"Everytown for Gun Safety" Inadvertently Creates Pro-firearm Ad...

There is a good chance that you have seen this disturbing ad:

The intended purpose of this ad is to illustrate that many women are killed by an intimate partner and demonstrate the need for more gun control - specifically, to put pressure on legislators to support the newly introduced Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, which would force states to confiscate the firearm of any person under a restraining order.

Instead, this ad serves to illustrate what those of us in the Pro-Second Amendment community have been saying for years:  taking away one's right to their own defense protects no one - particularly women.

First, it illustrates that a restraining order is just a piece of paper with no real legal authority.  The Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, states that police are not obligated to enforce a restraining order and that "… the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Second, it illustrates that, when motivated, there is nothing to prevent a bad guy from obtaining a weapon.

Third, it illustrates the adage, "when second count, police are minutes away."  In the narrative illustrated by this ad, in the time it takes for the woman to call 911 and begin to answer the questions of the operator, the estranged husband has already gained access to the house, pulled his firearm, and, presumable, pulled the trigger.  The average 911 response time in the town in which I live is 18 minutes; in other cities that time has exceeded 25 minutes, and in rural areas response times regularly exceed 45 minutes.

Finally, the ad demonstrates the conclusion reached by the majority in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." 

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

 Everytown has, with this ad, done an admirable job explaining the pro-Second Amendment position on the necessity to provide for one's own protection.

Dr. Ben Carson For President...

I received an email today from runbenrun.org, an organization set up with the purpose of drafting Dr. Ben Carson to run for the presidency in 2016.  This is an email I sent to the organization explaining why, at this moment, I cannot support a Carson candidacy:

John,

In many ways, I am in favor of Dr. Carson running for president.  In fact, I STRONGLY supported the idea of drafting him to run for president.

Then I heard him give his stance on the Second Amendment; it is unsupportable.

This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck Show less than a month ago:

Dr. Carson: "Uh, guns, there's a reason for the Second Amendment. People DO have the right to have weapons. With this argument that's been going on, the way we solve it is we ask what is each side afraid of, and then we address it that way."

Glenn Beck: "Do I have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

Dr. Carson: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (emphasis added)

Dr. Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live" | RealClearPolitics

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dana Loesch on this one. If Dr. Carson decides to run for President, his stance on the Second Amendment is a deal breaker. My right to own and carry firearms is a Constitutional right that is not up for compromise because someone is afraid of my exercise of that right, and frankly, Dr. Carson does not have the right to decide WHERE I may own a semi-automatic firearm, either.

Our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.  We already have too many politicians in Washington who are out to dismantle those rights, and Dr. Carson's willingness to consider possible limitations on those rights based on A) the fears of those who have been brainwashed to think that firearms are evil and B) where HE perceives it proper for someone to own a particular class of firearm based on his own fear regarding the potential of someone stealing it from me is something to which he will need to give SERIOUS reconsideration.

As long as he holds this stance, there are too many who will not even consider voting for him.

I'm one of them.

Sincerely,

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.

Conservative Black Leaders Give their input on the Zimmerman Verdict...

Black Conservatives Analyze Aftermath of Zimmerman Case

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are analyzing the legal aspects of the George Zimmerman verdict and commenting on the implications: