Articles by Herschel Smith

Found here.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Of course I haven’t had time to sus out all of the prose in this decision.  It’s a long one and will take some time.

But Justice Thomas undoes the damage I have always claimed that Heller did to the God-given RKBA.  Heller never explicitly spoke to carry outside the home.

I don’t expect this to end here.  New York will doubtless impede, stall, interfere, hamper, and do everything possible to keep from recognizing these rights.  So will Hawaii, Maryland, and Illinois.

We’ll return to this decision many times in the future, I’m sure.

UPDATE #1: Townhall covers.

Thomas – “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

UPDATE #2: PJM covers.

UPDATE #3: Alito – “In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”

Editorial comment: Breyer has the thinking of an adolescent.  Alito is trying to use reason to a man who cannot understand it.

The Daily Signal.

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.

An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.

Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.

Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.

[ … ]

Everybody ought to have a gun, Castro maintained—until he took over Cuba in 1959. At a rally in Havana before he assumed power, he explained: “This is how democracy works: It gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, to Negroes, to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.”

Weapons ranging from Czech submachine guns to Belgian FN automatic rifles were handed out to 50,000 soldiers, 400,000 militiamen, 100,000 members of the factory-guarding popular defense force, and to many men, women, and children in Cuba’s 1 million-strong “neighborhood vigilance committees.”

Immediately after assuming power in 1959, Castro changed his position, following Mao’s rule that guns should not be in the hands of the people.

For three weeks after the Castro government was formed, Radio Havana warned, “All citizens must turn in their combat weapons. Civilians must take arms to police stations, soldiers to military headquarters.”

He did a fairly good job, but of course left out the Armenian genocide, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, Idi Amin’s reign of terror over the Christians in Uganda, Stalin’s starvation of Ukraine, and on and on we could go.

The lessons are universal and repeated throughout history.  Never turn in your firearms.  In 21st century America, you need more care and concern than that.

Home school your children, get off of social media, and be leaders of your family.  Keep your families in tip top working order, and always have plans to set in motion.

Via Ken.

California would be the first state to require gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms, if lawmakers approve a measure announced Thursday.

Even idiots know that insurance doesn’t cover intentional tort.  This is simply a way of punishing firearms owners.  They know that.  We know that.  Everyone knows that.

Outdoor Life.

Hiking with kids can be a unique experience, especially when there’s a black bear following your family up the trail. Last week, Brighton Peachy, her husband, and their three young children were hiking a popular trail in British Columbia when a black bear started following them, according to KUTV News.

While the bear appeared to be more curious than aggressive, it blocked the way back to the parking lot so the family of five—with kids aged one to six—had to keep walking up the trail as the bear lumbered along behind them. Peachy was able to record a video of the encounter with her cell phone.

Video at the link.

He has his wife and children on a hike through the wilderness of British Columbia, and he had bear spray.

I think you know what I think.

Matt Lewis writing at Daily Beast.

If you think Rep. Lauren Boebert’s conservative political philosophy is perverse, wait until you get a load of her version of Christian theology.

Speaking at a Christian Family Camp Meeting last weekend, Boebert revealed her mangled interpretation of Christ’s crucifixion: “On Twitter, a lot of the little Twitter trolls, they like to say, ‘Oh, Jesus didn’t need an AR-15, how many AR-15s do you think Jesus would have had?’” The Colorado congresswoman added, “Well, he didn’t have enough to keep his government from killing him.”

First, he writes like a second grader, and additionally, he blasts out how much he detests her conservative political philosophy right off the bat.  This doesn’t set the foundation for good analysis.

This might be one of the most un-Christian things a person could say—and not just because guns are bad, or whatever else might viscerally repel secular progressives. Consider the biblical account of Jesus’s arrest, after he was betrayed by Judas (as recounted in the Book of Matthew):

“[O]ne of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?’”

Now, compare the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel of Boebert.

First, Boebert assumes that Jesus wanted to prevent his own crucifixion. Of course, this is true—in a sense. Before his arrest, Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” But he hastened to add, “Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Second, as Jesus told his disciples, he could have summoned “twelve legions of angels” to save himself and kill his captors. He didn’t. And the idea that Jesus simply needed more firepower denies one of the central tenets of Christianity—which is Christ’s divinity and omnipotence.

What is more, Boebert (and everyone else who claims to be a believer) should be thankful that Jesus did not take the easy way out of an excruciating death. As Jesus said, “how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled?”

Christians believe that God sacrificed his only son to atone for our sins. No sacrifice, no atonement. Sure, a bloody Tarantino-esque revenge scene might have felt very satisfying for his disciples, at the moment. But consider the eternal consequences.

