Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Forbes:

Since American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms (not just law enforcement officials, as gun control advocates maintain), it would seem to follow that they’re entitled to use their weapons when they are threatened.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in Beard v. United States, where the first Justice Harlan wrote that the defendant, who had been convicted of manslaughter for killing a man in a violent dispute,

was not obliged to retreat, not to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was     entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

To codify that right and prevent people from being put on trial for reasonable, defensive gun use when a prosecutor thinks they might instead have retreated or fled, 24 states have enacted “stand your ground” statutes. Among them is North Carolina, but a recent case there shows that when prosecutors and judges want to convict a man for using his gun, the “stand your ground” law can be trampled upon.

Gyrell Lee had been celebrating New Year’s Eve with his cousin Jamiel Walker in the latter’s home. Throughout the evening, a known troublemaker, Quinton Epps, came by and argued with Walker. When Epps returned with friends and became increasingly belligerent, Lee decided that he should get his gun from his car just in case matters got worse. Lee had completed his concealed carry class and was familiar with the law on gun use.

Epps returned once more and a shouting match between himself and Walker ensued in the street. Walker lost his temper and punched Epps, at which point Epps drew a pistol and shot Walker in the stomach. Walker fell and Epps then turned his gun on Lee, who had his gun out. Lee fired and killed Epps.

Lee was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree murder. He was a bystander who had acted in self-defense, but nevertheless local officials wanted to make an example of him.

At trial, Lee’s attorney argued that he had acted in self-defense. But in charging the jury, the judge failed to make any mention of the state’s “stand your ground” law or the defendant’s right to use force in the defense of his cousin (who had died of his wounds). The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, holding that the trial judge had not committed “plain error” in charging the jury without bringing up the state’s “stand your ground” statute. In pertinent part, that law reads “A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if …he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” The Court of Appeals wasn’t convinced that the judge had made an error because it wasn’t sure that the statute applied in Lee’s case due to its uncertainty that a public street outside his home counted as “a place he had the lawful right to be.”

Good grief …

Good grief indeed.  George Leef has done a good job with this article, and I appreciate his having followed and written on this issue.  We are reminded of a number of important things in this report.

First of all, we always encounter the opposition of statists when we advocate justified and righteous laws like stand your ground.  This is the first hurdle to overcome, as it is with proposed open carry laws, constitutional carry bill, and so on.

But if we get past the gaggle of gargoyles and demons in the houses of perdition that is the Senates of most states and the U.S. Senate, we face prosecutors.  The laws may say that we are recognized as having a right to self defense, but you must understand that these lawyers have been trained in the philosophy and legal theory of Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida.  They don’t care about your God given rights or even what the law says.  If they want to, they will prosecute you if they think they can win.  Just because.  Shut up.

Then if you get past the hurdle of what the law says or how some recent law school graduate feels that day, you have the jury with which to contend.  Remember folks.  Juries are comprised by people who, on average, voted for Hillary Clinton, or had a hard time making up their minds, or who, if they didn’t vote for Hillary and Obama before her, couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag or hold attention long enough to listen to legal arguments in defense of someone like Mr. Lee.

Most jury members are too caught up thinking about their favorite night time sitcom to worry over things like putting someone away for life who simply shot in self defense.  Besides, that smartly dressed lawyer said he was guilty.  We’re law and order people.  He must be guilty.

When you entrust your life to a jury, it’s usually no better than entrusting it to a crooked judge.  That’s the sad state of the American system of “justice” today.  Stay away from crowds.  Think carefully about your actions.

Archer:

“But I suppose we should thank Hill for reminding us, once again, that “Progressives” can — and will — reverse course and trade in all their “gains” at the drop of a hat once the logical conclusions start to apply to a right they don’t like.

If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all.”

Via Codrea, Gottlieb outs himself again.

“Like it or not,” Gottlieb observed, “the Courts have the final say whether you have gun rights or not.”

You can also read a related discussion thread at reddit/r/firearms.  Here is the problem.  The courts don’t have the final say on whether we have gun rights.  I appreciate that we need good judges in position, but only because we want to be peaceable men if possible.

Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist.  This is Alan’s moral malfunction.  He reflexively turns to the state for disposition of God-given rights, which I’m sure is why he has shown himself so willing to compromise in the past.

It’s pagan and statist thinking that turns to the state for cradle to grave security and for a delineation and protection of our rights.  I’ve explained this before – our rights come from God Himself, the Almighty king of heaven and earth, the maker of the universe, the one who determines what He will do with the clay vessels he creates, the only potentate and sovereign.

The constitution is a covenant by which men have agreed to live together.  We derive our authority to bear arms from God, in whose image we are made, and who Himself made war when necessary, and thus we are to protect that image.  This is His immutable law.  If the covenant within which we live does not reflect God’s laws, it is an abomination and dishonors God.  It is null and void.  Second, to the extent that it does, when we fail to live within the framework of that covenant it is null and void.  Therefore, if the government breaks covenant with the people, the government has declared itself null and void before God.

A man-made document can never … never … establish rights.  It can only recognize what has already been established by the almighty.  God grants men the right to self defense, as well as the right to enter into covenant with a government, that covenant having blessings as well as curses, just like the covenant of marriage comes with blessings and curses (e.g., divorce in the case of infidelity, which recognizes that the covenant has been broken and is null and void, cursing the one who broke it).  Self defense properly interpreted means not only personal defense from evildoers who would cause him or his family harm, but self defense from a tyrannical government.

Gottlieb couldn’t have been more wrong.  Judges are important for the opposite reason he boasts.  They are important in that they have a duty before God almighty and His laws and to honor the covenant we have made.  They don’t get to make decisions concerning whether such rights exist.  Their purview comes with duties and responsibilities, not the freedom to be cavalier, insolent or capricious.  Theirs is a terrible responsibility and they should justly fear God.  When it comes to the rights of men to defend themselves, there is only one decision of which God approves.

Psalm 2 says “The kings of the earth shall take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed … He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (2-3).  Isaiah 6 describes what happens when men meet God face to face.

In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. ² Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. ³ And one called out to another and said,“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”  And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. ⁵ Then I said “Woe is me, for I am ruined!

To be sure, there are wicked rulers and judges, and all gun control is wickedness conducted by men bent upon evil.  Resisting them is not only acceptable, but expected and even commanded.  I’ve even demonstrated that when Jesus commanded his disciples to sell their robe and buy a sword, he was quite literally commanding them to arm themselves in violation of the law.  He was commanding them to become law breakers in order to effect self defense.  That’s how seriously God takes this issue.

The position of judge and ruler is a terrible position because they will answer before God for what they do, and if they push it far enough, they may answer before men in time and space before they ever get to God.  But always remember, if you are a ruler or judge who happens to be reading this.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is watching you and will judge with a righteous judgment.  There is no escape from His laws or the day of judgment, and no fealty to a document, interpretation, or political bias will be allowed as excuse or justification for your high handed sin against God.

Bob Owens:

As tempting as it may be to turn to theological roots for the Second Amendment, the fact is the Second Amendment is a direct descendant of English Common Law. In her treatise, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition,” Joyce Lee Malcolm explains the English Bill of Rights adopted in 1689.

When William III of Orange, a protestant, invaded England in 1688 he overwhelmed James II, a Catholic, who was unable to mount an effective defense. It is important to understand that the religion of the monarch determined the religion of England. James II wisely withdrew which lead to Parliament negotiating with William, and his wife Mary, for the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. The subsequent accession, known as the Glorious Revolution, was predicated upon their acceptance of parliamentary rule.

Parliament drew up a Declaration of Rights which was signed by William and Mary on February 13, 1689 and cleared the way for them to be crowned as joint monarchs. It was that Bill of Rights our Founding Fathers used as a basis for our own Constitution.

The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 included freedom from royal interference with the law, freedom from taxation without agreement by Parliament, and freedom to have arms for defense among other stipulations. While there were significant religious overtones due to the country’s struggle to reduce the influence of Catholicism in favor of Protestantism, the Bill of Rights established the rights of individuals over the government and it is that right to bear arms for defense that was the basis for our own Constitution’s Second Amendment.

