Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Jacob Sullum at Reason:

Ten years ago this week, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense. Since then the Court has revisited the subject only twice, while it has heard about 45 cases involving the Fourth Amendment and about 60 involving the First.

That stark disparity reflects a failure noted by critics on and off the Court. After waiting more than two centuries to acknowledge that the Second Amendment imposes limits on legislation, the Court has passed up dozens of opportunities to clarify the extent of those limits, leaving the task to lower courts that are often hostile to gun rights.

District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, overturned a handgun ban in the nation’s capital, finding it inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to use firearms for self-defense. Two years later, the Court overturned a similar law in Chicago, confirming that the Second Amendment constrains states and cities as well as the federal government.

Aside from those two landmark decisions, the Court has enforced the Second Amendment in just one case. In 2016 it ruled that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had flouted Heller when it upheld that state’s ban on stun guns based on the mistaken premise that the Second Amendment applies only to militarily useful weapons that were in common use when it was enacted.

That is far from the only time a court has reached a conclusion that seems inconsistent with what the Court has said about the Second Amendment. “Most federal judges have not accepted Heller,” Alan Gura, the lawyer who argued the case, recently told Tom Gresham on the radio show Gun Talk. “They have taken the posture of ‘go ahead and make me do it.'”

Well, there are two things at work here.  First, regular readers know that I consider the Heller decision to be weak.  Scalia did an awful job with it focusing on self defense, when we know full well that isn’t the framework in which the second amendment should be interpreted.

The conversation would clarify a great deal (and get off of the “well regulated” part) if it focuses on the overthrow of tyranny rather than self defense.  Then “well regulated” can be seen in the proper context, i.e., well regulated and calibrated firearms which the shooters knew how to use.

Scalia left an opening as wide as my truck for the controllers to drive through.  Furthermore, his statement that their ruling doesn’t amend the obviously necessary rules for prohibitions in certain sensitive locations (my wording) doesn’t help in the least.

Then there is the issue of recalcitrant judges who don’t care about the constitution or God-given rights.  McDonald was a “make-me-do-it” case, just as other such cases following have been.  And no one has made them do it yet.  It’s still impossible to get a concealed handgun permit in Hawaii, New York or New Jersey.

For these recalcitrant judges, the best solution is for them to be treated as the traitors they are.

Via WRSA.  Bad things.  That’s what.

Before the 1945 Soviet occupation of Romania, the people had the right to own guns. I remember my father telling me his dad owned a double barreled shotgun he used to hunt rabbits with as well as a Luger picked from the retreating German troops (German soldiers were getting rid of all their military equipment by simply throwing it out of the troop transport trains).

When the communists took power in 1949 following falsified elections, the first law they enacted was total gun  confiscation (for the greater good of course).Then after they made sure the population was disarmed they started the arrests, imprisonments, reeducation camps and killings.  So practically since 1949 it was illegal to own any firearms in communist Romania.

Then there is this very important observation.  Listen carefully dear men.

After so many years of restrictions and servitude for over two generations, the perception of the Romanian population about gun rights changed in worse; I must admit when I first came to the US I too was surprised to see how owning guns is something normal and affordable and I too believed guns in the hands of untrained people can be dangerous (and keep in mind I served 2 years in the military so I was familiar with firearms).

After so many years of war and occupation the overwhelming majority of the people were sick and tired of the war so they believed what the propaganda of the new regime was telling them. They were lied that the government will protect them, that guns must be surrendered for their own safety, that since the war is over there is no need for guns anymore.

I’ve made the same observation before, albeit thankfully without first hand knowledge.

Every single one of the genocides in the twentieth century – every … single … one – from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to Idi Amin to the Turkish Ottoman Muslim extermination of the Armenian Christians, was preceded by gun confiscations.

Nothing good ever comes from surrendering your firearms.  The founders knew that and gave us the 2nd amendment – if we can keep it.  And again, make careful note that reeducation and propagandizing is all part of the larger strategy for subduing the American culture to the wishes of the controllers.

Stephen Halbrook:

For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

I’ve seen those claims before and dismissed them as the trivial contrivances they are.

The problem is that men tend to see history through their own eyes and the context they have in post-modern America, even if that isn’t the way historical studies works.

It’s also very difficult to understand American history without the framework of continental Calvinian doctrine and polity, and an understanding of the proper relationship of the three institutions ordained by God, i.e., state, church and family (Gary North also includes economics, or in other words, the market).  You can add the fourth if so inclined.