Now, maybe you think this entire crucifixion story (never mind the resurrection) is one big absurd fairy tale—and that’s your right. But for those claiming to be Christians—as Boebert ostensibly does—getting this fundamental part of the story so badly wrong suggests it was either (a) a sacrilegious joke meant to score political points about the need to use guns against one’s government, or (b) evidence Boebert has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic Christian theology.

Either possibility should exclude Boebert from speaking publicly before a Christian audience.

But there’s something else here, too. By botching the events after Jesus was betrayed, Boebert betrays a worldview that has become ubiquitous during the Trump era: the hunger for a political savior.

It’s important to understand that the desire for a political savior (who will smite your enemies), while simultaneously overlooking the spiritual savior (who will change your heart and crucify your flesh), is a major theme of the New Testament.

“My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus told Pontius Pilate during his trial. “If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Yet, what we see time and again in the Gospels—as evidenced by Peter cutting off the ear of an arresting officer—is that Jesus’s own disciples constantly struggled to understand this.

Indeed, most of Jesus’s disciples were anticipating a savior who would rule over Israel and liberate them from Rome. Instead, they got a “servant leader” who washed other people’s feet, and told them to turn the other cheek. They got a king who was forced to wear a crown of thorns.

Someone with a Trumpian ethos might even look at Jesus and conclude that he preaches weakness. “What a sap,” they might think.

Today, a lot of evangelicals are making the same mistake. They are so desperate for a political savior that they are missing the real-life spiritual savior.

Some are attempting to Trumpify Jesus—to change Him instead of letting Him change their hearts. Others are steering their passionate adoration toward an earthly king: Donald Trump. This, of course, is a form of idolatry.

This trend is being perpetuated by Trump disciples like Boebert, who advance this perversion of the faith—and by Christian organizations who baptize this warped worldview when they give it a platform.

We should all be thankful the Gospel of Boebert didn’t end up in biblical canon. Simply put, it’s a sin.

Second, readers here are no stranger to the notion that no politician will save us.  Only the King of King and the Lord of Lords can do that, both individually and nationally.

But Matt’s analysis has run off the rails, and badly so.  His bias has so clouded his judgment that he isn’t perceptive enough to notice it.

Ms. Boebert’s silly statement is a rehash of what has been seen and available over various blogs, Twitter accounts and elsewhere for months now.  She didn’t make it up.  It’s an attempt – a poor one – to cast weapons ownership in the light of self defense.

I am a Calvinist.  The events that surround the Crucifixion were ordained from before the foundation of the world, and could not have happened any other way.  God was saving His people from their sins.

That’s why I have never used this silly one-liner, and never will.  But I assume that Matt isn’t a Christian.  He gives me nothing in this article to assume that he is.  It’s always amusing to me to see non-Christians try to hold Christians accountable for living within the framework of their own world and life view.

They rarely accomplish that task because they don’t really understand the world and life view of the Christian.  To say that God’s kingdom is not of this world has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the rulers of the world are to “Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way” (Ps 2:12).  It has nothing to do with whether God expects His people to pursue righteousness in their vocations, witnessing, and laws they help enact.  It has nothing to do with whether He will hold accountable those rulers who make ungodly laws and lead men and women in ungodly ways.

By 325 AD (anno Domini), Christianity had so conquered the known world that Constantine the Great convened the Council of Nicea to address the Arian heresy and affirm Athanasian doctrine.  There was sitting no back and quietly praying among Christians.  They worked to change the culture.  Nero was throwing them to the lions.  By 325 AD they had taken the Roman empire.

Another mistaken notion with Matt is that he conflates weapons with evil, or Trumpian doctrine, or something (we don’t know what).

Trump has nothing to do with this, and isn’t in Boebert’s statement.  We consider Trump to have been a failure because of all the awful people with which he surrounded himself, and his failure to root out the rot in the bureaucratic state.  Boebert’s statement has much to do with something entirely different than what Matt assumes, and his dragging a past-president into the conversation is weird and bizarre.

Finally, he of course thinks that Jesus is supposed to be a long haired, Bohemian, peacenik, flower child hippie, like so much of today’s Christians and non-Christians alike.

Remember though, it was Jesus who ordered His own disciples to go get themselves swords, in complete violation of the Roman laws of the times.  Jesus quite literally ordered His own disciples to become law breakers in order to effect self defense.

Our history of Christians and weapons is extensive (see here for one of hundreds of such examples).  We won’t recapitulate that here.  But suffice it to say when Matt decides to sus out Christian doctrine again, he needs to hire someone who is actually a Christian and believes Christian doctrine.  He also needs to learn quite a bit about Christian theology before weighing in again.

This article was a complete failure, and Matt is as much an ignoramus on Christian doctrine as Boebert (if in fact she wasn’t just trying to be cute with her response).