A man-made document can never … never … establish rights.  It can only recognize what has already been established by the almighty.  Bob began okay with a recitation of Scriptures, but he eventually migrated to a discussion of the second amendment.

We’ve discussed this before in detail.  The constitution is a covenant, an agreement by which men will live together, with both blessings and curses, whether explicit or implied.  Breakage of said covenant means that the covenant is null and void, just as adultery in the marriage covenant justifies divorce.

English common law is indeed the basis for much of what we live by today, or are supposed to live by.  But English common law has as its basis biblical law, because our own founders and our mother country understood that ethics and morality must be rooted in something other than might, will to power, rule of the majority or convenience.

Those roots are the Scriptures.  God gives us the right to carry weapons, even if the second amendment disappears tomorrow.  And Bob should have stopped a third of the way through his commentary.

It has been a subject of much misunderstanding, one that I have tried to clear up before.  Hitler never attempted to disarm his allies or Germans whom he believed he could trust.  Hitler wasn’t anti-gun.  Hitler was anti-gun concerning those upon whom he intended to perpetrate genocide.

… the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

The same thing happened to the Christians in Turkey in the Armenian genocide.  True to form in South Africa, where there is the beginnings of genocide against anyone who has lighter skin color, the next step is gun confiscations, and the warnings have been issued.

South African Gunowners Association ( SAGA ) has been advised that South African Police Service ( SAPS ) in the Western Cape will be conducting an operation aimed at gunowners who have failed, for whatever reason, to timeously renew their licences in respect of specific guns.

It appears that SAPS teams will be conducting ‘raids’ on targeted individuals mostly at their residences with a view to confiscating guns and ammunition.

SAGA cannot at this stage speculate as to what SAPS intends to achieve by this action, nor what other steps may be taken by SAPS at the time of such visit.

1. If you are in possession of the old green licence, that licence is still valid in terms of an Order of the High Court – a copy of this order is available from SAGA.

2. If SAPS personnel or anyone under their command, after correctly identifying themselves, and providing some form of warrant or authorization insists on taking possession of your gun, you are advised to cooperate with them while pointing out that a green licence is valid at this date. Moreover, with respect to the validity of expired White Licences you may point out that within weeks of this date various high profile court actions are due to be heard.

SAGA legal counsel believes the so-called raids and any confiscation of guns as a result thereof is possibly breaching the Firearms Control Act and other laws.

SAGA doesn’t need to speculate as to the reason for these actions.  They intend to confiscate guns, and they intend to target peaceable and law abiding men with these confiscations.

There are a couple of very important points to be made concerning this dreadful news.  First of all, LEOs will always reflexively enforce the wishes of the ruling class.  You cannot entrust your future to the state, and even now the LEOs in South Africa are ensuring the future deaths of their own culture and people.  Second, gun registries are in fact the pretext for gun confiscation, regardless of what the Fascists claim.  As I’ve explained, we’ve even seen that from American Fascists who have explained to each other the true intent of such data and information.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This happened for those who are “subjects of the Queen” a long time ago, which is why they are ripe for takeover by the Islamists and utterly powerless to stop it, even if they did have the will.  The future for the poor people of South Africa looks bleak.

So too does the future for the poor people of Venezuela, where the communists are arming their allies.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said he will expand the number of civilians involved in armed militias, providing guns to as many as 400,000 loyalists.

The announcement came as Maduro’s opponents are gearing up for what they pledge will be the largest rally yet to press for elections and a host of other demands Wednesday.

The Bolivarian militias, currently at approximately 100,000, were created by the late Hugo Chavez to assist the armed forces in the defense of his revolution from external and domestic attacks.

Speaking to thousands of militia members dressed in beige uniforms gathered in front of the presidential palace, Maduro said that vision remains relevant as Venezuela continues to face “imperialist aggression.”

“A gun for every militiaman!” he cried.

