according to the report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  

Moreover, tax receipts typically due in April were delayed until October this year due to federal and state exemptions granted after winter storms impacted the state, which made it difficult for state officials to determine the scale of the deficit earlier to define budget priorities accordingly.   

“Federal delays in tax collection forced California to pass a budget based on projections instead of actual tax receipts,” Ms. Mellon said. “Now that we have a clearer picture of the state’s finances, we must now solve what would have been last year’s problem in this year’s budget.” 

Noting the unusual dilemma presented by the timing and severity of the decline, analysts said the state has only faced such circumstances during the Great Recession and dotcom bust. 

With a $68 billion shortfall for the fiscal year 2024–2025 projected, in addition to $30 billion operating deficits in following years, lawmakers will need to reduce spending, increase revenues, or both to fill the gap. 

Cuts will be needed across programs, including education and other core services to resolve the problem. The report identified approximately $8 billion in temporary spending options in 2024–2025 to be considered for funding reductions, according to the report. 

Lowering spending on employee compensation, higher education, and judicial systems are solutions utilized in the past to manage budgets, the report said. 

Analysts noted that such dire conditions constitute a “fiscal budget emergency,” though the governor is required to make an official declaration to enact austerity measures. Mr. Newsom has not declared such as of press time. 

Critics point to a growth in state spending as contributing to the budget issues. 

“Governor Newsom and Democrat lawmakers turned a $100 billion surplus into a $68 billion deficit in just 2 years,” Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) said in a Dec. 7 press release. “Even more alarming, the five-year deficit forecast is an astounding $155 billion, thanks to the overspending Democrats jammed into the last few budgets.” 

Financial market uncertainty in 2022 and early 2023—including Silicon Valley Bank’s implosion triggering instability—and higher interest rates are to blame, in part, the report suggests. 

Higher borrowing costs slowed the housing market, as average monthly mortgage prices for homes purchased in California increased from $3,500 to $5,400 over the last year, according to the report. 

“Overall, the experience of the last few years suggests California’s economy and revenues are uniquely sensitive to Federal Reserve actions,” analysts wrote. 

Historically, similar downturns have been followed by years of economic weakness, according to the report. 

“Whether the recent weakness will continue is difficult to say,” analysts said. “However, the odds do not appear to be in the state’s favor.” 

Calling the situation unique and challenging, the report suggested urgent action to identify potential solutions—emphasizing fewer options will be available if discussions are delayed. 

“Given the scale of the budget problem, we suggest the Legislature immediately begin evaluating past spending to find monies that have been committed but not yet distributed,” analysts wrote. “Taking early action on these reductions could increase the choices available to the Legislature.” 

Such work is currently underway, with proposed solutions to be introduced once the Legislature reconvenes next year, according to the governor’s office. 

Mr. Newsom is expected to announce his budget proposal for the fiscal year 2024–2025 by the Jan. 10 deadline.

“In January, the Governor will introduce a balanced budget proposal that addresses our challenges, protects vital services and public safety, and brings increased focus on how the state’s investments are being implemented, while ensuring accountability and judicious use of taxpayer money,” said Ms. Mellon, spokeswoman for the governor’s office. 

One lawmaker said the budget problems are not surprising, created after years of spending increases.  

“California’s tax-and-spend majority has joined this governor in budget decisions that are based on unrealistic revenue estimates and budgeting gimmicks,” Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) told The Epoch Times. “Hopefully, the majority will see it is time for a more realistic budget strategy, instead of throwing money at a laundry list of projects that sounds nice on the national television debate stage.” 

Former President Donald Trump has warned that if he loses his real estate fraud case in New York, businesses will flee New York.

“Businesses are watching this case,” Trump told reporters outside a Manhattan courtroom on Dec. 6, adding “No business will go back into New York, no business will frankly stay in New York, some businesses are talking about leaving New York because of this action, this very serious action.”

Trump and his organization have been accused of overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth in order to obtain preferential terms from banks, insurers, and other entities. Earlier, the Trump-hating judge presiding over the case issued a summary judgment which found Trump and his company liable for fraud, with the ongoing trial addressing conspiracy, insurance fraud, and falsification of business records.

Trump, who’s polling in 1st place as the GOP nominee for 2024 by a wide margin, maintains his innocence, denouncing the case as a politically charged effort to derail his presidential campaign. “If you look at the case, we did nothing wrong, there were no victims,” he insisted.

Trump’s defense gained some support from a Deutsche Bank executive, David Williams, who testified that discrepancies in asset values between a client and the bank are not uncommon. Williams’ testimony shed light on the banking industry’s inner workings, revealing that Deutsche Bank, which loaned hundreds of millions to Trump, often adjusted clients’ stated asset values and viewed these figures as subjective.

In a twist, Williams pointed out that the bank’s lower valuation of Trump’s wealth compared to his own figures was not alarming but rather a conservative measure. He emphasized that such adjustments were standard practice and part of a financial “stress test.”

Last week, a Florida real estate agent testified that Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property is worth at least $1 billion.

“It’s something breathtaking. It’s something amazing to see,” he said of Mar-a-Lago, adding that he had valued it at over $1.2 billion in 2021. He also told the court that President Trump’s company had actually undervalued Mar-a-Lago by about half.

The heart of the attorney general’s argument is that Trump inflated his asset values by up to $2.2 billion for favorable loan terms, a claim Trump counters by highlighting the non-victimization of banks and the profits they earned from interest on loans extended to him.

As Trump’s legal battle rages on, with him taking the stand and labeling the lawsuit a “witch hunt” and “election interference,” and now – the former president warns that it will set a very bad precedent going forward for businesses operating in New York.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

Al Gore says that people having access to information outside of mainstream media sources is a threat to “democracy” and that social media algorithms “ought to be banned.”

Yes, really.

Gore made the comments during an appearance at the Cop28 climate change hysteria conference in Dubai.

AL GORE – At COP28.

Listen carefully. He says Democracy is under threat because citizens are no longer all getting the same print news (propaganda)

Algorithms (that governments can’t control) are threatening democracy.

It’s like he thinks we are stupid or insane … oh pic.twitter.com/aQe41iOhNY

— Elander & the News (@ElanderNews) December 7, 2023

Gore whined that social media had “disrupted the balances that used to exist that made representative democracy work much better.”

The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms” upsets this balance.

According to Gore, people are being pulled down “rabbit holes” by algorithms that are “the digital equivalent of AR-15s – they ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned!”

Gore claimed, “It’s an abuse of the public forum” and that people were being sucked into echo chambers.

“If you spend too much time in the echo chamber, what’s weaponized is another form of AI, not artificial intelligence, artificial insanity! I’m serious!” he added.

Apparently, the only echo chamber that should be allowed to exist is Gore’s own rabbit hole, wherein the earth is constantly on the brink of destruction thanks to people not obeying his technocratic mandates.

Perhaps Gore is unhappy at his own misinformation being fact checked by individuals who have access to information not produced by corporate media sources that are friendly to him.

Gore infamously predicted that the north polar ice cap would be “ice free” within 5 to 7 years.

It never happened.

As Thomas Cartenacci documents, Gore has a storied history of making climate change predictions that turn out to be spectacularly wrong.

No wonder he wants to ban dissent.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch.