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.

Michigan H.B. 5500, Enforcement of Michigan's Pre-emption Law….

Michigan is a pre-emption state with regard to firearms ownership, carry, etc. State law pre-empts any local ordinance. The problem is, up until now there has been absolutely no way to enforce that law, which is why mayors like George Heartwell in Grand Rapids are still trying to enact gun control in any way they can and face no consequences for doing so. Here is the text of the bill, and it will be readily apparent why all those who support the Second Amendment should take the time to contact their representatives in Lansing to get this bill out of committee and onto the floor of the House for a vote.  All bolded text is proposed language:

HOUSE BILL No. 5500

April 30, 2014, Introduced by Reps. McMillin, Lyons, Shirkey, Genetski, Crawford, Hooker, Rogers, Johnson, VerHeulen, Yonker, Dianda, LaFontaine, MacMaster, Callton, Goike, Kesto and McBroom and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1990 PA 319, entitled

"An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase, sale,
transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms," (MCL 123.1101 to 123.1105) by amending the title and by adding sections 4a, 4b, and 4c.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing
certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase,
sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other
firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components
of pistols or other firearms; AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES.

SEC. 4A. NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT HAS AN EXISTING ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHALL BRING THAT ORDINANCE OR REGULATION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT.

SEC. 4B. BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION MAY BRING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THAT LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IS LOCATED.

SEC. 4C. (1) BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION BRINGS AN ACTION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4B AND THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT

OF GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE COURT SHALL DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) DECLARE THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

(B) ISSUE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(C) ORDER THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TO AMEND OR REPEAL THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(D) AWARD COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION  CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(2) IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (1), IF THE COURT DETERMINES AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION 1 OF THIS ACT, THEN THE COURT SHALL ASSESS A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 AGAINST THAT ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY THAT MAY BE ASSESSED UNDER 1966 PA 158, MCL 752.11 TO 752.12.

(3) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEFEND OR REIMBURSE AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.

The Second Amendment - The Teeth Of The Constitution...

I'm betting that there are a lot of middle eastern countries that wish they had the same individual right to own firearms as a deterrent to terrorists that we have here in the US. 

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited (mistakenly - no one knows where this quote actually originated) with saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While the quote may be misattributed, the truth underlying it is accurate. 

We have historically had two barriers to terrorism in the US - oceans and the private ownership of firearms that make the unorganized citizen militia a reality. Air travel has largely nullified the first barrier; that makes the remaining barrier that much more important. 

The sculpture in this photo was displayed this year during the Art Prize competition in Grand Rapids, MI, in an effort to get people to focus on gun control. I changed the background and now display this as a reminder of how critical the Second Amendment is to maintaining our Constitutional rights and defending them from ALL enemies - foreign and domestic.

Brady Center Files Suit On Behalf Of Officer's Widow Against Gun Shop That Sold Firearm Used To Killed Officer….

So the Brady Center has roped in the widow of an officer who lost his life in the line of duty to sue the gun shop that sold the firearm that was used to kill her husband (Brady Center sues gun shop).

Only problem is, the firearm was sold in what is known as a "straw purchase."

In other words, a person who was legally able to buy a firearm, representing him-/herself as the actual purchaser of the firearm, made the  purchase on behalf of someone else who was legally ineligible to do so.  They lied to the gun shop and filled out the NICS 4473 background check form, successfully passing the background check.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The gun shop completed a transaction in good faith.  That is the critical key: good faith.  According to Lawyers.com, good faith, which derives from the latin, bona fides, means the following:

"… honesty, fairness, and lawfulness of purpose 
: absence of any intent to defraud, act maliciously, or take unfair advantage…

… In section 1-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code good faith is defined generally as «honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the U.C.C. says «good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." Similarly, Article 3 on negotiable instruments defines good faith as «honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.."

The Brady Campaign contends that the fact that the buyer had completed multiple firearms transactions in a relatively short period of time should have alerted the firearms dealer that they were faced with a straw purchaser, but in no arena of endeavor is the fact of multiple transactions evidence or proof of malicious or criminal intent.  The firearms dealer did everything that is required of them under federal and state laws to insure that the firearm was being purchased by someone who was legally eligible to make such a purchase.  They had no reason to believe that the purchaser was conducting the transaction on behalf of an ineligible individual.

But only God is omniscient (all-knowing).

The Brady Center cares nothing about justice; they care about their agenda.  Their agenda is to disarm everyone, and they will use an emotionally fragile widow to build an emotionally based prosecution with the goal of 1) shutting down this particular gun shop and 2) attempting to pass even more restrictive gun control laws - all of which have been proven to be completely ineffective in preventing criminals from acquiring firearms.

Let me put it this way: according to the logic upon which this case is based, one should be able to sue the car dealership that sells a vehicle to someone who gives that vehicle to an ineligible person who then drives it, causing an accident that injures or kills a family member, or the pet shop owner who sells an animal to an individual who then allows the animal to run freely, during which activity the animal attacks and mauls or kills the paperboy.  Because merchants are not omniscient, there is no way they can know how their merchandise will be used or abused by the customer.

Courts have consistently ruled that firearms dealers that demonstrate good faith in firearms transactions cannot be held criminally or civilly liable in such cases, but that isn't stopping the Brady Center from trying yet again to ruin a business owner.

Perhaps it is time for the Brady Campaign to formally adopt as its motto, "Rerum agendarum ordinemante omnia," the agenda before all else.

Gov. Rick Perry Loses Concealed Pistol License….

Because of the specious charges brought against Rick Perry, charges that even many hard core liberals say are shaky at best, he has lost his right to carry a concealed firearm in public, as well as to buy firearms and ammo:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell of otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

The amazing thing? If he is actually convicted, he could be sentenced to as long as 109 years. Just think - there are mass murderers who have been sentenced to less time in prison. And why? Political spite.

Eugene Volokh has analyzed the charges:

Another way of thinking about the problems with the Rick Perry indictment - The Washington Post

Why the Gov. Rick Perry prosecution unconstitutionally intrudes on the gubernatorial veto power

His firearms rights will be restored if he is cleared of the charges.

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,