Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Even after judge Reed O’Conner issued a preliminary injunction in the case of the Polymer80, the ATF is bowing their back up and demanding that their rule be enforced.  They literally don’t care what the court says.  They are in love with the courts when they side with the controllers, and ignore them when they don’t.

They are among the most lawless people on the planet. ATF doesn’t need laws – they make ’em.

Tenth Amendment Center.

On Friday, the West Virginia House gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit government entities from accessing information about firearm and ammunition purchases generated by a credit card merchant code without a warrant in most situations.

Del. Chris Phillips and a coalition of 10 fellow Republicans introduced House Bill 2004 (HB2004) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit any West Virginia governmental entity from accessing or obtaining a record of a transaction involving a credit card that is retrieved, characterized, generated, labeled, sorted, or grouped based on the assignment of a firearms code without a warrant or a subpoena in most situations.

Financial institutions would also be barred from disclosing such information with the same exceptions. Financial institutions could also disclose such information if the customer provides written authorization for disclosure.

HB2004 includes specific requirements for a subpoena requesting such information.

On Feb. 3, the House passed HB2004 by a 95-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure with amendments by a 32-0 vote on March 9. The following day, the House concurred with the Senate amendments. The bill now goes to Gov. Jim Justice’s desk for his consideration.

The battle never stops between us and the controllers, and this is a good move.  It would have been a better move to exclude the provision that a warrant is needed, and just prohibit supplying such information to anyone under any circumstances.

Mark analyzes the decision, which can be found here.  Mark feels that he used an unnecessary approach, but ended up with the right decision.

Totally and completely out of control, second grader reasoning skills, away from the farm, and off the rails.  Trying to make things up as they go and feeling constrained by the SCOTUS.

J. Lee asks about "designation" of "sensitive places" and how to figure this out. J. Lynch notes that very few of these places existed in 1791. "Were there even zoos" J. Lynch asks. J. Lynch notes SCOTUS not "giving us much to work with here." #bruenresistance

— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) March 20, 2023

“SCOTUS not giving us much to work with here.”

Good Lord. And these people are judges.

I didn’t listen to the arguments, but I did read all of Mark’s Twitter entries. Here is what this apparently looked like today.

GM 🌞

It’s Monday!!! pic.twitter.com/WEqcgDO844

— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) March 20, 2023

And here is Mark’s more formal analysis of the arguments today.

Medical malpractice kills more people than all AR-15s combined. https://t.co/qhYdZVtR3G

— 🔫UR a Smart Ass, Carl🔫 (@Ur_a_Smartass_C) March 20, 2023

Here’s a puffy HufPo piece on how courts are impeding the efforts of the controllers.  Here’s the bit that captured my attention.

“It’s a completely crazy standard,” University of Chicago legal scholar Albert Alschuler said. “They have turned the interpretation of the Second Amendment completely upside down.”

[ … ]

The application of strict scrutiny allowed state governments to claim that gun laws served an important safety interest. This allowed some laws to remain standing despite Heller’s assertion of an individual right to own firearms.

The new historical test, however, provides sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose.

“The revolution has been going on at least since Heller,” Alschuler said. “But it took an enormous step with this Bruen decision.”

I’ll agree with him insofar as he points out that Heller was a weak decision.  It left doubt in place as to the right to carry outside the home.  In spite of the fact that the founders of the nation literally carried rifles to school in order to shoot critters for meals or other reasons, and despite the fact that men were required to carry rifles to church on Sunday for protection of the congregation, the controllers began putting more and more burdensome regulations in place.

They know better because they’re lawyers and have been trained that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. DC, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County all demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the police aren’t there to protect anyone.

They have all allowed their politics to interfere with being good historians and lawyers.  But Bruen did do what Heller and McDonald didn’t – it recognized the right to self defense outside the home.

It upended their cart.  Thus, the highly emotional and charged language coming from alleged scholars, who cannot fathom why there even exists such a right to begin with.

Oh, and that part about “sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose” is just him making things up out of whole cloth.

