Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

News from Lumberton, N.C.

LUMBERTON — A resolution in support of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment right to bear arms was approved by the Robeson County Board Commissioners Monday by a vote of 6-1 after hearing from state Sen. Danny Britt Jr. and Rep. Brenden Jones.

“The Second Amendment right to bear arms is under attack,” said Britt, a Republican from Lumberton. “Illegal use of guns is not a reason to take away the legitimate constitutional rights of citizens to bear arms.

“I have heard from many folks in Robeson County on this issue. We ask that you oppose any efforts to restrict those rights and to reject any law that adds a burden on the Second Amendment.”

Rep. Jones, a Republican from Tabor City, said pending legislation in Virginia to ban assault weapons and require background checks on all gun purchases is a part of the “war” on the Constitution. He said Robeson will be the first county in Southeastern North Carolina to adopt the so-called gun sanctuary resolution, and Columbus and Bladen counties are poised to follow.

“Once a right is lost, we can never get it back,” Jones said. “We are one election, one court decision away from losing those rights.”

Presented with four options, the commissioners selected the first. It includes language to support the denial of access to a gun by court order, County Attorney Rob Davis said.

Commissioner Jerry Stephens was the lone dissenting vote. He said the commissioners already have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state of North Carolina, and this resolution makes it seem like the commissioners don’t uphold the Constitution.

“Why did you come without public in support of this resolution?” Stephens asked Sen. Britt. “How may folks contacted you, two or three or 20?

“I have not gotten the first call. You called it a war, but I haven’t heard about any war.”

Commissioner Pauline Campbell asked why there is a “rush” to adopt the resolution.

“You should not feel rushed if you support the Second Amendment,” Britt said.

Campbell replied, “I fully support the Constitution and the laws of North Carolina and swore an oath affirming that.”

The resolution is a symbolic one, as Davis noted that if North Carolina passes a law on gun ownership, Robeson County has no option but to enforce it.

“This board is not a judicial body that can reject a law on constitutional grounds,” Davis said.

“All this means is we are going to support the Constitution,” Commissioner Raymond Cummings said.

What a weak-kneed, panty-waist statement by a bunch of quisling cowards.

“Symbolic.”  Backpedaling as he goes.

“This board is not a judicial body that can reject a law on constitutional grounds.”  Or in other words, “We’re not the almighty’s judiciary high priesthood in black robes and we can’t reject something our betters and superiors did.  Excuses not to do it.

“All this means is we are going to support the Constitution” (more watering down), so finally they found the gumption to pass a watered down resolution that, listen closely, “includes language to support the denial of access to a gun by court order.”

So in other words, their very 2A resolution includes support for “red flag orders,” the most unconstitutional of all gun control laws.

As I’ve said, these resolutions hold all of the power that the commissioners, Sheriffs and various county and local militias vest in them and are willing to back up with force, not one iota more, not one iota less.

In one case, a county may restrict their own budgets from being used for enforcement of these laws, combined with intent, determination, training, organization and willingness to prevent agents of the state and FedGov from enforcing those same laws.  This is the strongest example.  It’s for real men, those with spine, spirit and character.

The next is a mealy-mouthed statement of support combined with directions not to use county funds to enforce said laws.  This is the next strongest resolution, a weak one at best.  This is for the weak and terrified among us.

The third case is a statement of support, combined with an acquiescence to red flag laws right out of the gate, with an understanding that the whole thing is merely symbolic.  This is for communists.

So Robeson County declared itself to be a 2A sanctuary, but we know it’s a lie, so the good thing about this is that the good people of that county now know who to throw to the curb, and how to do it.

One of the great things about this whole process is that the communists have a chance to self-identify.  They can hide their intentions, but in this case they’ve made no attempt whatsoever at hiding the fact that they are quislings and traitors.

When a state senator and representative speak in such stark and honest terms and a board of local nitwits can’t even bring themselves to show backbone, it’s time to tell them to get lost.

Do I have readers in this AO?

Rolling Stone is shocked!

“I walked in, [and security acted like], ‘Cool, come on in. Enjoy the capitol.’”

And not even a negligent discharge.  Don’t you know the progs hate it?

This is becoming a habit among patriots.  You know, that good muzzle and trigger discipline thing.

