History Repeating….

 So Biden is once again trying to force medical practitioners to perform procedures that violate their First Amendment right to religion, their beliefs, and their sincerely held religious convictions.

“Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion - NOT WORSHIP, as Barack and Hillary tried to spin it, RELIGION].”

Congress can make no law infringing on this right, and the president cannot set it aside through executive order. 

The Supreme Court determined generations ago that any law affecting First Amendment rights must apply strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means the government must prove that the law meets a compelling government interest based on OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE DATA, and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means possible. It is the most difficult benchmark to satisfy. While the government may argue that it has a compelling interest in making abortion or other objectionable procedures accessible, the least restrictive standard means individual practitioners may not be compelled to violate their religious convictions; an individual is free to find other practitioners who are willing to provide the desired procedure. It is that simple.

A Choice Between Americans….

 “‘We did not forget about Brittney, and we have not forgotten about Paul,’ Biden said. ‘This was not a choice of which American to bring home’.”

Bull.

Whelan is just a straight, white, working class, dime a dozen, military veteran citizen with no particular political significance to Biden, while Griner is a black, lesbian, professional basketball player of significantly more political importance to him.

This was EXACTLY “a choice of which American to bring home.”  And they released a man who is a threat to our security to make it happen.

There is a reason why the Russians were willing to let Griner go.  Russia views the US as morally bankrupt, a condition that they believe will eventually lead to our downfall and a Russian victory over us.  They are letting Griner come back to the US as both a perceived victim and a perceived hero - because of which, one who will influence others, particularly young people, to support and participate in her perversion to further the moral demise of the US.

And they aren’t wrong.  Griner’s return WILL contribute to the continued moral decline of the US.

Well done, Mr. President.  Well done.

Trump And The Constitution….

 So now former Pres. Trump says the election provisions of the Constitution should be suspended to place him in office, still alleging widespread election fraud.

Which leads one to ask, if he is willing to suspend the election provisions of the Constitution to put himself back in office, what might he be willing to do to STAY in office should he win another election? Might he be willing to suspend the 22nd Amendment to give himself UNLIMITED terms of office, a LIFETIME presidency, set himself uo as dictator?!

The Effectiveness Of Gun Control….

So Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked by an intruder armed with a hammer, apparently as a result of his relationship to the speaker.  

Such attacks in ANY context are reprehensible beyond words.

Nevertheless, how proud Nancy must be that her lifetime of fighting for increased gun control has been so effective.

While she enjoys round the clock armed security, her 80-something husband was left to fend for himself against a much younger armed intruder, relying only on a phone and coded messages to law enforcement, HOPING they would be able to determine that an emergency situation existed (and not just hang up on him as a crank call or inadvertent pocket dial), wasting precious time in the meantime as they made that determination.

Well done, madame speaker, well done.  The results of your work came home to roost.

Now let’s see if they get a waiver for him to have a gun in the house, or it they determine that this billionaire is entitled to taxpayer funded armed security as a result of his relationship to Speaker Pelosi.

But He’s A GOOD Boy….

Excuse me, by Hunter’s OWN WRITTEN, PUBLISHED CONFESSION, he is guilty of lying on a NICS background check regarding his illicit drug use.  That is a federal felony carrying a 10 year sentence; being a user of illegal drugs while in possession of a firearm is a five year felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm is a ten year federal felony.

Pres. Biden has made a career pushing for gun control and gun bans, but now he wants his son exempted from the results of those laws.  Other people who have started new lives have still had to face the consequences of their previous choices; the fact that Hunter is the president’s son shouldn’t change that.  

Since his confession is published, this is as close to a slam dunk case as cases come.

We’ll deal with Hunter’s collusion with the Chinese another time….

The Hypocrisy Of DACA….

An editorial pushing for the codification of DACA made the following observation as its rationale: “[A]n adult who illegally comes across the border is making a calculated decision, while a child brought across by their parents had no choice in the matter.”

And therein lies the basic problem. ANY crime committed by parents effects the children.

There are NO exceptions.

And yet, the only children for whom I see these activists expressing ANY concern are so-called “dreamers”.

Kids suffer when their parents commit crimes every day in this country, and yet, I don’t see anyone calling for them to receive preferential treatment.  The fact that they suffer as a result of the crimes of their parents is accepted as a matter of fact.  