Mark Smith has been very clear with his analysis of Bruen, and the SCOTUS was clear before that.  Laws that were in place at the time the 2A was written are fair game.  As are laws in place before that generation perished.  Laws subsequent to that are not, unless they confirm the laws in place at the time of the founding.  Subsequent (later in time) examples can NEVER deny the understanding of the 2A when it was penned.  Another way of saying it is that gun control laws that have burdened the public subsequent to the 2A don’t get to count in our understanding of the 2A, and that makes perfect sense to any reasonable man (and any good historian).

This test is simple.  There is no lack of clarity.  There is no sweeping power granted to judges, in fact, just the opposite.  Judges have been shackled, as they should have been, and as have legislators.

I’ll tell you what.  There is so much to say about this topic that I’ll write Prof. Albert Alschuler (facultysupport@law.uchicago.edu) and offer to debate him on the 2A.  We can use these pages to do that, and I’ll promise to publish his prose without editorializing, and then respond in separate posts.

How does that sound, professor?

Via David Codrea, this piece from Bearing Arms.

I am an immigrant and a Second Amendment advocate myself, and two, I have also written about long-term threats posed to our right to keep and bear arms (shameless plug ahead!) in a book co-authored with Greg Camp: “Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.”

In the above work, I touched upon how immigration plays into the various threats to the Second Amendment, not because immigration per se is dangerous, but as a factor that compounds the mass ignorance which is the real threat. Most immigrants, unless they’re naturalized citizens, cannot vote. So, the unrelenting attacks on the Second Amendment cannot be attributed to immigrants because the mass ignorance lies in the body politic of natural-born American citizens, who are the absolute majority of voters in this country.

As expected, the comments in reaction to Smith’s video have their fair share of people who think that immigration itself is a problem. From my vantage point, I find it totally ironic because every single vocal gun control activist that I know is a white progressive and an umpteenth-generation American, some even being descendants of American revolutionaries. On the flip side, some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment are immigrants, who have taken it upon themselves to do a job that many natural-born American citizens refuse to do: unapologetically defending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

My religious roots, cultural background, and upbringing are all contrary to gun ownership. I grew up in India and was raised vegetarian in a religious Hindu family. People from my caste background historically have been academics and priests who don’t wield weapons. My grandfather is a Gandhian who was part of the nonviolent independence struggle against the British. Yet not only do I own guns, but I am also an evangelist for gun rights. How did that come to pass?

The gist of what I wrote in my book is that immigration, along with other factors, is a threat only if you let it be a threat. The core of my prescription for preserving and protecting the Second Amendment is outreach to groups that have historically not been associated with gun ownership, and included prominently in that are immigrants and new Americans.

This commentary has the unfortunate feel of something that would be published at Bearing Arms.

To begin with, he exaggerates the case when he implies that immigrants constitute some of the most ardent 2A supporters.  I’ve pointed out many times before that immigrants from south of the border – which comprises most of our immigration, both legal and illegal – oppose gun rights by some 75%, and vote that way when they have the chance.

Second, he exaggerates the case that it’s even possible to conduct the outreach he claims is our responsibility.  How?  Media?  Church?  Pamphlets?  Books?  Someone else owns the media.  Churches have gone to the dogs.  Pamphlets and books are for people who will take the time to read them.

Next, he misses the point (and exaggerates again) when he insinuates that any of the above is a good remedy for a world and life view contrary to the Christian world and life view.  Only an understanding of being designed in God’s image supports the notion of firearms ownership and covenant responsibility, blessings and curses.  Seeing the relationship between people and their government as a covenant that can be nullified is broken is unique and solely a Christian belief and doctrine.  No other world and life view has such a concept.  Not … a … single … one.  And I’ve studied them.  If the writer believes in the RKBA, he does so in spite of his Hindu upbringing, not because of it.

Finally, he implies that it’s my responsibility to educate and indoctrinate new immigrants in the virtues of firearms ownership, when in fact it’s safer, tidier, and has a much better chance of success to carefully husband our borders and allow only those in who already believe in the American system.

Why would someone claim anything different?  This is analogous to someone claiming that it’s our duty to marry unbelievers and then try to convert them.  But then there’s that whole issue of being “unequally yoked.”

This is a bad commentary from a very questionable source, and I remain disappointed in the quality of analysis coming out of Bearing Arms, from their disdain for open carry to [apparent] support for unfettered immigration.