Gaston County, the most recent N.C. county to become a second amendment sanctuary.  Like I said it would.

News from New Mexico.

“Citizens have a right to bear arms and we cannot circumvent that right when they have not even committed a crime or even been accused of committing one,” added the Sheriff’s Association.  “We sheriffs have sworn to uphold those and other God-given rights for our citizens at all costs.”

[ … ]

In the statement from the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association, signed by the chairman, Sheriff Tony Mace, it says, “The founding fathers of our republic were patriots with firearms in their hands fighting against tyranny for the freedom and liberty of which they were denied by England. Upon their victory, they formed a new and innovative government to protect their newfound freedom to include the drafting of a Constitution with accompanying Amendments to protect their rights.”

“This created the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is an Amendment that has often been challenged and interpreted by the highest court of the land and to this day stands as an individual right for each law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms,” reads the statement.

“Law-abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to freely choose to arm themselves as collectors, to hunt, to compete in shooting sports and/or recreational shooting, as well as personal and home defense,” says Sheriff Mace. “Most importantly, and should it become necessary, American citizens have the right to be armed to stand and protect the republic against a corrupt and usurping government once again as the original framers of the Constitution intended.”

He continued, “29 out of the 33 New Mexico sheriffs agree that the rush to react to violent crime and atrocities perpetrated by disturbed and/or violent offenders by proposing controls on law-abiding citizens’ guns is ill conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and in our state.”

“These sheriffs encourage the full and complete enforcement of existing gun regulations and oppose any executive order or rule that further restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens to own, possess, keep and use firearms for lawful purposes,” reads the statement.

We might note that this is a great statement except for the last part about existing gun regulations.  A bit of discussion is in order about our understanding of compromise.

Not one more inch, not one more compromise, not one more infringement.  Yes, and all of that, but would you seriously refuse to become allies with these Sheriffs?

Compromise, the way I see it, is giving something up that isn’t justified and isn’t a guaranteed right by God.  In this case, enforcement of existing laws isn’t a compromise.  Those laws are already on the books.  Undoing them is way down the road, because the gun rights community is in full retreat right now.

The “us four and no more” philosophy will get gun owners killed.  This community is going to have to learn incrementalism.  We’ve got to learn to find proper allies.  The statists have made good use of that tactic, and we are where we are because rather than ally with those closest to our views for a period of time, we sit and squander the opportunity to press forward in the war.  Politics is war.

Those Sheriffs aren’t asking you to give anything up that hasn’t already been codified in state law.  If they are serious – and that’s a big if – they are potentially putting their jobs and pensions on the line to be “constitutional Sheriffs.”

Would you refuse an ally like this and let Eric Holder take them on and destroy their careers, cast them out of office, and turn your neighborhoods against you?  Eric Holder understands incrementalism.  If you’re waiting on the perfect one, you may as well board the train now and save the state the money to hunt you down.

Again, there is nothing in that statement above that would cause a patriot to wince except the enforcement of existing laws.  That can be handled later, maybe, but certainly not if your Sheriff is Art Acevedo, or Paul Penzone (41mag will have no audience with him).  When is “a huge step in the right direction” worth your support?

And if nothing is, what’s your plan?  And don’t give me a list of all the tactical crap you’re going to do if you won’t even use your real name to comment.

If I lived in New Mexico, I’d be telling these Sheriffs to press on.  They’re doing God’s work.

Haywood County, North Carolina, is considering a second amendment sanctuary resolution.  Collectivists are everywhere, even in the mountains of North Carolina.

Sometimes when the topic of gun rights comes up, people pick a side and put blinders on. In general there seems to be no room for compromise, let alone any listening with an open mind to what someone from the opposite side has to say.

But like in so many other ways, Haywood County is a special place where people find ways to overcome obstacles and work through issues.

That was on full display Tuesday evening when the county commissioner meeting room in the Historic Courthouse was jam-packed with people — most of whom were speaking up during a public comment session to ask that Haywood become a gun sanctuary county.

This is when a state or local government body passes a resolution indicating their support for the Second Amendment. Some resolutions resolve to not enforce gun control measures county leaders perceive as violating Second Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

There were about three dozen speakers, with the vast majority urging the commissioners to become a gun sanctuary county.

