Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

This one is classic.  YouTube has it up, but has the “disclaimer” right on the video that “RT is funded in whole or in part by by the Russian government”

Like that’s supposed to mean something to me.  What, this isn’t really happening in Richmond?  Is it fake news?  And really, who’s the one censoring like streaming of the rally – Russia or YouTube?  Tell me Google?  Who’s censoring coverage?  We’re all waiting.

We recently discussed the second amendment sanctuary movement in North Carolina, and between that post and GRNC, the current list of counties who have adopted the resolution is as follows.

Lincoln County

Surry County

Wilkes County

Rowan County

Davidson County

Iredell County

Rutherford

Cherokee

Davidson

Please send information as you find it.  I’d like to keep an accurate list.  I need readers’ help to do this.

News from North Carolina.

Davidson County Sheriff’s Deputy Tripp Kester, speaking during a board of commissioners meeting Tuesday night, gave a fiery defense of the Constitution and Second Amendment rights, “personally and publicly” going on record that he will not enforce an unconstitutional law.

“I’m going to protect the people of the county regardless of what’s done here,” Kester said. “Let’s get on board and let’s do the right thing. We’re not going to allocate any personnel, finances, resources or anything to infringe on their liberties.”

“I am not being disrespectful, but regardless of what you do or don’t do, I am not going to enforce an unconstitutional law,” he added, garnering a raucous applause from the packed room.

Shortly after his speech, the board voted unanimously to become a Second Amendment sanctuary, joining several other North Carolina counties that have approved some form of gun rights affirming resolution over the last few weeks.

You can watch the speech below.

Thank you Deputy Kester.  We’ll all hold you to those words.  And I appreciate your support of the resolution sir.

David Codrea.

Let’s pray the catastrophe feared by some doesn’t happen, but understand whether it does or not, the Democrat majority in Virginia will not loosen up on its demands unless it has no other choice. There are two overdue actions committed gun owners must take. Must. If they don’t, then temporary violence will have just been averted, and when it comes back it could be for a lot longer and with a vengeance.

Being well regulated isn’t just the right recipe for this event.  It’s appropriate for all of life.

Lincoln County was the first to do it.  Next up, by my count (I could use a second check on this), North Carolina has added the following counties to the ranks of second amendment sanctuaries (I’ll include Lincoln County in the roll call).

Lincoln County

Surry County

Wilkes County

Rowan County

Davidson County

Iredell County

There are other counties actively working on it, including Gaston County.

This is good, if they’re serious.  I’ve already outlined some of the serious implications of this, and no, this isn’t some “symbolic gesture” if they intend it to be more than that.  This means not just refusing to cooperate in confiscatory schemes and other infringements, but using the power of the Sheriff and militia to stop others from doing it.

As for Lincoln County, Commissioner Carol Mitchem says this.  “I don’t need more layers of government telling me what to do,” Mitchem said. “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.”

Good.  I’ll remember your declaration.  I’m going to hold you to this, sir.

News from North Carolina.

LINCOLN COUNTY, N.C. — Officials with the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners voted to declare the county a “Second Amendment Sanctuary,” WBTV reports.

The vote happened Monday and a resolution says:

“The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Lincoln County and that public funds, resources, employees, buildings or offices not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid or assist in the enforcement of the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of Lincoln County to keep and bear arms.”

The resolution states that officials voted over concerns that legislation could be passed that infringes on “the rights of the citizens of Lincoln County to keep and bear arms or which may unduly restrict their right to the same,” and that “the criminal misuse of firearms is not a reason to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens of Lincoln County.”

Open letter to the commissioners of Lincoln County

Dear commissioners,

I applaud your efforts to protect our God-given rights to keep and bear arms.  No doubt, what is happening in Virginia will come further South as nanny-state controller and collectivist Michael Bloomberg pours his ill-gotten money into our state just like he did in Virginia.  They want Virginia to be the model for gun control.  They have said so.

I also applaud your attention to detail – you have struck while it’s appropriate, not waiting for the efforts of Raleigh to infringe upon our God-given rights to make it clear that you won’t participate.

However, as I have warned my readers in Virginia, this is only the beginning.  If you will, it’s the first volley.  There is much more to come, and you must show your resolve in the coming days, weeks, months and years.  The controllers don’t rest, and neither can you.  To them, this is the long war.  Your resolve will require the same level of commitment.

This resolution will require commitment and absolute devotion to your duty, and even more.  Law enforcement officials will need to be fisked to see exactly where they stand.  The Sheriff, township LEOs, and city police, must be on board.  Regulations will have to be passed, or rejected, based on your commitment to the 2A.