Balance between institutions means implementing covenant in all of its blessings and curses.  It means not allowing one institution to usurp the authority of God over the other institutions, and that necessitates something like the second amendment.

It wasn’t anything so pedestrian as slavery that created the second amendment.  It was a necessary doctrine in a nation to be founded on Biblical principles, albeit imperfectly.

Honest men understand that and use it as a framework to understand American history.  Dishonest men and imbeciles make up their own shit just because.

From reader Felix, this:

Kyle Kashuv, a Parkland survivor and so-called gun rights activist, called for the implementation of gun control in an Op-Ed published by Daily Wire on June 7th. FIX NICS, the piece of legislation supported by Kyle Kashuv and originally cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, is a law that pressures every federal agency to submit thousands of more names of people to make them ineligable for gun ownership. FIX NICS is not in line with the 2nd Amendment; in fact, support for FIX NICS precludes you from being a serious gun rights advocate.

FIX NICS is so anti-gun, in fact, that having so much as a speeding ticket on your record gives the government the authority to deny you your right to self defense. While Kyle Kashuv likes to paint himself as the anti-David Hogg to rile up conservative bases, he is truly supporting the exact same legislation Hogg’s heroes sponsored. In this sense, Kyle Kashuv is no friend of gun rights. In fact, he is making the culture more anti-gun by endorsing this horrific law.

While Kyle Kashuv claims to be the hero of the 2nd Amendment, his anti-2nd Amendment beliefs are putting true gun rights activism at risk. The Overton Window is the window of acceptable discourse in mainstream society. Since Kyle Kashuv, who recently was hired by Turning Point USA as the Director of High School Outreach, uses social media to claim to be unapologetically and uncompromisingly pro-gun, he is affiliating pro-gun ideology with acceptance of FIX NICS, a law that will disarm more peaceful people.

It is indeed a horrific law.  There seems to be no end to traitors in our midst these days.  Well, this is the problem with the cult of personality and hero-worship.

A man had better meet a very high bar before you call or consider him a hero.  Giving his life for you or your family, or something of that nature, is an acceptable reason for celebrating heroism.

A kid who claims to support your world-view but who in fact works to undermine it is no hero.  Ignore personality.  Commit to ideas.

In the mail from Springfield Armory, teamspringfield@springfield-armory.com.

GENESEO, IL, (05/03/18) – Springfield Armory is severing ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring a group for anti-Second Amendment lobbying.

This latest action follows Dick’s Sporting Goods’ decision to remove and destroy all modern sporting rifles (MSR) from their inventory. In addition, they have denied Second Amendment rights to Americans under the age of 21. We at Springfield Armory believe that all law abiding American citizens of adult age are guaranteed this sacred right under our Constitution.

It is clear where Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, stand on the Second Amendment, and we want to be clear about our message in response. Their position runs counter to what we stand for as a company. At Springfield Armory, we believe in the right and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question. We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans.

Good.  Let’s hope more follow, as well as more manufacturers refusing to sell to the State of New York.

Lady know-it-all, Rhonda Hooper, tells you why Oklahoma must reject constitutional carry.

States that have enacted permit-free open and concealed carry have seen a substantial increase in gun crimes. In Arizona, aggravated assaults committed with a firearm in the state increased by 44 percent, an increase of 1,519 gun-related aggravated assaults. In Missouri, St. Louis alone experienced a 23 percent increase in aggravated assaults — 484 more gun-related aggravated assaults in one city alone.

Okay smart girl, prove it.  Go ahead, prove it.  Prove your statement that constitutional carry increases crime.  Do it without having to rely on correlation and rely only on causation.  I’m listening.

David Codrea:

That Gorsuch is weak-kneed on “immigration” abuses raises serious questions of direct concern to gun owners (the fraudulent “single issue” excuse-making notwithstanding).

Just so that we understand why this is important for gun rights, you cannot see gun rights as disconnected from the world view that supports and frames such liberties.  I’ve dealt with this in detail before.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

That’s why latinos favor gun control by a whopping 60% – 70%.  Flooding the country with Latinos means defenestration of your liberties.  That’s one main reason the progressives want it so badly.

From reader Felix, this.

An overwhelming majority of board members in Effingham County, Illinois, decided to “flip the script” this week and declare itself a “sanctuary” for gun owners.