But there was a moment in the meeting when views seemed to soften just a bit. All in the room gave Haywood native Natalie Henry Howell a standing ovation when she asked for consideration of two gun control measures that may have saved the life of her son, Riley, who died during a school shooting at UNC-Charlotte after tackling the shooter and saving who knows how many other lives.

Riley was shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun, Howell told the crowd.

“I just want us to give some careful thought on whether or not that’s something we want out there,” Howell said. “The other thing I’d like to give careful thought to is tighter background checks, because I’m not real sure I understand why someone who says they want responsible gun ownership wouldn’t be for background checks that are thorough.”

The Howell family has long made it clear that Riley enjoyed target practice and that their stance is not to undermine the Second Amendment.

“We are not saying no to guns. There are just some things we can and need to do better,” Howell said in an earlier interview. “I hear people say ‘This won’t help’ or ‘That won’t help’ and I say ‘Well, OK, no single measure will end this gun violence epidemic, but it’s a start and will save lives.’”

Ironically, many of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions adopted by state or local government bodies advocate not enforcing laws viewed as limiting gun rights in any way. The wording raises questions.

Many speaking at the commissioner meeting said the resolution simply sends a message of support for Second Amendment rights, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that — or with expanding that message to include all the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as always, the devil is in the details.

[ … ]

Would a sanctuary resolution raise questions about laws passed by duly elected state and federal governing bodies, but not adjudicated through the court? What about laws upheld by our court system such as prohibiting felons from owning a gun or background checks?

Messages can be sent in multiple ways. There are risks to adopting a resolution worded in a way that could put locally elected officials in a position of picking and choosing what laws to enforce, which should be downright scary to those who believe in our form of government here in the United States. Additionally, withholding county resources from enforcing certain laws, as some of the gun sanctuary resolutions suggest, could set the county up for a lawsuit.

The commissioners all voiced support for gun rights, and all of them indicated they are gun users. They also indicated they are willing to adopt something, but want to be careful of how it is worded.

Well now, this is rich in detail, yes?  I think we all needed to know these things and I see her commentary as profoundly helpful.

The Howell family’s argument is an appeal to emotion, an attempt to garner sympathy from their tragic loss, and (the way I look at it) an inappropriate appeal to the life of their son.  Riley was “shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun.”

So we might point out that Riley could have been killed with a single round, and thus there is no difference between a single shot rifle and any other.  Furthermore, it would have been better for Riley, despite his heroic actions, to have been armed.  Rather than lobbying for limitations on magazine capacity, she should have been arguing against “gun-free” zones, which are never really free of guns, just free of gun-carrying law abiding citizens.

But more to the point, this isn’t in the least related to the resolution before the County Commissioners.  It’s a misdirect.  The task before them is to adopt the second amendment sanctuary resolution or reject it.  To that issue, I’d like to make some observations (and send this to each member of the county board of commissioners).  The board is made up of Kevin Ensley, Brandon C. Rogers, J. W. “Kirk” Kirkpatrick III, Tommy Long, and Mark Pless.

This is no small matter you’re taking up.  If you’re scared of lawsuits and things not being adjudicated through the courts, you need a gut check and review of your world and life view rather than a vote on this resolution.    Passing this resolution with the thought that you’re making some sort of “symbolic statement” is not just dishonest, but dangerous.

These sorts of resolutions have been passed before in various places, only to later learn that the county wasn’t serious about them and had no intention of using assets to enforce them, with the result that county residents who believed them were taken before federal courts for violating laws governing things like ownership of suppressors without having submitted approval to the ATF.

It is the worst sort of thing you can do, to set up your constituency for failure because they believed you, when you were actually making “statements,” or worse, telling lies for the sake of convenience or reelection.  You see, this resolution is before you because your constituency knows that the second amendment is under attack.  Adjudication through the courts has helped to get us where we are today rather than stopping or slowing it.

When the second amendment resolution passed in Lincoln County, the chairman of the board of commissioners said “If the state or even the federal government comes down with additional regulations, it’s gonna say that Lincoln County is not gonna come forth with that and it’s gonna be hard to take guns in Lincoln County.”  And said this: “If it comes to pass that they want to infringe upon the people’s rights to carry guns, it’s going to be a bad day for somebody.”