It’s no more than they deserve.

So if suffering is no more than the children of citizens deserve, why do the children of illegals deserve preferential treatment?

The Omnibus Strikes Again….

The omnibus budget bill strikes once again.

Yesterday, September 26, 2022, A new gun control law went into affect. It was a law nobody, myself included, knew had been passed.  Known as the NICS Denial Notification Act, gun grabbers attempted to pass it as a standalone bill in 2021. They weren’t successful. Never made it out of committee.

So instead, they did what they have done in the past: attached it as an amendment to a massive budget bill. The budget bill was passed.

This new bill, which went into affect yesterday, requires firearms dealers to supply law enforcement with the names and addresses of individuals who are denied on firearms background checks. This is actually done automatically via the NICS background check system.

On the surface, this appears to be a logical system. After all, you wouldn’t be denied on a background check unless you had something criminal in your history. Someone like that shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. 

But here’s the rub: speaking from experience, I can tell you with assurance that the background check system is riddled with an accuracy. 98% of denials are overturned on appeal, meaning that the individual who received the denial was NEVER GUILTY OF ANYTHING in the first place. You may be denied if your name is similar or identical to that of a criminal.  This is especially concerning in a day and age in which identity theft is out of control. You may never have done anything criminal in your life, yet on the basis of this background check you can be denied you’re right to purchase a firearm, and once more, the moment you are denied YOU BECOME LEGALLY INELIGIBLE TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS - period.  In point of fact, at this moment, law enforcement can come to your home and confiscate all of your firearms – even though you personally have done nothing wrong. It is now up to you to prove that you are innocent; there is no presumption of innocence, no innocent until proven guilty.  You are presumed to be guilty until you prove otherwise.

Yes, there is a process to appeal a denial, one that generally takes months to work through, and if law enforcement confiscated your firearms(I fully expect that a number of more “progressive” jurisdictions to take full advantage of this law to do just that), you will, in many instances, have to sue to get them back.

Mr. President, Reinstate The Fairness Doctrine….

Mr. President:

Reinstate the fairness doctrine.  

If you are truly as concerned with the polarization of this country as you claim to be, then one of the best steps you can take is to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

The fairness doctrine required media outlets to present BOTH SIDES of controversial issues.  Since the final demise of the doctrine in 2011, media outlets have been free to promote pet agendas, singular points of view.  The elimination of this rule has been cited in research as a major contributing factor in the rise of polarization we witness today.

IF you are as concerned with the polarization of the country as you claim to be, it is within your authority to issue an executive order requiring the FCC, as a federal agency under your immediate authority, to reinstate and enforce the fairness doctrine.

If we are going to address extremism in all of its forms, it begins with ensuring that people have access to UNBIASED INFORMATION REGARDING BOTH SIDES of controversial issues.  The media play a major role in that endeavor.

Please take a moment to sign my petition:

https://chng.it/q4nkq8B5bq

Turn About Is Fair Play….?

Mr. President, Madam Vice-President, Gov. Newsom, et al:

I guess no one in the general public has stopped to think that all the Republicans did was turn the Democrats’ playbook against them.  

For over 50 years the Democrats have used busing to solve problems. They bused inner-city kids to surrounding white school districts where the kids weren’t wanted, causing chaos in those school systems. And oh yeah, no one stopped to ask those inner-city kids if they wanted to be shipped out to those surrounding school districts, you just did it. 

During the Obama administration unaccompanied alien children and illegal aliens were bused from detention and processing centers in the border states to cities in the north, where they were dropped off without asking them if that’s where they wanted to go, and without asking the cities if they wanted them in the first place. It caused chaos. 

Now the Republicans have found a way to raise awareness of an issue by using the Democrats own playbook against them: busing illegal aliens to the cities and states where legislators are shouting the loudest to throw the borders open. They’re not asking the aliens if they want to go, they’re not asking the receiving cities whether they want them, they’re just doing what the Democrats did: shipping them. 

Predictably, it’s doing what it did when the democrats did it: causing chaos.

So it was OK for the democrats to do it, but not the republicans.

9/11: NEVER Forget….