Except not the militiamen who would overthrow him.  Collectivists know the power of armaments, and the control over them – taxation, licensing fees, data and information, approval authority over types and kinds, and ultimately authority to decide who gets to keep them – means everything to their station in life.

It goes without saying that you should husband your own possession of weapons and ammunition.  There will be no life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without them.  There may not be happiness even with them, because men who are armed are not [yet] enslaved and must make hard decisions.  But you may be able to ensure that future generations of your family enjoy the liberty they need to flourish and thrive.

Greenville News:

Law enforcement officials and anti-violence activists are blasting a state proposal that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns — concealed or openly — without a permit or any training, saying it would endanger police and the general public.

“It would create opportunities for additional violence to occur,” said Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller.

Greenville County Sheriff Will Lewis said in an email that he supports a resolution by the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association endorsing training for anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon and opposing changes in current law.

Supporters of the bill, meanwhile, are returning fire, claiming that so-called constitutional carry, or open carry, would cut down on crime.

“States that have put open carry into place have seen a reduction in crime,” said state Rep. Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville. “They’ve not seen an escalation in gun violence.”

[ … ]

Miller, the Greenville police chief, noted that the measure is opposed by both the S.C. Police Chiefs Association and the S.C. Sheriff’s Association.

He said the proposal could lead to more police confrontations with people carrying guns.

“So now everybody is authorized to carry a gun, and guns tend to draw out other guns,” Miller said. “It will create opportunities for police shootings or for police officers or deputies to get hurt more.”

When guns are right at hand, simple arguments can easily escalate, resulting in tragedy, Miller said.

As for Miller’s argument, he’s lying.  He doesn’t really believe that or he would take weapons away from his own officers because their interactions escalate and guns draw more guns.

No, here is why Miller and the other LEOs don’t want this.  As we’ve seen before, it’s all about the money.  They’ve even said so for us all to see.  Follow the money.  It’s money and control, but this is redundant.

It’s about brand new Dodge Chargers, fancy comms gear, new AR-15s, body armor, and jobs for people who would otherwise have to go find gainful employment in the real workplace.

Fortunately, the current Governor, Henry McMaster, supports constitutional carry.

S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster Friday endorsed a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

“Governor McMaster appreciates the House’s hard work on this bill, believes it is constitutional and will sign it if it reaches his desk,” said McMaster spokesman Brian Symmes.

Signing the pro-gun bill would appeal to gun advocates who vote in the 2018 Republican primary for the governor, when McMaster will be seeking a four-year term.

The proposal, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, calls for what often is referred to as “constitutional carry.” The bill would allow those who legally can own a firearm to carry it concealed without a government-issued permit.

It also allows for open carry, which means weapons holders could carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm to prohibited locations and while committing a crime.

The S.C. House passed the plan last week, despite objections from some representatives that that House Republicans pushed the proposal through without debate or public input.

With four weeks left in the regular legislative session, the bill still has to make its way through the S.C. Senate before it can go to McMaster’s desk.

However, Democrats in the Senate — where individual members have more power — still could block the bill.

It’s difficult to know if his support is temporary, knowing that he will get elected and then be able to jettison the very gun rights advocates who helped him get elected, or genuine and legitimate heartfelt support.  But at the moment these are his words.  Of course democrats can try to block this legislation, and republicans might use that as a stalling tactic.

Either way, if republicans and the governor really want this bill, they can get it, and we all know that.  We’re privy to their games.  The governor can refuse to sign anything else until this bill is brought to his desk, and the republicans can shut down debate just like the House did.

But be careful.  If this turns out to be yet another false flag event to appease gun owners like in the past, we will know.  And we never forget.  Just ask Larry Martin about that.  Remember that while the debate about whether this increases or reduces crime might be an interesting sidebar – I can tell you since I live in a “gold star” open carry state that LEOs will be embarrassed and humiliated by their opposition to this just like they were in Texas when they see the statistics – this isn’t about statistics.

This is about God-given rights.  Choose wisely, gentlemen.

Via Uncle, the NRA On British Gun Laws.

