Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Gutsy lad.  And for anybody who has criticism of anything about these guys or the way they’re doing it, I don’t see anyone else out there doing what they’re doing.

Good for him.  However, I do have one question for James.  You say you support the notion of the law barring felons from purchasing firearms.

Would you hold this same position if they declared your political views a hate crime and forced you to spend a year in prison under a felony charge for believing what you do?

News from Florida.

“This is an easy one for me” to support, Commissioner Kristine Isnardi said.

“I’m happy that it went through,” Lober said after the County Commission meeting, although he noted that it may be a challenge to get an open-carry bill approved by the Florida Legislature in the form he wants.

Commission Vice Chair Rita Pritchett voted against Lober’s resolution.

Pritchett said she encourages people to get concealed weapons permits and carry their weapons, and believes 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds “should have complete adult rights.”

But Pritchett said she has qualms about having open-carry in Florida.

“I do believe that people should carry guns,” Pritchett said. “I’m just struggling right now with where I’m landing on open-carry.”

[ … ]

Three states (California, Florida and Illinois) and the District of Columbia generally prohibit people from openly carrying firearms in public. Two states (New York and South Carolina) prohibit openly carrying handguns, but not long guns. And another three states (Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey) prohibit openly carrying long guns, but not handguns.

[ … ]

Indialantic resident Fred Rotz, who has a concealed weapon permit, said he is not against guns, but strongly objects to open-carry, saying it’s “provocative and unnecessary and unproductive.”

What a shame that South Carolina gets brought up again as being aligned with New York in disallowing open carry.  What an embarrassment to the Palmetto state.  Say, why doesn’t Palmetto State Armory get involved in the politics behind this?  They have substantial pull in S.C., and the resources to effect change.  So does FN, right down the road from PSA in Columbia.

This is weak tea.  All the county is doing is suggesting a new state law.  It would have been better for this county to have gotten into a knock-down drag-out fight with the state over this.  At least it would show Florida LEOs and pols how stupid they have been.

NPR.

This summer the Trump administration rolled out the President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End a National Tragedy of Suicide (PREVENTS) – a long awaited strategy to bring down the rate of suicide in the military and among civilians. It focuses on enlisting community partners and a public awareness campaign to fight the stigma around seeking help during a mental health crisis.

Critics in congress have said the plan isn’t proactive enough. But it does address one issue that has been seen as politically taboo: access to guns.

Suicide is notoriously difficult to study since it’s a rare event, even as suicide rates for the military and civilians are on the rise. But if there’s one obvious place to fight veterans’ suicide, it’s firearms. Gun owners are four times more likely to die by suicide. Veterans are almost twice as likely to be gun owners, and one study showed that one in three vets store their guns loaded and unlocked. Guns are by far the deadliest method of suicide.

But keeping guns away from veterans has been politically radioactive.

“People really haven’t wanted to touch the issue of firearms safety,” said Terri Tanielian, a senior behavioral scientist at the RAND corporation.

She says the new White House roadmap was a bit disappointing – it took 15 months to endorse a set of recommendations that aren’t very new.

But she is happy that the White House plan mentioned “safe storage” of guns. There had been rumors that the powerful gun-rights lobby would get that section removed from the plan.

“Now that we’re wading into that water, it is good to see that we are willing to talk about it and engage partners and do something meaningfully on this issue,” Tanielian said.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been talking about gun safety since at least 2013, sometimes putting free trigger-locks in big bowls in the waiting rooms, like lollipops at the doctor’s office. Still, Dr. Matt Miller, director of VA suicide prevention, doesn’t say politically loaded words like “gun control.”

“We’re not talking about broad restrictions. We’re talking about lethal-means safety in the context of suicide prevention,” he said.

Miller wants to dispel the stigma about seeking help. He says anyone can be in emotional pain; anyone can have suicidal thoughts. He wants veterans to think about keeping guns safely out of reach when they’re in crisis. Miller said suicide is usually an impulsive act, but guns make it much more likely to be lethal.