It may come down to even more.  The resolution you passed means, as best as I understand it, that you will not allow county resources to be used to infringe on the RKBA.  This is well and good, but it won’t be enough if what is happening in Virginia is our tutor.

County LEOs must be willing to prevent others from infringing upon those same rights, and that might mean meeting them at the roadways and interdicting their efforts.  It might mean preventative tasks rather than merely sitting on the sideline and refusing to participate.  If you won’t help them, they may take on the task without your help.

Furthermore, I would have liked to see a stronger statement, more like what we are seeing in Virginia.  We know their game, and while state authorities might be claiming to honor our God-given rights by allowing bolt action rifles and three-round magazines for deer hunting, we all know that the second amendment isn’t about deer hunting with bolt action rifles or turkey hunting with 12 gauge shotguns.  It’s about much, much more than that.

The resolutions in Virginia make it utterly clear that they know the governor of Virginia is out to confiscate and/or register modern sporting rifles, standard capacity magazines, handguns of all kinds, and is pressing a host of other infringements (such as shutdown of shooting ranges and prohibitions on shooting in the bush or where regulations don’t cover).

You see, their designs are comprehensive, far-reaching and all-inclusive.  The very nature of the controller is to control everyone and everything.  They cannot not do that.  “Can a leopard change it spots?”  So your resolve must be as absolute as is theirs, and as is the governor of our very own state, who is as much of a controller as the governor of Virginia.

Your warnings to the controllers cannot be empty warnings.  Otherwise, they are toothless and meaningless, and you may as well have never acted to begin with.

Are you up to the task?

New Jersey Law Journal.

Last year the Legislature enacted the Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-20 et seq. It authorizes the court to issue a temporary protective order, on the ex parte application of a law enforcement officer, family or household member, if the court finds “good cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent or other by having custody or control of … a firearm.” The temporary order bars the respondent from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition until further order of the court. In deciding whether to issue a temporary protective order, the court is directed to consider eight factors, among which are the respondent’s “history of threats or acts of violence.”

In November 2019, the Gloucester Township Municipal Court issued a temporary protective order seizing the firearms of David Greco, 51, a resident of the township. It found good cause because FBI monitoring showed that Greco has posted extensively on social media in favor of violence against Jews, he had allegedly been in contact with the man who shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue, and he had a prior conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon.

Greco didn’t pursue the act’s remedy of a post-seizure plenary hearing within 10 days of a temporary order. Instead, he filed a § 1983 action against Attorney General Grewal and the Camden County prosecutor in federal district court, alleging that the statute i) violates the Fourth Amendment by not requiring proof of probable cause, ii) violates his Second Amendment right to possess weapons, iii) violates his First Amendment right of political expression, and iv) violates his Due Process rights. The suit requests a statewide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the act. The state opposed the motion, primarily on abstention grounds and secondarily on the ground that its interest in preventing an imminent threat to public safety overrides Greco’s Second Amendment right to keep firearms for personal defense in his home. The motion was heard in late November and remains pending. We think it likely that the district court will dismiss under the Younger abstention because Greco can assert his federal constitutional claims as the defendant in the pending state court proceeding. Those claims are significant.

[ … ]

The temporary protective order against Greco does not find as fact that he was imminently about to commit an act of violence against Jews or anyone else. That raises serious concern under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that set the First Amendment parameters for when the state could punish political speech. In a case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader, the court held that the state could not punish the advocacy of illegal political violence unless the advocacy i) was directed to incite or produce imminent lawless violence and ii) is likely to incite or produce it. Under Brandenburg the First Amendment allows a speaker to advocate in principle a violent revolution or the expulsion or murder of a racial or religious group someday, as long as it is not coupled with the intended likelihood of immediate action.

As long as Brandenburg remains the law, the “good cause” standard of the act is subject to the requirement that the speaker intend imminent violence and is likely to produce it. Those twin inferences of intent and probability can’t simply be drawn from expressions of hatred or of admiration for those who have already committed illegal violence. Unlike the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which requires evidence that the defendant has already committed one act of domestic violence, the ERPO Act is purely predictive. We do not believe that Brandenburg allows the prediction to be made simply based on the expression of opinion that illegal political violence against Jews, unbelievers, homosexuals or any other hated group ought to be committed. That standard is substantially over-inclusive. For every prospective shooter or bomber, there are probably tens of thousands of angry but impotent bigots who sympathize and vent their anger and hatred online but will never muster the courage or discipline to act.