Dean Weingarten.

Cynthia had been dropped off by helicopter.  She was hiking along a narrow path on a ridge a few miles from the Salcha River, about 60 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. A “small black bear” startled her with a crash in the brush. It appeared to her, staring at her, from about 10 feet away. She yelled at it. She pounded a rock with her hammer to make noise. The bear was not intimidated.  Cynthia took a step back, which was also higher on the rock.

The bear moved out of her sight, then struck her from behind and knocked her down. She had been told playing dead was the best strategy, so she did. The bear proceeded to drag her for nearly half an hour. During that time, her right arm was disabled as the bear tore and chewed on it. She was able to get her radio out of her pocket with her left arm and signal for help.

The bear managed to eat and destroy much of both her arms before help arrived. She did not resist the bear.  If she had a firearm, she could easily have shot the bear. At 10 feet, standing still, even a small pistol could have worked.

[ … ]

Marti Miller was working for the Geological Survey as a cook when she met Cynthia, two years before Cynthia was attacked. They had become close friends. Marti visited Cynthia in the hospital and was well aware of the details of the predatory bear attack.

In 1981, Marti joined the Geological Survey full-time, after she finished her college degree. She had her own encounter with a predatory black bear after she became a project leader, sometime before 1995. In January of 1995, she was interviewed by Larry Kaniut, the well-known author of Alaskan bear books.

Marti Miller’s experience was similar to Cynthia’s in many ways. One difference was she was the project leader when her event happened. She was dropped off by helicopter in a very wild area, to work on a geological survey …

[ … ]

Marti decided to climb fast to get above the bear, to a place where she could see it approaching her.  She chambered a round in her rifle.  When she had gained elevation and space, she tried the radio again. Still no contact.  Then she saw the bear again. She moved directly upslope of the bear, and in her best command voice, yelled: “Get outta here!”

The bear was about 100 feet away. It looked at her and purposefully started walking toward her. When it was 70 feet away, she fired, aiming at the bear’s nose. The 180-grain Nosler bullet broke the bear’s neck, killing it instantly.

Dean is the king of bear attack reporting.  I’ve left a number of details out – go visit Dean’s article.  And never go into bear country without a firearm.

Honestly though, probably not written by him, but by some recent graduate of an Ivy League school who thinks she should work as a controller of other people.

Red flag laws allow us to take action when someone who has a gun begins to act erratically.

Red flag laws still require due process, and any removal of weapons is temporary. pic.twitter.com/IVPHgbrvhD

— Governor Tom Wolf (@GovernorTomWolf) June 16, 2022

Photos of guns, cryptic messages, none of which are illegal.  However, please note, those of you who are still on social media.  When you make a post on social media, it gets archived and is there forever.  Get off of social media.

One of the best comments on this is found here.

This is Randy, Jane’s angry ex. He used to beat Jane.

Jane is stunning and brave and owns a gun.

When her friend asks Jane if she is afraid of Randy getting out of prison, Jane posts a picture of her gun with the caption “Nah. I’ll shoot him.”

Randy is evil. He red-flags Jane, and after she has been disarmed by the police he stops by her house and beats her to death.

Happily, no one was shot.

But then, red flag laws aren’t meant for protection against evil doers.  They’re meant as a tool of disarmament for anyone and anything the authorities dislike.

Reader Ned linked this piece where the following video is embedded.  He is discussing door breaching.  This comes to you via GBRS Group.

This is remarkable.

“Worst case is some dude’s barricaded internal doors, has got like, [ … ] steel hollow core shit going on …  this weird … in his house because he’s a weirdo and a prepper and a threeper that hates cops and he’s trying to suck you in and kill you, right?”

First of all, he needs to learn to speak English.  He is an uneducated buffoon.  He needs to engage his brain before he engages his big mouth.

Second, he appears to comport well with the stated mission of the company.

… TIER 1 TACTICAL TRAINING, EQUIPMENT AND BRAND CONSULTING COMPANY FOCUSED ON PROVIDING STATE-OF-THE-ART TACTICAL TRAINING AND TECHNIQUES TO END-USERS IN MILITARY, FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNITS. WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE IS AN EVER INCREASING THRESHOLD OF TRAINING EXCELLENCE THAT ONLY REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE AND LEARNINGS CAN PROVIDE. WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE LIVES OF TODAY’S END-USERS AND ARE DEDICATED HEART AND SOUL TO HELPING THEM SHORTEN THE TIMELINE TO PERFORM ON DEMAND AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.

We have no business having “special operators” in constabulary positions in America.  I know a highly combat-experienced former Marine who agrees.  We need constitutional Sheriffs and peace officers.