“Miller wants to dispel the stigma about seeking help.”  Bull crap.  Here’s a stigma for you.  Any veteran who ever seeks emotional help will never get his rights restored and will always be incapable of filling out Form 4473.

Protestors on their way to harass the Seattle police chief ⁦@carmenbest⁩ at her home, encountered locals who were not in the mood to host protests in their neighborhood.

Protestor: “We are peaceful! You pointed a gun at my face!”

Resident: “That’s why you are peaceful.” pic.twitter.com/QU0FzwReNG

— Mike (@Doranimated) August 4, 2020

This is worthy of news today, but mark my words.  This will be the norm shortly.  Armed neighborhood watches, as it once was, as it should be today.  As it always should have been.  Men policing and protecting their families and neighbors.

Let me make it clear. I wouldn’t be protecting cops, for a whole host of reasons too involved to catalog. To me, this is exemplary of the future for every neighborhood.

Zerohedge, via David Codrea.

Seattle radio host and self proclaimed “Cat Dad” Paul Gallant had taken to Twitter back in June to respond to President Trump’s handling of the protesters in Seattle. Responding to a Tweet where the President was critical of the Seattle mayor, Gallant responded “Chill dawg” before saying he saw “no burning, pillaging or deaths” in his city.

Today, Paul has taken to Twitter to sing another tune: “I feel like I need to buy a firearm”.

Why the change in attitude? Perhaps it was because rioters in his city trashed and looted the downstairs to his apartment complex. Gallant arrived back at his apartment this weekend to find it vandalized and looted.

Oh.  I see.  So you would go after the rights of peaceable men and support those who would enslave them, but when they come for you, it’s different because you are elite and have a right to life.

I hope you can’t find one, jerk.

In Virginia.

In Washington County, WI.

On July 8, 2020, the County Board in Washington County, Wisconsin passed a resolution reaffirming their oaths to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. The resolution passed with a unanimous vote of 25 to 0. It should be noted that this resolution does not address the Second Amendment specifically. Additionally, in the video embedded below, the County Executive, Josh Schoemann, points out that it is not intended to make Washington County a Sanctuary County. We have found that some counties prefer not to use the terminology “Sanctuary” due to connotations with Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants.

From the discussion, it appeared that the board really did take this resolution seriously. The supervisors discussed the fact that the resolution originally centered on the Second Amendment, but then the Chinese Coronavirus came along and people in government started restricting the rights of the people. They felt that it was necessary to expand the scope of this resolution to encompass more than just the Second Amendment because it wasn’t just the Second Amendment that was being trampled upon.

There’s video at the link.  Next up, Sawyer County, WI.

On July 16, 2020 the Sawyer County, Wisconsin Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to reaffirm their commitment to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution’s Right to Bear Arms.

Verification Citation/Source: Sawyer County, County Board of Supervisors
Resolution date passed: 16 Jul 2020
Vote Count: 9-6

Both the vote total and the resolution itself (at the link) are weak tea.  Next up, Grant County, WI.

On July 21, 2020, the Grant County, WI Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. The resolution was presented to the board during a Zoom meeting and it passed with a vote of 14 to 2 with one supervisor being absent.

Verification Citation/Source: Grant County, WI – County Board of Supervisors
Resolution date passed: 21 Jul 2020
Vote Count: 14-2

I don’t know what the word “opposes” means in this resolution.  There is much work to be done, but it’s good to get them on record and have a starting point.

David Codrea.

Kasich is the latest in a string of “Never Trump Republicans” to cast his lot with the Democrats, the very Party his past supporters donated money and labor to defeat at the polls. We’ve noted subversive efforts by groups like the Lincoln Project and watched prominent “neocons” like George Conway, Bill Kristol, and Carly Fiorina jump ship. We’ve seen “Big Tent Republicans” like Larry Hogan making no secret of abandoning what once was a Republican core constituency to move the GOP even further to the left. And just the other day, “conservative” columnist George Will announced he’s voting for Biden.

Funny that list.  I’ve always felt that Kristol and Fiorina were sniveling lackeys, Kasich just a buffoon, and George Will a true creep.  I’ve never liked any of them, and never found any to be a friend to gun owners.