That may be true, but of course, that’s the wrong reason to oppose this statute.  The right reason is that it’s within God’s purview to punish evil-thinkers, not man’s, however evil-thinking is defined.  Evil-thinking is one thing to one man, another thing to another.  Only God’s law is the measure of what’s good and righteous.

What the author’s say about the second amendment is worth reading.

We do not think the Second Amendment is a significant barrier to preemptive action if the predictive evidence is clear enough. Under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the only recognized individual Second Amendment right is to possess firearms for last ditch defense in the home. Heller essentially incorporates the common law “castle doctrine” that Lord Coke declared in Semayne’s Case. Semayne’s Case limited the castle doctrine to the home and expressly excluded “the market or elsewhere.” Heller and its progeny have been careful to point out that the Second Amendment does not restrict the state’s power to regulate public order outside the home, including the carrying of arms by individuals. And no federal court has ever held that the Second Amendment confers a right to take or threaten armed political action. If it is proven by sufficient evidence that a defendant presents a clear threat of armed violence in the community, nothing in the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted by the courts, would prevent disarming him.

And thus we continue unabated down the road of appeals courts, lawyers, law reviews and law schools ignoring the strength of Heller and focusing on its weaknesses.  I have forever said that Heller was a weak decision, perhaps because it’s the best Scalia could have hoped for with the makeup of the majority in the decision.  Any further steps might have been a bridge too far.

But the Supreme tyrants have run as fast as possible from any more decisions on second amendment rights, and it remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS decision in Heller itself eventually becomes virtually irrelevant in light of lower court rulings.

No one will protect your God-given rights except you.  Know, however, that the Almighty will be your advocate on judgment day.

Be careful what you ascribe to county Sheriffs and just how much faith you place in them.  These statements ring troubling.

“As a constitutional officer — as sheriff — I’m here to protect the rights of citizens against things like unlawful search and seizure. State and federal agencies don’t come in unless we ask them to. As far as sanctuaries; the individual has the right to bear arms. As long as they have proper credentials, then that’s fine. Our office isn’t going to knock on doors and we aren’t going to allow people to come in and round up firearms and what have you. If [the individual is] mentally competent and not a felon, there shouldn’t be a problem. As long as the Constitution reads the way I read it, we’re going to be okay,” Hill said.

He’s surely lying or very misguided if he says that changes on the state level are to “ensure the safety of everyone and shouldn’t impact those who should be able to have guns.”

He’s surely got to know better.  He must know the true nature of the controllers, and he has surely seen the proposed laws outlawing modern sporting rifles, a feature of discussion in virtually every resolution I’ve seen (with citizens defending their right to own such weapons).  If by “who should be able to have guns” he means bolt action rifles, that won’t be good enough.  And if he means that as long as the FedGov or state doesn’t red flag someone or put them on a prohibited list then he’ll let them exercise their rights, that won’t be good enough.  He has surely read the proposed laws and seen the debates.  He’s troubled because the times are troubled, and he’s currently riding the fence.  He doesn’t know what to do, and thus reverts back to the “wait and see” approach.  The controllers aren’t backing down, and this is going to happen.  Wait and see means don’t bother me with this right now.

He finishes up with this.  “That’s the ultimate goal to keep guns away from felons and those with mental disabilities. They want to put up safeguards to keep people safe. But coming in and taking all firearms? That’s not going to happen,” Hill said.  So, he support red flag laws.

“Then, we’ll have to look at these laws in cooperation with the commonwealth’s attorney. Personally I’m in support of the Second Amendment and will not be enforcing any unconstitutional laws,” Simpson said.

Simpson said there are hundreds if not thousands of law-abiding citizens in Appomattox, but he believes, should some of the proposed legislation pass, they would “instantly become felons.” Simpson said for him, he feels much of the proposed legislation is unconstitutional and currently isn’t sure how his department would work with the Virginia State Police if legislation is passed.

“Wait and see.”  “Unconstitutional laws.”  But what will you do when this happens, as it surely will?  What will you do when a judge declares that what the Virginia controllers do is constitutional, as some judge surely will?  “Isn’t sure how his department would work with the Virginia State Police.”

This is the best part.  He will be expected to cooperate fully, and according to the controllers, nothing short of this is acceptable.

Folks, in between now and just a few weeks, men will have to steel and resolve themselves and reach some point of cognitive rest on these issues.  Time is short, too short for “wait and see.”  These are issues of morality, scruples and character.  It doesn’t take bad laws to declare your county a 2A sanctuary, as we’ve seen in some counties already.  These are decisions you make long, long beforehand based on world and life view, not pragmatic concerns.

These men need to be replaced with someone who believes in something.  There are perhaps others like them in Virginia.