[Knives] are mostly out, especially by present-day U.S. standards. Almost anything foldable and over three inches is a no-no to have on your person, to say nothing of using them defensively …

[As for tactical batons] forget it: These are prohibited by name/type where we traveled, and as “law enforcement only” gear in many other locales …

OC spray is out too: “We found a relatively stupid substitute for sale in Britain, and if some clown is incoming with a bladed or striking weapon, you might have a trivially better chance at evading him. That is assuming, of course, that you can hit your target, and that he isn’t moving too fast for you to escape his momentum—a more injurious problem than many suppose, by the way. At least these dye your assailant for several days and aid apprehension. How this ameliorates a life-changing, closed-head injury, we don’t quite see.”

Basically, as British soldier Lee Rigby found out, the British are left defenseless against the onslaught of the Islamists or anyone else, and that’s the way the elitists in the U.K. want the commoners to be.  Defenseless.

And for that reason, you understand, my British readers, why eventually you will move from England or be swept up into the Islamist’s circle.  You will be converted or killed, your women will wear hijabs or be raped, and your sons will visit Mosques for prayer.

And it’s why we here in America aren’t subjects of the Queen.  Gun control was the catalyst for the American war of independence.  Never forget that.  If anyone forgets it, that scene may be repeated, i.e., where gun control becomes the catalyst for another war.

Someone named Bob Cesca wrote as idiotic an article at Salon as you will ever read.  That’s not what interests me.  What does interest me is the comment thread, in which Jason Koskey says this.

Because we empower them to take lives. They are one of the few professions entrusted with such an awesome responsibility.

It’s simply a matter of fact that guns are offensive. Yes, you may successful shoot someone before they shoot you. That’s still offence, not defence. Guns have no defensive properties.

He’s referring to LEOs here with regards to his comment.  We “empower them to take lives!”  Forget for a moment that if guns have no defensive properties (?), LEOs would have no business carrying them to begin with.

Or perhaps that presupposes the consequent, or begs the question.  Perhaps Jason believes that cops need guns not for self defense, but only in order to do society’s bidding to take lives.  Forget due process, forget equal protection.  LEOs take lives.  That’s their purpose according to Jason.

This is a stark reminder concerning what collectivists think, and how far they’ve gone down the road to statism and serfdom.  That in Tennessee versus Garner the Supreme Court said that LEOs can only use firearms in self defense (and not to fire on someone like an escaping prisoner) is irrelevant.  That the SCOTUS said that cops have weapons for the very same reason civilians have them, i.e., personal protection, doesn’t matter to Jason.

Cops are empowered to take lives according to Jason.  Pity the fool who turns to the state for his well being.  The state cares nothing for him or his life.

CATO:

California law generally bans the possession of a gun within a school zone. For many years, however, both retired peace officers and those with a license to carry concealed weapons were exempted from this ban. Then in 2015, a bill was proposed that would have eliminated both of these exceptions. But after extensive lobbying by interest groups aligned with federal workers and police officers, the bill was amended to remove only the exception for concealed-carry licensees.

Dr. Ulises Garcia is one such license holder, who obtained his license after receiving threats against himself from a former patient. After the change in the law, Garcia can no longer carry his weapon for protection when attending school events with his family. Garcia and a group of other plaintiffs have sued, arguing that the differing treatment afforded to retired peace officers and concealed-carry license holders violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The federal district court rejected their claims, and they have now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting Garcia and urging that the district court be reversed.

The guffaws normally get roared when one has the temerity to suggest that LEOs and gun owners get treated the same way.  I recall a discussion I had with retired California LEOs over reddit/r/guns where they couldn’t believe I didn’t support the idea of changes to laws to allow former or retired California LEOs to purchase their weapons – including AR-15s – for personal use once they no longer work for law enforcement.

Not only that, I don’t even support the notion of LEOs having those weapons at all even in the line of duty unless civilians can also have them.  What’s good for one is good for the other.  Wearing a blue costume and wearing a badge doesn’t bestow rights not already recognized in the constitution.

As for the fact that LEOs has sworn an oath, so have I.  I swore an oath to protect, defend and provide for my family when I said “I do.”