Not that Kasich meant anything he promised to swindle gun owners into voting for him. Except he called infringements “reforms.” He came out against “Stand Your Ground” and even vetoed a gun bill that didn’t have it because it didn’t include “guilty until proven innocent” Red Flag seizures.

It’s always about red flag laws, isn’t it?  You can have these pretend rights, but we want to be able to take them away for any reason we deem fit, and we’ll send the Stasi to do it.

It’s the same thing going on in Wyoming right now.  Oh, the real news can get buried under the drama that the MSM whips up.  But read on and make sure to read to the end.  It’s all about pol support for red flag laws.

NRO.

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court reportedly declined to take up a case dealing with Second Amendment rights after Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that he would vote with the court’s liberal justices.

In June, the justices rejected petitions from 10 challenges relating to state restrictions on firearms after Roberts signaled he would not vote with them, depriving the court’s conservatives of the fifth vote needed to overturn gun regulations, CNN reported Monday.

[ … ]

The four most reliably conservative justices were not confident that they would get a fifth vote from Roberts on the case or similar cases addressing the Second Amendment, according to unidentified sources cited by CNN.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned an unsigned opinion that was overseen by Roberts for that case in which six justices agreed that the case should be relegated to the lower court. In a separate statement that Kavanaugh signed, he said that the Supreme Court should address “soon” the issue of varying interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Somebody surely has something on Roberts.

So if this report is to be taken as true and accurate, the four justices stopped what could have been a defeat for the observation of gun rights in America by simply refusing to take cases.

Roberts is the stated reason.  If this report is accurate, it’s probably best that nothing was done.

Townhall.

The New York State Supreme Court last week granted a motion ordering the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to turn over the name, zip codes and license category of anyone who was granted a firearm license in 2018.

The New York Daily News made the request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request process, which provides public information from government agencies to citizens and journalists.

According to the lawsuit filed against the NYPD, the newspaper makes the argument that they should have access to the information because their reporters “frequently cover gun-related political and policing issues.”

The Daily News argues that the information can be turned over because of a state law – known as the SAFE Act – that declared “that names and addresses of all firearms licenses were public information.”

Under the SAFE Act, gun owners have the ability to opt-out of their information being handed over in FOIA requests but their application has to be approved. It’s the information of those that did not opt-out that the newspaper wants.

“The SAFE act requires disclosure of the names and addresses of gun licensees unless they have applied for and been granted an exemption under the statute,” the lawsuit stated.

The NYPD denied the request on multiple occasions, citing various reasons, like an “invasion of privacy” and “extraordinary effort” would have to be put forth to collect the records.

The licensing department did, however, provide information about the types of permits that were Issued by zip code from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. They did not hand over specific names. After an appeal, the licensing department provided a list of 132 names for people who attempted to opt-out but were denied. The newspaper, however, wasn’t happy with the list because it didn’t specify what kind of firearm the licensee possessed.

The court concluded that the department violated the FOIL.

“Absent the SAFE Act exemption, respondent must submit the following information to petitioner: The license category and zip code of ‘Members of Service’ who were licensed during Calendar Year 2018 (either by renewal or for the first time) be submitted to petitioner,” the court ordered. “… respondent may withhold their names. Respondent must also give to petitioner the name, zip code, and license category of those to whom it granted a new or renewal license during Calendar Year 2018. This information covers all licensees who applied prior to Calender Year 2018 but were granted a license during that year.”

There are two problems here: [1] the law itself, which is an invasion of privacy, and [2] the court decision which doesn’t recognize that it’s an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

I’ll also comment that the law converts a right into a license in that it forces an individual both to know that he must opt out of this abomination, and spend the time and energy to do it.  It’s as bad as a license and fee for the exercise of a God-given right.

Nice job, court.  Now maybe criminals will know to whom they can go to steal weapons and harm people.  Criminals might include thieves or SWAT teams performing raids.

If you’re a gun owner and live in New York, I just have one question.  Why?