Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Epoch Times.

A group of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), have introduced a bill that would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws.

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections—the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” Cornyn said in a statement. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

Says the man who, along with Lindsey Graham and Rubio is pushing federal red flag laws.  No thanks Senator quisling.  I’ll do without your bill.

Besides, if you really cared, you’d make it applicable to more than just “any other state with concealed carry laws.”  And I have no desire to get on any federal list of persons with permits.

This is pandering to idiots.  Don’t be one.  Just say no to this bill.

Ammoland.

This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn’t the NRA[or any other pro 2A group] bring a case to the Supreme Court?

[ … ]

So our example group, the NRA, would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives.

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.

[ … ]

President Reagan was able to place Justice Scalia, an originalist, to the Supreme Court in 1986, and wishy-washy Kennedy in 1988. President G.W. Bush appointed the stalwart Thomas in 1991. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to be an originalist, was appointed in 2005.  Justice Alito, an originalist, was appointed in 2006. Those five were just enough to overturn the ban on the ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia in D.C. vs Heller in 2008.  The decision was severely restricted by the insistence of including limitations on the Second Amendment, to obtain the vote of Justice Kennedy, as engineered by Justice Stevens.

From the abajournal.com:

Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias.

In the book, Stevens said he had hoped to persuade Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to agree with him that the amendment was intended to prevent the disarmament of state militias. He circulated his dissent emphasizing historical texts supporting his view in hopes it would prove persuasive.

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

Here is the limiting language Justice Stevens claims to have been influential in having inserted, in trade for Justice Kennedy’s vote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

A major point of disagreement among Second Amendment supporters was how to approach the problem.

One group claimed anything but full and complete recognition of Second Amendment rights was futile and counter-productive. The argument was: any lesser legislation, moving incrementally toward full Second Amendment rights, would only legitimize infringements on those rights. They were/are the “All or Nothing” group. Some called/call themselves “principled”.

The other group of Second Amendment supporters argued Second Amendment rights could be restored bit by bit. Pass legislation first, for a permit system. Keep reforming and improving the permit system. Reduce requirements, reduce fees, reduce “gun-free zones”.  Keep on incrementally improving the law, until Second Amendment rights were fully restored. They were/are the “Incrementalists”.  In the middle 1990’s it was not clear if either approach would be effective.

Twenty years later, it was clear. Second Amendment Incrementalism worked.

He goes on to outline some of the success.  This is an educated and valuable read, and I commend it to you.

I am an incrementalist as I’ve explained before.  But this isn’t the same thing as what Dean is describing.

I support incrementalism when it is in our benefit.  Thus, I support open carry for South Carolina now, and then work on constitutional carry next year.  We can’t let perfect become the enemy of good.

Where I differ with Dean is his invoking the example of the NRA.  While I have no comment on NRA refusal to take a case to the Supreme Court, the incrementalism Dean is describing of the NRA isn’t really the incrementalism for which they’re hated.

They sided with the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the initial AWB, and the bump stock ban, and against open carry in many states.  They haven’t just incrementally or judiciously surveyed the court scene to ascertain the best time or strategy to ensure 2A rights.

They have incrementally given away recognition of God-given rights.  They will always be hated for that, as they should be.

News.

But maybe they stalled it the first time just long enough to prevent the full committee from hearing and passing it, and then the senate.  This was a subcommittee.

What a ridiculous protocol.  The bill could have just been sent to the floor of the senate when passed by the House.  But that would have given South Carolina open carry, and that’s what they don’t want South Carolinians to have.

So they got what they were after.  They played politics with God-given rights.

Shooting Illustrated.

Tennessee joined 19 other states that allow constitutional carry when Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 765/House Bill 786 into law earlier this month. The measure takes effect July 1, applies to law-abiding citizens 20 and older, and a provision includes those serving in the military who are 18 to 20 years of age.

“This bill is a great step forward in the advancement of self-defense rights and Second Amendment freedoms for all Tennessee gun owners,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet. “It simply means law-abiding Tennessean’s no longer have to pay a tax to exercise the right of self-protection.”

The number of states joining those with constitutional carry has grown quickly in 2021. On Feb. 18 Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 102 into law, allowing constitutional carry for state residents. Iowa became the 19th state to enroll on April 2. The measures become effective June 1 and July 1, respectively.

The other 17 states with constitutional carry laws are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah (effective May 5), Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The merits of similar or nearly identical measures are currently being considered by a number of other state legislatures. One passed muster in a Louisiana Senate committee and is headed for debate on the body’s main floor. Texas lawmakers are also considering a permitless carry provision and South Carolina’s House recently approved a constitutional carry measure. Others are in the works across the nation.