I was at home when the 911 attacks occurred.  I received a call from my wife, who was at work and, as was her custom at the time, had a television going in her classroom with the news. She called to tell me to turn on the TV: “A plane just flew into one of the twin towers of the world trade center. They don’t know if it was an accident or if it was on purpose.“ I turned on the TV just in time to see the second jet fly into the second tower.

Kinda removed all the questions about whether it was an accident…

As was the case with many people across the country, I spent the next several hours watching the coverage of the events as they unfolded that day.

We live right around the corner from one of the mosques  in Grand Rapids, about 500 feet away as the crow flies. They called an emergency meeting in response to the attacks, and while most of the congregants were crammed inside their little building, there was a group of young men who gathered in the intersection seventy five feet from my front yard, and they were whooping it up in celebration. I don’t care what the news says, I know what I saw that day. 

There were people celebrating the attacks.  

In my home town.

In my neighborhood.

On my street.

I saw it with my own eyes.

That scene is burned into my memory.

More misinformation from Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and Bloomberg shill.

This is in reference to the heroic action taken by Elisjsha Dicken to stop a mass shooting:

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but when a 22-year-old illegally brings a loaded gun into a mall and kills a mass shooter armed with an AR-15 after he already killed three people and wounded others is not a ringing endorsement of our implementation of the Second Amendment,”

First, think about that statement.  Gun controller Watts would rather have seen the mass shooter given free rein to kill more people rather than be stopped by a good guy with a gun.  How messed up is that?!

But here is the misinformation that so many will unquestioningly accept as fact: she states that Dicken “illegally” brought a loaded gun into the mall.  To say this is a massive lie is an understatement.  Unless the law designates a location as a “gun free” zone, IT ISN’T ILLEGAL TO CARRY A FIREARM THERE.

Some locations have declared themselves “gun free”; they have posted signs indicating this.  But in Indiana, as is true for the vast majority of states, such signs DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE IF LAW; they are essentially house rules.  The same is true of Michigan.  Now, if you happen to get caught carrying your firearm in these places, you can be trespassed, asked to leave the premises and not return.  If you refuse to leave, police can be called and you can be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.  If you return after being asked to leave you can be charged.   But carrying a firearm  in violation of what is essentially a house rule IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Shannon Watts is hoping that people won’t question her, will take her at face value when she says Dicken committed a crime when he stopped the mass shooter.

But her accusation actually goes farther than that.

You see, a claim of self defense under a stand your ground defense assumes that the defender isn’t committing a crime himself when he uses deadly force.  While Watts doesn’t actually say the words, that is the true gist of her statement: she wants him to be prosecuted for stopping a mass shooting, for saving lives.  Watts would rather see innocent people die while waiting for police to respond than to see an obviously prepared and well-trained lawful firearms carrier come to the rescue.Just how messed up is THAT?!

Now That The Forensic Results Are In….

Now that the FBI has stated categorically that Alec Baldwin's gun could not have fired if he hadn't squeezed the trigger, he's getting desperate to prove others are to blame - based (selectively) on Hollywood filming rules.

Fine.  Let's see what the Actors' Equity Association rules say:

Rule 1: "* Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible." Oh, big no no there.

Rule 2: "* TREAT ALL GUNS AS IF THEY ARE LOADED AND DEADLY."  

Rule 4: "* The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. BE HONEST IF YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF GUNS. Do not overstate your qualifications." 

Rule 8: "* NEVER POINT A FIREARM AT ANYONE INCLUDING YOURSELF. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. IF ASKED TO POINT AND SHOOT DIRECTLY AT A LIVING TARGET, CONSULT WITH THE PROPERTY MASTER OR ARMORER for the prescribed safety procedures."  He had an obligation TO SEEK OUT HELP AND GUIDANCE.

Rule 11: "* Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired."  Not done.

Lucky rule 13: "* CHECK THE FIREARM EVERY TIME YOU TAKE POSSESSION OF IT. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and THEN ASK TO TEST FIRE IT YOURSELF. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."  “But I didn’t have an obligation to check the firearm, that’s the prop master’s job.”  WRONG!  Even Hollywood recognizes the individual’s obligation to check the gun.

Bolding/all caps added for emphasis.

BTW, Baldwin can’t claim ignorance of proper firearms handling.  He has been coached on safe firearms use over the more than 30 years he has been handling them in movies by some of the best armorers in the industry.  He got full of himself and lazy.

