Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Pay attention or you’ll miss his point.

Sadly, a lot of gun owners will believe her, especially 60+ year old Fudd upland bird hunters who only believe you have the right to own an over-under. Don’t get me wrong. I love a good over-under. That just has nothing at all to do with the RKBA.

Silence from the Harris campaign on this blockbuster. She wants to ban handguns entirely. Thats how much she "respects the Second Amendment." pic.twitter.com/bekCTnQZQ0

— Chuck Michel (@CRPAPresident) September 26, 2024

30 years ago, President Clinton signed the federal Assault Weapons Ban into law. During the 10 years it was in effect, people across our nation were far less likely to die in a mass shooting.

It is long past time to renew it. pic.twitter.com/CFESvc3Fw5

— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) September 13, 2024

Kamala: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.”pic.twitter.com/PpFivXGzp8

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 18, 2024

Coupling with what I said yesterday, David sent me this commentary. I must have missed this when it came out. That’s my mistake.

The “enforce exiting gun laws” faction of gun owners are the loudest objectors, evidently unaware that their position is ideologically no different than a Revolutionary era colonial demanding to enforce exiting Intolerable Acts. The hard truths no one wants to admit are that “gun control” laws don’t work – whether they’re favored by Everytown or by NRA, and that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

It’s not a matter of “Should felons have guns?” That’s the wrong question. Try “Should those proven violent and predatory have access to the rest of us?”

Ditto with “Should illegal aliens have guns?”

Of course, all human beings are entitled to unalienable rights. And the Supreme Court has acknowledged, in the Heller case, and earlier, in Cruikshank, “The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank… ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.’”

But again, it’s the wrong question. What should be asked is “Why is a known illegal alien allowed to remain in the United States instead of being deported?”

[ … ]

At this writing, more, including an inordinate number of military-aged males of not just Mexican or Central American origin, but from China, and from hostile Islamic states, are adding to their unvetted numbers already here while our government, consented to under the premise that it would “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” offers the lawbreakers incentives and rewards to embed themselves (and increase political power through apportionment) throughout the Republic.

It’s hardly unreasonable to conclude the “newcomers” (we aren’t supposed to call them “illegals” anymore) represent the equivalent of a standing foreign army, many with agendas directed by brutal criminal cartels and by bellicose powers like China, Russia, and Iran.

The Framers never intended to protect the right of invaders to keep and bear arms, but again, that’s the wrong issue. We need to instead ask ourselves “Who does it benefit to have Second Amendment advocates arguing over acceptable infringements while they ignore the damn elephant in the room?”

This issue all about avoiding confusion, thinking deeper than a sophomoric level of understanding, and focusing on the root questions. It’s easy to get distracted.

Do try not to get distracted. When you get distracted, it makes you look like a simpleton.

To understand if your view is perhaps a bit outlandish and should be unpersuasive – even to yourself – always use hyperbole. Ask yourself the hard questions to see just exactly how far this would go.

Pose questions to yourself such as “Should we open the borders to invading armies and in fact arm them so that we can claim that the FedGov isn’t infringing upon the RKBA?” “Should we invite in immigrants who would predominantly undermine our core rights, including the RKBA?” “Should we terraform the culture such that we couple a welfare state with illegal immigrants, effectively destroying the medical care system in the country?” [Ask me how I know that immigrants are destroying the medical system in the country – go ahead, ask me].

“The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power.” Thinking through the implications of that might do everyone some good.

That’s the correct decision.

Notice I didn’t say that RKBA isn’t a God-given right, because it is. I agreed that illegals don’t have second amendment rights. It’s our contract, not theirs. They can go back to their own homeland and force the government to adopt a covenant and contract that recognizes God-given rights just like we did.

Everyone has problems. You have your problems, I have mine. The problems of the illegal alien are not my problems. I have enough of my own to deal with. I can’t solve everyone else’s problems for them. And neither can America.

I’m not interested in the libertarian answer to this. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Christian.

Illegals don’t have a right to be here to begin with. The fact that they’re here doesn’t mean that they can take advantage of the covenant and contract we have with our country (such as it is, and for as long as it lasts).

The Holy Writ stipulates to be kind to the sojourner among you. Sojourners don’t lay down roots and steal from you and try to undermine your own covenant and contract. They pass through. Becoming part of the tribe means adopting the values and faith of the tribe.

Enough said. This is the right decision. Illegal aliens are not part of “the people.”

Mark Smith likes the notion of “in common use” from Heller. David Codrea points out some problems with it.