What?  And there isn’t blood running in the streets as the Karen’s predicted?

PJM.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to take up its first Second Amendment case in more than ten years.

The Court decided to take up the case New York State Rifle et. al. v. Corlett, focusing on the question of “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for licenses to carry firearms outside their homes in New York, SCOTUS blog reported. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.”

This has a chance of doing good for folks in states like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii.

If decided wrongly, this also has massive implications for the rest of America.  Or if weak like the Heller decision, it has the chance to encode and enshrine state power, and to be a catalyst for heavy social unrest and massive noncompliance.

If they plan on a weak or wrongly decided opinion, I would have preferred they just not take up the case at all.

Ammoland.

“This whole gunfight is going to come down to ‘Red Flag Gun Seizures.’ Moderates in the GOP think they can vote for that without getting burned…and if they pass ‘Red Flags,’ Biden will use that momentum to go for AR-15’s and mags next.”

That’s what one highly placed source on Capitol Hill told me just hours ago as the fight for gun control is being waged behind the scenes and behind closed doors with a vengeance!

[ … ]

… the backstabbing moderates in the Republican conference like Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Lindsay Graham do their best to convince the Republicans to ‘offer up a common-sense compromise so we do something on guns.’

And that’s why Florida Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott are the lead sponsors on S. 292, a massive ‘Red Flag Gun Seizure’ spending bill that bribes state legislatures into enacting this law at the state level, with taxpayer dollars!

We’ll get to see just how serious the states and counties are when they declare themselves 2A sanctuaries.

The status of the bill can be found here, with a PDF of the full text here.

The people of Arkansas have vested the General Assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within this state’s borders, subject only to the limits imposed by  the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5.

All acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States Government, whether past, present, or future, that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to  the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (b) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations that are null and void in this state under subsection (a) of this section include without limitation:

(1) The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.; 11 (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.; (3) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by  law-abiding citizens; (4) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (5) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (6) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law abiding citizens; and (7) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

This is just an excerpt.  The full text is powerful and deserves a hearing.  Its chances are unknown to me, but readers in Arkansas should contact their representatives about this.

Of course, it remains to be seen if this is just symbolic or if it ends up having teeth.  The wording has teeth.  Whether it will redound to real enforcement of the bill, should it become law, would be up to the people of Arkansas.

Opinions from S.C.

South Carolina Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Travelers Rest, sponsored a measure in anticipation of federal efforts to bolster gun control.

The senator wants to exempt from any new federal gun laws all members of South Carolina’s “unorganized militia,” which consists of all able-bodied citizens older than 17 who aren’t in the National Guard or the organized militia.

I infer from his measure that the senator is relying upon the Second Amendment to support his measure.

Had the senator taken the time to read the very document he swore an oath to support and defend, he would see that the Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

It says “well-regulated militia,” not “unorganized militia.”

How can we abide having a state senator draft laws who doesn’t even understand the seminal document that our free society is predicated upon?

It would seem South Carolina has greater concerns than gun control.

J. BROOKS DAVIS

Attorney

Coleman Boulevard

Mount Pleasant

This confusion occurs a lot and while it’s impossible to correct it every time, some things bear repeating.

First of all, let’s address the 2A again.  The founders didn’t rely exclusively on the notion of militia to honor the RKBA.  Remember, bearing arms was so common in and among the people in the colonies that it would have been unnecessary to stipulate that people had that right given by God.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

The concern at the time was that the militia could be federalized and put to uses against the states themselves.  The militia comes from the people, is armed by personal ownership, and serves the interests not of the federal government, but of the people.

All the founders needed to stipulate that the constitution honors the RKBA (not grants it, but recognizes and honors it as pre-existing and axiomatic) was one reason, and the militia serves as that reason.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s get to the notion of well-regulated.  It doesn’t mean what the lawyer says it means.  Standing armies were anathema to the founders.  Calling up the militia was calling up free men, calling them from their labors into battle.  Hence the term “unorganized.”

People also misinterpret the intent when they affirm that the existence of state sponsored armies (like the N.G.) replace the unorganized militia.  They usually use the term “well-regulated” to infer that they must exist under formalized, federally recognized statute, regulation, or federal code.

Let’s cover again what the term means.

“It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders  and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.

A well regulated machine is one that runs correctly.  If a clock doesn’t keep time, it isn’t well regulated.  If your car engine knocks, it isn’t well regulated.  If your scope hasn’t been zeroed, the rifle/scope system isn’t well regulated.

The founders recognized that in order to e effective, free men operating under the axiom of the RKBA need to be drilled, need to know how to shoot, need to have weapons that were zeroed, operating correctly, and in good working order, all operated by men who knew how to do it.

