Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

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.

Via David Codrea, this reddit link updates us.

The following six localities became sanctuaries tonight, making the total 101!:

Franklin County – Unanimous, 400+ in middle of the work day Mathews County – Unanimous, 500+ in middle of the work day Prince Edward County – 4 to 3, 550+, voted down a weaker resolution and passed a stronger one! Stafford County  – Unanimous, 3,000+ Town of Vinton – 4 to 1, 60+ York County – 4 to 1, 800+

500+ gun owners showed up in Clarke County to urge the Board of Supervisors to put a 2A Sanctuary resolution on their agenda.  The Board of Supervisors is considering having a special meeting to do so.

News Coverage:

https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2019/12/17/franklin-county-becomes-virginias-latest-second-amendment-sanctuary/

https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/franklin-county-supervisors-carefully-embrace-second-amendment-sanctuary-status/article_f214bfa8-659f-50bf-ad30-ecb448635ebc.html

https://wydaily.com/local-news/2019/12/17/york-county-passes-resolution-to-become-constitutional-county/

[ … ]

Virginia local government is divided into 95 counties and 38 independent cities (govt and population separate from counties). So after tonight:

2A Resolutions: 2 cities and 7 counties

Sanctuary: 7 cities and 76 counties and 15 towns (overlaps with counties)

Pending: 4 cities and 7 counties

Rejected: 5 cities and 3 counties

No Action: 20 cities and 2 counties

This equates to 46% of the population and 85% of the area under sanctuary or 2A resolution status.

One good thing all of this does is flush the collectivists out of hiding.  Now Virginians will know who to go after in the next election cycle.  In the mean time, if Governor Ralphie “Kill babies give me all your guns” Northam and his minions are serious about starting CWII before then, patriots have both a moral and legal basis for resistance.

More perspective from Virginia.

A wave of resolutions have been passed in Virginia counties, declaring sanctuaries and constitutional havens in support of the Second Amendment as a new Democratic majority prepares to take over the state General Assembly in January.

But what do they really mean?

“I think it’s a form of political protest,” said Richard Schragger, Perre Bowen professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law. “Obviously, it’s caught a certain amount of fire in Virginia.”

This week, Prince William and Spotsylvania counties became some of the latest to pass resolutions affirming their commitment to residents’ rights to keep and carry guns.

In the end, Prince William’s resolution may be short-lived and is likely to be reversed when a new board of supervisors led by Democrats takes control in the county, according to a statement from incoming supervisor Ann Wheeler that was made days before that vote.

Fauquier County seems poised to pass its own resolution in support of gun rights in the coming days. After a public comment period that lasted more than four hours Thursday night and amid concerns about the resolution’s wording, the county’s board decided to delay the vote on their resolution in support of Second Amendment rights until Dec. 23.

“I think there’s a lot of, maybe, misunderstandings about what the impact of these statements, these resolutions that are being adopted, will do,” said Dana Schrad, executive director of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. “They are nothing more than position statements. They don’t have the force of law.”

[ … ]

Professor Schragger said that if gun laws that may be perceived as over restrictive of gun rights do pass, “those laws are enforced and citizens have to abide by them.”

“There’s no ability for citizens in any of these Second Amendment sanctuaries to assert that they don’t have to comply with state law,” Schragger said.

“The sheriffs and local officers have to comply with state law, and the state police will enforce state law,” Schragger added.

We’ve met up with professor Schragger before.  Do you think he might be a wee bit biased in his analysis?

So any levelheaded analysis would have concluded that the Sheriff is elected by the people of the county, and is not a state employee.  Any levelheaded analysis would have also concluded that county commissioners can make laws just like state lawmakers.  What they’ve done is indeed make a law.

And any levelheaded analysis would have concluded that the notion that “if we make laws they must be obeyed” is preposterous given that these very same laws in Connecticut and New York were roundly ignored by the citizens of those states.

The entire paradigm of the folks making these statements is different (and directly contrary) to the existing paradigm in place today in the counties voting these resolutions.  Mr. Schragger’s thinking is confused, outdated, outmoded and lacks a critical and legitimate understanding of where we are in America today.