Baldwin violated each and every one of these rules.  Even Hollywood rules say he has a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to practice certain safe handling rules.

Baldwin is guilty as sin, and he knows it.

One Can’t Prevent What One Isn’t Present To Prevent….

I recently responded to an editorial in which the author, a psychiatrist, argued that very few good guys with guns have stopped mass shootings.

He made the following statement: “Which brings me to the spate of mass shootings. If those numbers are right, it’s extremely likely that there were at least some “good guys (or women)” with guns at most of the mass shootings we’ve heard about over the past few years.”

This is an assumption, an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact.  He assumes that there MUST have been firearms carriers at the sites of many mass shootings, but they were too cowardly to intervene.  He conveniently ignores that most mass shootings take place at sites designated “weapons free”.  

Lawful firearms carriers are scrupulous about observing conditions of entry; they aren’t going to do anything that would jeopardize their right to carry.  

The result?  

Whether the “weapons free” designation carries the force of law (applicable in only a few states) or not (as is the case in the majority of states, Michigan being one of them), the majority of firearms carriers will either 1) secure their firearms in a lockbox in their vehicle or 2) find someplace else to shop.  

The end result?  

At the vast majority of mass shootings, there were no lawful carriers present.  Good guys with guns can’t prevent what they aren’t present to prevent.

So what this gun control advocate is really arguing, while being too ignorant to realize it, is that “gun free” zones HAVE been effective in stopping firearms carry.  The problem is, they are stopping the WRONG PEOPLE from carrying.

Another Open Letter To The January 6 Committee….

 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee: 

Former Pres. Trump has requested immunity for his role in the January 6 debacle.

Take it for what it its: an admission of guilt.

If he were not guilty, it would be unnecessary for him to seek immunity for his role in spurring on his supporters to storm the nation’s capitol.

In requesting immunity, he has effectively admitted that he is responsible for setting a hoard loose in an effort to prevent the votes from being certified.

Charge him and arrest him, immediately.

An Open Letter To The January 6 Commission….

To the ladies and gentlemen of the January 6 Commission:

Enough already. 

We, the taxpayers, are tired of hearing report after report after report telling us that you have overwhelming evidence that former President Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection among other crimes, but doing nothing about it.

I have no doubt that you have overwhelming evidence of his crimes. I heard the man’s rhetoric in the months leading up to the January 6 incident. 

I have no doubt that he tried to interfere with the election and the certification of the results.

I have no doubt that he wished for a civil war that would place him on a throne.

He is still trying, two years down the road, to overturn the results of the last election.

I have no doubt that fears that he will create a new deep state comprised of his loyalists are well-founded.

I have no doubt that former President Trump has all the makings of a dictator.

I have no doubt that former President Trump is guilty of everything for which he is being investigated.

On that note, if, indeed, you are going not going to charge him because of fears that doing so will lead to civil unrest or even civil war, then end of the charade, publish your findings, and stop wasting our money. Put it on the record publicly that he is guilty of inciting insurrection and other crimes.  But it’s time to fish or cut bait. 

Hopefully you are able to do SOMETHING that will make it impossible for him to run for the presidency again.

Give Foster Kids A Chance….

 

Marbury vs Madison: Implications For Today….

The Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs Madison, is best known for its declaration, “… an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”

In other words, a law that violates the Constitution is unenforceable.

But Marbury v Madison does more than declare unConstitutional laws void.  It also declares that the only proper method  to understand and interpret the Constitution is Constitutional Constructionism with emphasis on original meaning. In dealing with the question of whether the legislature can change Constitutional rights just by passing laws, it notes, “But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.” This court case DESTROYS the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” that can be changed just by writing a new law.

This case is one of the most important ever decided by the SCOTUS: 

1) it declared that the federal government was to be limited in scope BY DESIGN (“This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written….”); 

2) it declares Constitutional constructionism/originalism to be the ONLY valid method to determine the Constitution’s meaning; 

3) it declares that the Constitution is NOT a “living document”, it is “a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means…”. It CAN be changed, but it must be changed CONSTITUTIONALLY - by means of the amendment process.