In fact, citizens reporting for militia duty were expected to bring weaponry suitable for battle, and in many cases, these men “outgunned the police,” especially when considering the standard issue for British troops was the Brown Bess musket, while patriots who owned them came equipped with more accurate and longer-range Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles. Recall that the Founders considered the militia “necessary to the security of a free State,” and to expect their equipment would be inferior to that of attackers they were defending against would have been suicidally absurd.

The militia deployed with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. Its function was — and still is — to field citizen soldiers, and these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles.

Still, apparently believing he is making his case, Feldman continues offering pre-Bruen examples of infringements, in this case citing Antonin Scalia’s wholly uncalled-for concession that “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

[ … ]

… we ignore the first 13 words of the Second Amendment at our peril. Feldman takes full advantage of that, writing “Today, the Second Amendment applies to all weapons that ordinary people carry on an ordinary basis for self-defense … Logically, it should also exclude AR-15s, which are not commonly carried for self-defense.”

Logically it shouldn’t. But unfortunately for gun owners, too many influencers ostensibly on “our side” won’t explore the militia aspect …

David is correct, of course. “In common use” has nothing whatsoever to do with military utility, and machine guns should be covered under the second amendment for all men.

Scalia had to make the second amendment palatable for the inside-the-beltway types, as I’ve observed before.

Despite the Court’s confident pronouncement, it is not at all clear that the Second Amendment was meant to protect a personal right of self-defense. It is, however, crystal clear that the Amendment was meant to protect the right to keep and bear arms to resist tyranny-as the Heller Court itself concedes. Yet strangely, by the time the sixty-four-page opinion has wound to an end, the Court has purged the Amendment of its revolutionary quality. Justice Scalia’s opinion never hints that the right to resist tyranny might still be alive and well and relevant to the Amendment’s interpretation, and it lays down rules that will make the right a functional nullity.

As a result, the opinion has an odd quality. Justice Scalia insists that he is being true to the language and history of the Constitution. Yet by the close of the opinion, the purpose that clearly and plainly appears in the language and history-the right of resistance-has disappeared, but the right of self defense-which is much less clearly present, if present at all, in the language and history-has taken center stage.

[ … ]

Heller offers a Second Amendment cleaned up so that it can safely be brought into the homes of affluent Washington suburbanites who would never dream of resistance-they have too much sunk into the system–but who might own a gun to protect themselves from the private dangers that, they believe, stalk around their doors at night. Scalia commonly touts his own judicial courage, his willingness to read the Constitution as it stands and let the chips fall where they may. But Heller is noteworthy for its cowardice.

I have no problem at all making Heller about self defense – as long as it is understood holistically. That self defense should be about defense against individuals and state actors, whether foreign or domestic.

It’s not an either-or relationship. It’s a both-and relationship.

First, by FPC. Here is the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The full case files can be found here.

Next, by the SAF.

Of course, if granted, these petitions will be combined.

Personally, I hope that FPC gets through the wall of refusal the supreme court has set up against hearing AWBs. I will never forgive Alan Gottlieb for his embracing of so-called “smart guns.”

First up, Mark Smith gives his take. Mark always seems optimistic about things, and I fear that he may be projecting his own knowledge and honesty onto the supreme court justices. In this particular analysis, he goes into great depth on the games played in the fourth circuit. As I’ve said before, I have as much use for the fourth circuit as I do my toe jam.

I predict that the supreme court will allow the fourth circuit to get away with the disrespect and malfeasance.

Next up, there is James Reeves. He points out that there are other cases of AWB that were fully finished in appellate court that the supreme court refused to take up.

Thus, James is in my camp. The supreme court is running from this issue, and they have been for years. They want the second amendment to be something other than amelioration of tyranny, something palatable to the inside-the-beltway types. Even Scalia wanted that and bowed to the demands of the libs on the court.

The only legitimate justice on the court right now is Clarence Thomas. There are two others that I can think of who would make great justices: James Ho, and Don Willett. Only addition of men like these can every possibly bring back the court to its roots.

Eating crumbs that fall from the master’s table, like a stray dog.

Source.

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

TTAG is also covering this.

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 bounds in 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.”

The sad thing about all of this is that the judgment was made purely on procedural grounds. The FedGov violated the rules for promulgating new rules.

But the core issue here is the constitutionality of the FedGov regulating the self-manufacture of firearms to begin with. Self-manufacturing of firearms has a very long and respected tradition in America. And so it should remain. The founders wouldn’t have countenanced a law that forbade firearms manufacture and sales without the government knowing and approving.

If the supreme court refuses to tackle the issue of constitutionality, it will leave the door open to future attempt by Congress to pass such a law. This would then need yet another challenge in court, one much less likely to succeed than VanDerStok.

Here is his paper at the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Here is him explaining it in summary fashion.