The citizens have guns.  Millions of them.  The citizens have ammunition.  Billions of rounds of it. Mr. Schragger would do well to let that sink in for a while.  I’ll say it again.  The 2A laws made in the counties have exactly as much power and legitimacy as the people of the counties are willing to give them, and the force with which they are willing to defend them, not one ounce more, and not one ounce less.

NY Post.

Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro has a new national goal: He’s going to expand his massive private army to 4 million gunmen by the end of 2020. Another triumph of socialism!

And never mind that the policies of Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have brought the nation to ruin, with all but the rulers and their clients facing slow starvation and “health care” without any medicine. Well over a tenth the population has fled, with more leaving all the time.

Sadly, the opposition — including Juan Guaidó, the legitimate president recognized by most of the world’s democratic countries — is powerless, not least because the regime confiscated all private firearms back in 2012.

Exempted from the ban: the regime’s “Bolivarian Militias” — modern-day brownshirts who have done much of the work of crushing protests for years now.

The government says their ranks now number 3.3 million, so Maduro’s 4 million goal seems all too reachable.

All around the world, earnest fans of socialism insist it has never failed, as critics claim, since “true socialism has never really been tried.” Maduro is showing that the sure way to make it “succeed” is for the self-proclaimed socialists to have all the guns.

All controllers want all of the guns, all of the time, and in every situation.  It’s what they do, it’s how they survive.

What an odd thing to see this in the New York Post, in which I’ve seen anti-2A commentary before.

Dean Weingarten.

The liberty-loving Georgian lady did not let that comment go unanswered. She proceeded to school the older woman on the fact that they were talking arms to bring a tyrannical government down, so if the other lady wanted to talk intent of the founding fathers then today American citizens would be free have all the armaments that they could afford to have.

Arms that are equal to what America’s soldiers have access to.

She continued by stating that “gun violence” is a myth. If politicians wanted to truly take on the problem of murder they would have to find a way to deal with the corrupt hearts of mankind.

Since they do not do this, the best answer is for good guys to have guns and be ready and efficient with them to kill the bad guys.

She’s got her theology right, her politics right, and her understanding of the second amendment right.  Would that Americans were such clear thinkers.

Via reader Fred, this idiotic missive from a Duke University professor with whom we’ve crossed paths before.

The main problem with relying solely on text, history and tradition, however, is that it doesn’t provide useful guidance for modern-day regulations that respond to modern-day gun violence. The text alone can’t tell you whether a machine gun is an “arm” or whether convicted felons are among “the People” the Second Amendment protects. The 27 words of the amendment are silent on many questions, and history and tradition don’t speak with one voice—there were and are significant regional differences in approaches to gun regulation, as well as divisions between urban and rural areas.

Perhaps in some extreme cases (a total ban on public carry, for example), text, history and tradition would provide relatively clear rules. But for most standard forms of modern gun regulation—restrictive licensing schemes for public carry, for example, or prohibitions on high-capacity magazines or on gun possession by people convicted of domestic violence—all of the work would be done by analogical reasoning. Judges would have to decide for themselves whether certain modern guns or gun laws are relevantly similar to laws from 150 or 200 years ago.

Hey dumbass, the constitution isn’t a guidance document.  It’s a covenant, and you break it at your own peril.

David Codrea.

“AMGOA is growing into a new role by becoming a non-profit organization,” the group announced Monday. “Over the years as our site and membership have grown there have been many calls for us to convert to a 501c4 and now we think the time is right. We are currently asking for donations and seeking new supporting members…”

The change will facilitate fundraising to allow for greater litigation support. The expansion will also allow for coordinating smaller groups to work together on local matters.

I don’t make endorsements lightly. Dalton and his team have been working tirelessly at great personal cost for years and they have an exciting vision that has great potential.

I’ll consider doing just that after an examination of them.  I was discussing this with Len Savage, and his advice is as sage as ever.  “You will know them by their fruits.”  He’s hopeful, as am I.  We’ll see.