Every Constitutional constructionist/ originalist should have this opinion in their files, and it should be required reading for every government class AND EVERY LEGISLATOR WHO RAISES HIS/HER HAND AND SWEARS TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

The text can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

Russian “Referendums” In Alaska?

“State Duma Vice Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy proposed holding a referendum in Alaska, Volodin said, according to RBC.”

That dog don’t hunt, comrade.

Assuming you could somehow force a referendum in Alaska, you ain’t got enough loyal russkies living there to vote for your takeover.  And I’ll guarantee armed Alaskans will put up an even bigger fight than you have seen in Ukraine.

There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

The Beat Goes On… And On, And On….

 OK, I have to make the observation.

Again.

I initially posted this in April; I repost it now, updated with more recent examples.

A black man in Ohio is recently pulled over for a routine traffic stop.  Whether he fired a single shot from his vehicle before fleeing is in question.  The chief of police for that department, who readily acknowledges that the driver was unarmed when he fled, after viewing video from THIRTEEN body cams admits he did not see the movement that put his officers in fear for their lives as they chased the driver.  At least 90 shots are fired, 60 of which hit Jayland Walker; officers continued firing after he was down.  He was unarmed.  What appears to be an unloaded glock 43x is recovered from the front seat of the  vehicle; the loaded magazine is on the seat next to the gun, not inserted in the gun.  It is impossible to determine from the police photo if the gun had actually been fired.

On July 4, a white man with a long history posting violent content on social media and in the music videos he produces as a rapper shoots into an Independence Day parade in Chicago, killing 6 (so far) and injuring dozens more.  He also runs from police, but is apprehended without a single shot being fired.  He will face trial with all of his Constitutional rights in tact and protected.

I get it - different law enforcement agencies, different policies, different cultures.  That may factor in to some small degree, but nationally this is a reality that is beyond disturbing: white suspects, even obviously dangerous ones, apprehended safely while black suspects, even unarmed, are assumed to be a threat to life and limb and injured or killed outright.  I wish I could say that such disparate outcomes are rare, but they aren’t, and I am tired and angry that they continue.  

I back the Blue; I also expect the Blue to do better - to police THEMSELVES for problem officers.

End the war on crime.

Return to Serve and Protect.

Pro-Death - As Long As It’s On THEIR Terms….

Amazing, isn’t it.  

People are ready to riot and rampage to protect a right that was created 50 years ago, recently overturned, and resulted in over 60 million deaths during its lifetime.

On the other hand, those same people are willing to riot, rampage, and even change the Constitution to shut down an explicit right that has been abused to cause a fraction of the deaths caused by abortion over the 230 year history of the Second Amendment.

They’re pro-death - as long as it’s on THEIR terms.

Words Have Meaning….

Ok, given the ongoing debate regarding gun control, I’m going to repost a response I just gave for the following contrarian post: “the language of the 2D does not mention firearms.”

You are absolutely right.  It doesn’t mention any SPECIFIC weapon.  It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”

The word, Arms, btw, is spelled with a capital A in the original text.

Arms.

Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published in 1755. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons and explosives used in fighting wars”

Merriam and Webster: “a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense, especially : FIREARM”

Oxford dictionary: “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”

MacMillan Dictionary: “weapons, for example guns or bombs”

BTW, the word, arms, is short for the word, armaments.

Definition for the word, armaments.

Oxford Dictionary: “military weapons and equipment.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: “Weapons, arms”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons or military equipment”

Notice anything?  Contrary to current definitions, the word, Arms, as used in the Second Amendment, refers specifically to MILITARY WEAPONS owned by and in the hands of PRIVATE CITIZENS.

“…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

BTW, this destroys Biden’s continuing lie that the Second Amendment placed limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be owned by civilians.

The Agenda Over All….

 If this doesn’t speak to the agenda, I don’t know what does: “‘They want to view the signatures to make sure they’re legal before turning them into the state,’ volunteer Barbra Reinoehl said.”

To what does this refer?

This quote is from a WOOD TV report regarding the signature drive being conducted in Michigan to put abortion on the ballot in November.  They’re taking special care to ensure that the signatures are valid.

But employing such measures to ensure that signatures on ballots during elections are valid is an infringement and burden.

And ensuring that the signatures on the forms for the top three contenders for the repub primary were valid was a bother.  In fact, the signature gatherers COUNTERFEITED signatures, resulting in the elimination of these candidates and ensuring that Gov. Whitmer would be running against weaker candidates.