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler and board member David Campbell called a barrage of gun-control bills working their way through the Illinois House and Senate a clear signal that it’s time to “take a stand.”

The men joined “Fox & Friends First” on Thursday to discuss a new Second Amendment resolution that passed along an 8-1 vote.

We “decided it’s time for someone to take a hard stand,” Mr. Campbell told the network.

The resolution reads: “If the Government of the State of Illinois shall infringe upon the inalienable rights granted by the Second Amendment, Effingham County shall become a ‘sanctuary county’ for all firearms.”

Mr. Kibler said that Effingham’s move, while “mostly symbolic,” was drafted to articulate the high level of discontent among its population.

Oh dear, this again.  Listen to me closely if you live in this county.  No, and a thousand times no.  Your county won’t be a sanctuary for “all firearms.”

If this county wants to conduct an exercise in nullification, they’d better be ready to have county law enforcement arrest and imprison any state or federal official who dares to effect gun control, and they’d better be ready to do it for “all firearms,” which doesn’t just include AR-15s, but machine guns and anything else folks want to have.

They had better be ready to shoot other people to enforce this nullification, and they’re not.  You know they’re not.  To say that this is “symbolic” is an understatement.  Don’t trust such resolutions passed by petty local officials.  They will sit idly by and watch as you’re carted off to prison, telling you all the way that this resolution was just “symbolic.”

News from Vancouver:

A Chilliwack couple is taking the law into their own hands by shooting paintballs at the thieves who repeatedly rob them.

It’s a desperate tactic that police say could be illegal in most circumstances — but Rob and Nicole Iezzi say they’ve already tried everything else.

“This is a constant problem. It’s an escalating problem in our town,” said Nicole.

The couple say they are not taking this step lightly, saying they have been robbed of iPods, hand tools, Leathermans, and attachments for their truck, at a cost of thousands. One friend’s purse was also stolen from their truck in their driveway, resulting in identity theft.

The thieves have hurt them too, pepper-spraying Nicole in her doorway in a bid to steal her cellphone, and clubbing their Rottweiler to death in the yard when it challenged them.

They tried calling the police, putting up security cameras, improving their fences, and put in better locks but the thieves keep coming back.

So that’s when they decided to fight back — with a paintball gun.

Videos the couple has posted online show them rushing out to challenge thieves, firing paint at them as the thieves scurry away on their bicycles. Even Nicole has fired at one, shooting as he left on the street.

“He came this way and I just pop, pop, pop,” she said.

The couple said they take no pleasure in firing at thieves — just hoping to send the message that their property is not to be trifled with. It was only after some deliberation that Rob, who has a firearms license, decided on paintballs.

“I didn’t want to shoot him with a pellet gun, because you’re going to make him bleed. With a paintball, it’s like getting punched. I didn’t want to punch him, so a paintball seemed like the logical thing,” he said.

It also doesn’t go through walls and won’t hurt a neighbour, he said.

But Chilliwack RCMP are warning that vigilante justice could be dangerous and illegal.

“We understand that people are frustrated,” said Const. Tracey Wolbeck.

Shooting paintballs could escalate a nonviolent property offense into a violent crime, Wplbeck said, and the thief could react, putting the property owner in danger.

On top of that, attacking someone with a paintball could be considered an assault, potentially resulting in charges.

“In extreme cases we could see assault with a weapon,” Wolbeck said.

The cops are doing what cops always do.  I just think it’s too bad they didn’t use real guns and kill the perpetrators.

If weapons control is inherently wicked, and I believe it is, it is wicked in the superlative to require peaceable men and women to sit defenseless and allow themselves to be abused by savages while the state prefers criminals over productive, law-abiding citizens.

The government who would do this is a worker of evil and should be overthrown and the government workers hanged for cosmic treason against God’s Holy law.

From Mack and other readers, this.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts’s ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,” Young wrote.

Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

Well, I have a friend who hunts hogs in Georgia with a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10, and the only reason I don’t hunt hogs in Georgia with an AR is because I haven’t been invited to go.  Hogs, he tells me, are tough critters and aren’t persuaded with single shots.  They often have to be shot multiple times.

But of course, that’s not the point, is it?  The point is that the second amendment is there for the amelioration of tyranny.  Because the politicians in Massachusetts are tyrants, they don’t want their subjects to have proper means of combat.  The judge is a tyrant too.  He told us so in his ruling.