Thus, the lawyer is wrong.  The proposed bill for S.C. is a good start, but still shouldn’t get in the way of either (a) open carry for S.C., or (b) constitutional carry for S.C.

Via David Codrea, this academic publication co-authored by David Kopel appears very interesting and yet a time-consuming study.

Feel free to download and read it.  Supply comments via email if you wish on important things.

I have not seen a significant number of things eye-to-eye with Rob Pincus.  I’ll offer one brief example, i.e., shouldering stabilizing braces on AR pistols.  I recall Rob’s counsel of his viewers and readers not to shoulder stabilizing braces (this was before the latest ATF “interpretation”), and his reluctance (and even refusal) to do videos showing such tactics.

On the other hand, I have long said that you should do what feels natural and what you find necessary.  There are many legitimate reasons for firearms ownership: sporting, range shooting, competition precision shooting, self defense, collecting, and on and on the reasons could go.  It’s no more the business of the state to interest itself in your what firearms you own than what forks you have in your kitchen drawers, or how or why you have them.

But if you have a firearm with which you intend the use of home defense, and it has a stabilizing brace, if you need to shoulder the weapon to best use it, then do so.  Your responsibility is to your own life and the lives of your loved ones, not an ATF interpretation.

So I have had a difficult time trusting Rob, for whatever reason.  This latest commentary at Ammoland adds to that mistrust.  He co-authored a piece on common ground with Dan Gross, Former President of the Brady Campaign.  I will quote extensively.

Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed H.R. 1446, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of “assault weapons.”

We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.

Stop there.  This is strong language.  It means that Rob thinks that unless the policy recommendations that we are forthwith to read in the commentary are implemented, there will be negative repercussions.  No one is holding a gun to Rob’s head.  He appears to desire what we are about to read.  There seems to be no other reason to suspect that we need to “seize” the opportunity before us (Biden is president, the senate is split).

To expect meaningful and lasting change, we must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics to one defined by our common values and goals. This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it “gun control,” “gun violence prevention,” “responsible gun ownership” or “gun safety.” It is about advocates, leaders and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create. It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too-often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.

I have a bit of an issue with the notion of having “common goals” with progressives.  Philosopher Cornelius Van Til flatly debunked the idea that Christians can have a common goal or common starting point with unbelievers.  Now, this isn’t a theological debate, but the point is salient.  One doesn’t come into a conversation with neutrality.  There is always a set of presuppositions involved.  For the progressive, this is it.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This is true at least for the commoner.  For the controller, they want a monopoly on violence.  This is the starting point.  There is no common ground with them.  But we must continue.

Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check. At the same time the two of us believe that many private transfers, such as gifting a gun to a family member or letting a fellow member of a gun club borrow a firearm for a competition or hunting event should be legal and remain a private transaction outside of government regulation. We believe any expansion of the Background Check requirement should be focused on transfers to strangers. Sure, there are some important details to work out around exceptions such as specific definitions of “strangers,” and exceptions that would make it impossible for the government to compile a comprehensive list of gun owners; but we are confident that there are solutions that can make a huge impact if we stick to the principle and message of only keeping guns from the people we all agree shouldn’t have them. This is also how to “walk the walk” in terms of demonstrating that we are not trying to limit gun ownership among responsible gun owners and how to give substance and true credibility to the claim of respecting gun owners and the Second Amendment.

It’s wrapped up in nice words like “Expanded Background Checks.”  It’s padded to reduce the impact.  The claim is made up front that people support it, which if true, would obviate the need to say it all the time.

But make no mistake about it, Rob Pincus has come out in favor of universal background checks.  He, along with the former president of the Brady Campaign, supports it.

Thus Rob has in a single commentary thrown away what little he had left of his credibility as a defender of the RKBA.  I’m sure he’ll go on with his tactical training business, but for me, I do not see him as a credible defender of liberty.

For the record, I support the liberty to conduct person-to-person transfers of firearms of any sort.  We had this discussion at the dinner table a few nights ago, and I laid it out at the beginning by saying that I believe felons have a RKBA.  They have as much right to self defense as I do.

Eyes opened wider, and I explained what we all know to be true.  If a felon cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then a felon cannot be let out of prison to purchase fertilizer at the local Tractor Supply.  Besides which, felons guilty of murder, rape or kidnapping should be executed.

So, I suspect, ends the relationship of the 2A community with Rob.  I hope it was worth it for him.

UPDATE: I see that the editor has found it necessary to “apologize” for printing the article.  A quick note to the editorial staff.  Don’t worry about it.  If you publish enough, you’ll offend someone.  Ask me how I know?  I found this commentary useful even if I didn’t agree with its contents.  It’s useful because I know where Rob stands now.  That means you did the right thing.