I guess whether validating signatures is a burden and infringement depends on the agenda….

An Open Letter To Senators Peters, Stabenow….

 And any other legislator that needs to hear this.

Senators,

Here’s a novel idea: instead of splitting hairs about what constitutes a boyfriend or intimate partner, why don’t we simplify things? 

If you have ever been the subject of a restraining order due to violence, regardless of your relationship to the individual who filed for it, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm until  your record has been expunged and you can provide documentation of the successful completion of required treatment.  Failing that, you are a prohibited individual. Is that simple enough? 

And while we’re at it, eliminate the three business day provision (this is NOT A LOOPHOLE, it is an explicit provision) in the Brady Act.  Again, make it simple.  Until the NICS system gives a Proceed, a firearm may not be transferred.  Is THAT simple enough?

I am sick and tired of the hair splitting that goes on.  These two suggested provisions are as simple as they come.

Now get it done.

A Response To Matthew McConaughey….

I appreciate the thoughtful way you presented your ideas regarding a responsible approach to firearms safety.

I am a former federal officer, a firearm salesperson for one of the nation’s largest FFLs, a father of two sons, the husband of a middle school teacher, and a lawful, law-abiding firearms owner.

I would like to respond to some of the ideas that you presented - and present an idea that you DIDN’T address.

First, dealing with a sensationalized media is NOT a long term problem, it is, in fact, a driving factor in mass shootings that can and MUST be addressed immediately.  The infamy achieved by these shooters is documented to be one of the goals of many mass shooters, their way to achieve notoriety and some form of immortality.  A media that sensationalizes and rationalizes coverage of mass shooting events in the name of “the public right to know” is at the foundation of the uptick in mass shootings.  This is easily solved by adopting an approach to reporting such events that minimizes: they are reported factually and without editorializing, they are covered as any other crime, and the attacker’s identity is minimized - in contrast to the almost celebrity manner in which they are covered now, with every detail of their lives being put on display.

Sensationalized media also leads to the misconception to which you gave publicity: the AR-15 is NOT the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters.  That is a notion driven by a media intent on 1) sensationalizing mass shooter events and 2) pushing an agenda favored by liberal politicians to vilify and eventually ban scary looking black guns.  According to Amnesty International, mass shootings comprise less than 1% of all deaths involving firearms.  According to the National Institutes for Justice, fewer than 1% of ALL shootings taking place in the US involve a rifle of any kind; shootings utilizing so-called “assault rifles” comprise a fraction of that single percentage point.  The weapon of choice in 77% of mass shootings is, in fact, the humble and ubiquitous semi automatic handgun.  But because of the sensationalized media coverage you correctly identified as part of the problem, you and many others have bought into the notion that modern sporting rifles are the weapons of choice.  To that point, neither a minimum age of 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL nor mandatory waiting periods in several states have stopped underage or adult mass shooters from acquiring handguns; why do you assume such a limitation will have a different effect on the acquisition of AR-15s?

Second, I DO believe that so-called “red flag” laws have some validity.  

I do believe there are some people who shouldn't have firearms.  As a firearms salesman I have stopped a number of transactions over the years because I believed safety would be at risk if I allowed the transaction to proceed.

I believe certain, well-defined individuals should have the right to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals when they truly pose a risk to themselves and those around them; I DON'T believe this provision should be accorded to everyone who gets a hair crosswise or simply has a bias against firearms.  THAT is the danger inherent in such a provision, and in my years as a firearms salesman, I have witnessed just such attempts.

I will get behind this provision IF - and that's a ****HUGE**** if - DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED.

Contrary to what Donald Trump said while he was still in office, due process rights come FIRST.  We don't take the firearms early and worry about due process later.

The Fourth Amendment still states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, ***but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***", EMPHASIS ADDED.

The Fifth Amendment likewise still states, "No person shall...  be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law...", all caps added.

These aren't suggestions, they are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

GUARANTEE that those CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS will be honored TO THE LETTER and I will get behind this provision.