In short, “is immigration bad for the second amendment?”  Short answer: yes.

Source.

A consumer protection group is warning Republican governors against attempts by left-leaning lawyers to use public nuisance lawsuits as a backdoor way to outlaw guns.

The Alliance For Consumers (AFC), a nonprofit organization aimed at “ensuring consumer protection efforts, class action lawsuits, and attorney general enforcement actions benefit consumers,” sent a letter to all GOP governors Friday saying that since the many state legislatures have recently flipped to a Republican majority, they should be on the lookout for progressive activists attacking gun rights through these legal actions.

“With victories through the legislative process becoming harder to achieve, the progressive left is increasingly looking to an alliance of activists, officials, and trial lawyers to weaponize the judicial system against conservatives and impose key policy priorities by way of public nuisance lawsuits,” AFC president O.H. Skinner wrote.

“Under the guise of compensation for injuries to the overall public interest, these lawsuits open the door to courts imposing sweeping policy solutions outside the traditional governmental processes or otherwise reshaping the economy through massive money transfers,” Skinner added.

The controllers will never stop because they hate you.

I have long believed that the real battle over firearms rights will be fought at the city, county and state level.  The upshot is that this is the way federalism is supposed to work.

The downside is that God has incorporated His laws against everyone, and the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states.  So even though Bruen exists, and the duty of the FedGov (SCOTUS) has been done in that regard, having men and women honor that covenant won’t be an easy or brief task.

I like Mark and he’s certainly on our side, and correct about his concern.  But this is way late to come to the table with the concern compared to the warnings David Codrea and I have both laid out for years now.

Our God-given rights are certainly not at risk since the Almighty decreed them before time began.  But that doesn’t mean they will be recognized by the state or that we won’t have to go through troublesome times ahead because of the usurpation of the Lordship of Christ by the state.

Here is the SAF/FPC brief.

You can read it at your leisure.  One part stood out to me.

In 1770, Georgia mandated that individuals on Sundays carry arms to “any church, or other place of divine worship,” providing that an individual met their obligation by “carry[ing] with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service.” 19 THE COLONIAL RECORDS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA: PART I, STATUTES, COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY 138, 1768–1773; A DIGEST OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, 1800 Ga. Laws 157 (Watkins, eds.)

This is an important point to me for at least a couple of reasons.  First, as we’ve discussed many times before, in order to understand the constitution, you must understand the milieu in which it was written.

The founders were accustomed to the open, public carry of weapons, and at times mandated it for sundry reasons.  It’s frankly amazing how many alleged “historians” try to understand history without reference to both primary and secondary sources.  If you haven’t read the news articles at the time of the founding, you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about.  If you didn’t read what men wrote, if you don’t study their laws, if you don’t read the sermons they heard, you don’t understand their history.  I have.  I’ve read that history, and I’ve read the sermons they listened to.

Second, this means open carry was common.  There is simply no other way to see this passage.  The text is clearly split into two parts: (1) guns, and (2) pistols.  And regarding pistols, they demanded a second sidearm as a backup.  You cannot appendix carry a long gun.  It would even be difficult to conceal two pistols without people noticing that you’re carrying.

Gentlemen openly display their weapons.  Only a history in which criminals have become increasingly common has it become customary to hide our weapons in our girth.

I listened to a video here (Guns Cranks) that was about as much Fudd lore as I could take, and I turned it off after just a few minutes.  Each and every reason they have to object to open carry has been fully addressed on these pages.  Furthermore, the instigator thinks he was smart and coy by trying to mock folks, like me, who have a southern accent.  To him, folks with a southern accent must be goofballs, uneducated Gomers, lacking wisdom and smarts.

He only made himself look stupid in my opinion.  I’m glad I’ve never run across these cranks before.  I’ll make sure never to link them again.

By the way, I was just thinking – you know where I’ve never heard the southern accent mocked before?  In professional society presentations on things like solutions to differential equations, particle transport calculations, and other engineering and scientific models and data.

Not once.  I’ve only been respected in such venues.  I was wondering, do any of the gun cranks know how to solve mathematical models like that?  Who’s the stupid one?