Third, note what they call these policing “special operators.”  End users.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It’s just a craft to them, there is no morality in how it’s applied or carried out.  For enough money, they’d train any cops in America to perpetrate this craft on Americans.  GBRS Group is nothing but mercenaries for pay.

Fourth, note the interviewer.  He doesn’t stop the idiot from talking and respond, “Um … what did you say?  Did you say that the worst case you will face is an American prepper who has hardened doors?  Did you really mean that, and why would you do such a thing?

He just lets him keep on prattling about nothing after telling how he loathes ordinary Americans.

Fifth, and perhaps most important, a prepper doesn’t want to lure anyone into anything.  He wants to be left alone.  That’s what the statists don’t understand about you.  You just want to be left alone.

But this guy is willing to train people to bust down the doors of men and women who want to be left alone and raid their homes, potentially killing completely innocent and peaceable people, including dogs and children.  This is warfare perpetrated on Americans by Americans.

What a horrible bunch of men.  Just terrible.  Loathsome and repulsive.

Tim makes the comparison and contrast.  I really like Tim and have exchanged email with him, with Tim being helpful with advice in a purchase I wanted to make.

But I think they are wrong in their conclusions on almost every account.  First, don’t shoot practice ammunition when you can shoot the real thing.  No, .38 Spl versus .357 magnum isn’t a good comparison.  If you intend to carry .357 magnum, you’d better be shooting .357 magnum at the range.

Next, I think the high pressures this cartridge generates is going to be problematic, including scorching the chamber and throat.  Also, until you see this gun running its high pressures in hot environments for years, you have yet to see what sorts of problems will develop.  Next, I think the weight is going to be problematic, both for the gun and the ammunition.  Next, I think no one is ever going to shoot this in full auto – it will be completely uncontrollable.  I could go on, but I think you get my main points.

What to do then?  The Stoner platform is great, and so is the 5.56X45 for distances short of about 400 yards.  For those who need to shoot further than that, they should have considered the 6mm ARC.  No, they shouldn’t have considered it, they should have purchased upper receivers chambered for this cartridge as fast as they could.

The upper receiver will fit an AR-15 lower.  The cartridge fits within the AR platform.  Weight stays the same.  Operation stays the same.  A new upper receiver and new magazines is all that is required.  For that, you get a 6mm bullet that weighs almost twice what the 5.56X45 does (103 grains, 105 grains, 108 grains) with the velocity of the 5.56X45, and a long bullet that has the ballistic design for effectiveness at 1000 yards. You do all of that with only 1 – 2 pounds more recoil.

Leave it to the DoD to make stupid decisions and waste money.

Harold Hutchison at Ammoland.

There are times when Second Amendment supporters rip the National Rifle Association over the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act. Let’s be blunt; the bulk of the provisions in those laws probably should be repealed – or greatly modified – to properly reflect the Second Amendment.

But in 1968 and 1993, Second Amendment supporters were in a bad position. Second Amendment supporters faced a dire situation in 1968. There had been the high-profile assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. earlier in the year. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was pushing for licensing and registration.

As noted earlier, that was the “second problem” Nelson “Pete” Shields outlined in a 1976 interview. Once they have the guns registered and gun owners licensed, gun owners are in a dire situation. Look at England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada if you don’t believe me. As such, the NRA back then made probably the best choice they could – limit the damage and prevent licensing and registration from happening.

The same situation was in place with the Brady Act in 1993. The real threat was a permanent waiting period. NICS has a lot of problems, and the NSSF has outlined the fixes that are a bare minimum, and Second Amendment supporters should work to make that happen. In an ideal world, there would be no NICS, but we’re not in an ideal world, and post-Uvalde/Buffalo, the conditions are decidedly less than ideal.

[ … ]

In the wake of Uvalde, there will likely be a push for “red flag” laws. In this case, with the heightened emotions, Second Amendment supporters should keep the long-term threats in mind …

Second Amendment supporters will need to work hard to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box, but part of that hard work will be effective damage control after events like Uvalde.

The presupposition behind this badly framed and entirely mistaken argument is that if we don’t compromise some, the collectivists will do worse to us.

But that presupposition is falsifiable.  The collectivists have already said what they want to do, and it is reflected in the wish list proposed by the House, i.e., a renewed AWB, magazine capacity limits, red flag laws, universal background checks, registration of all firearms by serial number, and on and on the list goes.

If they currently had that much power they would have already pushed through their agenda.  There is nothing to be gained from any sort of compromise.  As far as the voters go, you cannot convince a collectivist to vote for liberty by compromising.  It runs fundamentally against their nature.

His defense of the NRA is silly.  One commenter posts this in response.

But just so that you don’t miss it, make sure to read Harold’s piece.  He appears to be actually defending or speaking out in favor of red flag laws.