It sounds to me like she’s serious and knows what she believes.  Sheriff Mack, founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, had this to say about things.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

You see, people like this are committed.  They know that the board of county commissioners must be on the side of liberty.  They know that the Sheriff and his deputies must be in agreement, and they know that the county attorney must also be on board.  Otherwise, it’s like the opinion pages of the Greensboro News & Record, saying, “To a large degree, these resolutions are harmless. They break no laws, nor do they change any laws. If they provide some degree of comfort to local residents, more power to them. Gun violence is regularly in the news these days, and we could all use a little comforting.”

If you see yourself as passing “harmless resolutions that comfort people,” then you should stand down now.  But if you see yourselves as an essential cog in the liberty machinery of America, and are seriously committed to the fight, I commend this resolution to you.

Either way, as long as you’re being honest about things, my readers in your county will know where you stand.

UPDATE: Gaston County, N.C., is also considering a 2A resolution soon.  I just penned a letter to them, encouraging their acceptance of the resolution, but with the same stipulations of seriousness.

UPDATE #2:  Mr. Tracy Philbeck, Chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, sends this article in response.

House Bill 4168.

(4) Whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

(5) The several states of the United States of America respect the proper role of the federal government, but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by a compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the United States Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the United States Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made under the powers granted in the United States Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of West Virginia. All such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining of militia forces actively employed in the service of the armed forces of the United States;

(6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding West Virginians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

Of course, this is good and I applaud the representatives who sponsored this bill.  I encourage all West Virginia representatives and senators to vote in favor of this bill and make it become law.

However, just because the state is taking this stand doesn’t mean involvement in local and county politics can stand down.

The state law can be changed later, or it might not be honored.  Honoring this law would mean use of state agents and militia to interdict and stop agents of the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws.  In fact, there are a number already on the books that are unconstitutional (namely, all of them).

So the question for the House and Senate is just this: How seriously are you going to take this, or do you see it as some sort of toothless resolution or statement of support to “send a message?”

If you see this as “sending a message,” then choose another way to do it until voters can cast you out of office and put patriots back it.

For the voters of West Virginia, you have some fisking to do, on both the state and county level.

From Wiki page.

Lots of reference URLs at the link.

Now.  The trick here isn’t just to get the resolutions passed.  The picture above is just a map, nothing more, nothing less.  That’s only the first step.  Those counties and states have the framework of the law within which to work.  The next steps are harder and will require work.

You must get the county commissioners on your side.  You must get the Sheriff and his Deputies on your side.  And you must get the county commissioners on your side.

You must make sure they see their resolutions this way.

Mack is founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and gained prominence in the 1990s. He was a plaintiff in a successful lawsuit resisting requirements that law enforcement perform background checks on gun buyers as originally intended by the Clinton-era Brady Bill. He says he’s in touch with some of the sheriffs supporting Second Amendment sanctuaries today.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

That, combined with determined, trained, physically fit and well-armed and well-equipped militia determined and committed to the fight, should do the trick.

When agents of the state cross county lines to arrest people for state firearms violations, they are promptly arrested by militia, turned over to the county Sheriff, and thrown in jail for several months along with the drunks, abusers, thieves and murderers.  Weapons will be confiscated and split between militia and Sheriff’s department, vehicles and other equipment will be confiscated, and a permanent record of felonious criminal activity will be put on file for the state agents.

If there is a battle to be waged, let it be won.

Philadelphia Enquirer.

Because this year, on MLK Day, a gun-rights rally took place in Virginia. The kind featuring thousands of mostly white people, many of them carrying guns, some allegedly from right-wing hate groups, and all united in their fervent desire to carry weapons that kill.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. But the spectacle of a reported 22,000 people — many of them white and armed — converging on the Virginia Capitol was reminiscent of a gigantic lynch mob, and it was chilling that such a gathering took place on the only national holiday honoring a black man.

Next up, UNC Radio.

According to Devin Burghart, an expert on white nationalism and far-right paramilitary organizations, the language of some who support the sanctuary resolutions in Virginia bears unmistakeable links to anti-government movements from decades past.