Third, it is an established fact that 77% of mass shooters acquired their firearms from FFLs LEGALLY, meaning that they passed background checks to get them.  In some few instances, the shooter was able to take advantage of the PROVISION - NOT a loophole - in the Brady Act that allows for the transfer of a firearm after three business days in the absence of a final determination from the NICS system.  The distinction between loophole and provision is not merely semantic, it is substantial.  A provision is a consideration explicitly written into the verbiage of a law.  A loophole, by definition, is a gray area in a law: an area of ambiguity of verbiage or an omission that may be manipulated.  I AM in favor of eliminating the three day provision currently existing in the Brady Act to mandate that a firearm transfer may not take place unless and until the NICS system delivers a determination.

Further, before enacting so-called “universal” background checks, fix the current system.  Report after report in the aftermath of mass shootings reveal numerous prior interviews with law enforcement due to reported concerns, psychological evaluations, reported concerns from school officials, even military  service-related failures to report incidents of domestic violence and other mental and behavioral issues, etc.  All of these things are already required by law to be entered into the NICS background check system - but in many instances, they aren’t, and there are seemingly no efforts to rectify this.  As 77% of firearms used in mass shootings were obtained after passing a background check, this one fix alone would prevent many mass shooters from acquiring their firearms.  And for the record, the existence of HIPAA laws has ZERO bearing on this: an exception to HIPAA to allow reporting of medically significant concerns into the NICS system was engineered into the law.  In other words, ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books.  Stop allowing states to pick and choose what data they will report.  And stop allowing criminals to plead out of weapons charges. What’s the use having the laws - or creating new ones - if they aren’t enforced?

Finally, there is one other action that must be taken immediately to address mass shootings - but you aren’t likely to support it.  Immediately repeal the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

That this is the case is hardly a new revelation.  The eighteenth century criminologist, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, recognized this fact in  1764:

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” emphasis added.

This realization is echoed by Thomas Paine in his Thoughts on Defensive War:

“…The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation [or criminal - added] refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”

Even the left-leaning think tank, the Rand Corp., posted this statement to their website regarding the effect of “gun free” zones:

“… [I]f the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.”

There is a saying: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make them safe.  The corollary to that saying is: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make criminals less dangerous.  Thirty years of experimenting with so-called “gun free” zones have affirmed the veracity of this saying.  A study of active shooter events by security experts experts found that such individuals seek out “gun free” zones. The fact is, criminals do not typically attack targets with low probabilities of success, which is why they don’t attack gun shows, gun dealerships, and most banks.

Eliminate “gun free” zones - IMMEDIATELY.

I also believe in responsible firearms ownership.  I am trained, I continue to train, and any firearms that I am not actually carrying are secured - not because I fear my sons getting their hands on them, but as a safeguard in case someone breaks into my home, to make it more difficult for a criminal to steal my firearms.

But RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership is also INFORMED ownership.

Meaning no disrespect, you need to become better informed.

The Continuing Need For The Militia In The USA….

More and more I am seeing letters to the editor expressing the opinion that, because we have a standing military, we no longer need the militia.  Such opinions demonstrate the ignorance of our history that has become so rampant in this country.

As the writings of many of the Founders evidence, the militia was stood up and specifically protected by the Constitution as a direct response to the decision to implement a standing army.  The Founders were split on the need for a standing army, with some siding with George Washington, who argued for a standing army, and others siding with Hamilton, who, based on his understanding of European history, indeed, WORLD history, understood that a standing army is ALWAYS, eventually used against the citizens it was intended to protect, opposed a standing army.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist," Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788.

“To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them," George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops," Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of," James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country," James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them," Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun," Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction," St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them," Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins," Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789.

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair," Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28.

Finally, to address the lie that the president continues to tell, that the Second Amendment limits the weapons that may be owned by citizens,

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms," Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, emphasis added.

The militia exists to act as a firewall against a standing military acting on the orders of a government run amok; a war on the citizens of the United States is the one war the United States Military hopes never to wage.

And lest you buy into the delusion enunciated by the president that, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons," I provide the following list:

• Afghanistan (Soviet Union and United States)
• Vietnam (France and United States)
• England (colonial militia and Continental Army)

These are just a few of the more notable historical instances in which badly outgunned groups went up against vastly superior forces armed with the latest in weapons - and won.

The militia exists because the Founders deemed it to be necessary - and it remains necessary.