Specifically, Burghart points to the visible influence of the idea of “posse comitatus,” Latin for “power of the county.”

Burghart says the “posse comitatus” theory claims that the political will of the people is at its most potent at the county level, and as such, the most important holders of public office are county sheriffs.

“An elected Sheriff answers only to the citizenry,” wrote Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, Virginia, in a recent Facebook post on the Sheriff’s Office page. “I will always respect the rule of law but I don’t need to wait for a court to interpret my duty for me.”

Sheriff Jenkins has been an outspoken supporter of the Virginia sanctuaries, vowing to deputize county residents to resist state laws regulating guns, should they pass.

“This notion of county supremacy and the ideas of the ‘posse comitatus’ that go all the way back to the 1970s, and the idea of the sheriff being the most important law enforcement officer in the land is one that has deep and deeply troubling roots in this country,” said Burghart, executive director of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. “The ideas originated in the racist right.”

Finally, NYT.

RICHMOND, Va. — Around 22,000 people came here on Monday to protest potential new restrictions on guns under consideration by the new Democratic majority in the General Assembly. Most of the protesters were outside the grounds of the State Capitol, and most appeared to be carrying weapons: handguns, shotguns, carbines and semiautomatic rifles. There were armed men in camouflage and military-style equipment threatening insurrection if the state’s elected representatives acted contrary to their wishes.

Walking through the crowds, I saw Gadsden flags emblazoned with “Don’t Tread on Me” and “Come and Take It” banners alongside “Blue Lives Matter” patches sewn into vests and T-shirts with oft-used quotations like Thomas Jefferson’s famous claim that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

The rhetoric may have been violent, but the overall event was calm — a “peaceful protest,” Brian Moran, the Virginia secretary of public safety, told The Washington Post. A model of democratic assembly.

But that “peace” can’t be separated from intimidation; progressive groups urged members not to go to the Capitol to avoid violent confrontation with extremists. There were no counterprotests or rival demonstrations. The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First.

[ … ]

These dynamics carried over into the creation of the United States. At its founding, the United States was a white republic whose Constitution reflected settler preoccupation with racial control. As it grew and expanded, so would Americans’ racialized understanding of rights, responsibilities, personhood and citizenship.

“Radicalized understanding.”  “Racist.”  “White supremacy.”  “Deeply troubling.”  “Lynch mob.”

So let me break all of this down for you in four words.  Let me explain what all of this is about.  This is damage control.

They wanted violence.  They wanted negligent discharges.  They wanted fights.  They wanted arrests.  They got none of that.

Now, as if Bloomberg sent out the message that this was an awful event that the enemy won, his apparatchiks are doing damage control.  That’s how you know Richmond was a success.

The best thing of the three commentaries was this quote.

Mack is founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and gained prominence in the 1990s. He was a plaintiff in a successful lawsuit resisting requirements that law enforcement perform background checks on gun buyers as originally intended by the Clinton-era Brady Bill. He says he’s in touch with some of the sheriffs supporting Second Amendment sanctuaries today.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

Yes.  This.  And this is what I’ve been saying all along, haven’t I?

You need to fisk your local Sheriff and his deputies.  If they aren’t on board, they need to be replaced.  You need to fisk your county commissioners.  If they aren’t on board, they need to be replaced.

Then after lining up your assets, you can work your county attorney to ensure that he’s fully on board, or that he’s replaced soon enough by being fired by the very commissioners you put on the board.  The attorney is the linchpin of this whole process, because the commissioners aren’t going to do something he suggests against.  The Sheriff might (if it’s Sheriff Mack), but it would be better to fisk everyone and get all necessary parties on board.  That’s your leverage.  Understand it.  Use it.

Listen.  The second amendment sanctuary movement is a God-send.  This provides structure.  This provides the ability to turn national politics into local politics.  Bloomberg wanted to go local.  Very well.  He’s won some of the battles.  But by going local and getting everyone on board with the 2A resolutions, that affects not only local, but national politics and policy as well.

Do you understand?  This is your chance to become involved in local politics and have a national effect.

That’s why the communists are scared of the movement.  They should be.  It’s grass roots.  It’s organic.  It’s local.  Most of all, it’s righteous.

Rex explains it all.