She owns a gun. OBVIOUSLY that makes her pro-Second Amendment, right?
And if someone breaks into her house, they’re going to get shot. That’s what she told Oprah. But you can bet SHE won’t be the one doing the shooting; her Secret Service detail will take care of that for her.
And assertions that she will fight to confiscate firearms are a lie - her words.
Hmm….
“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. 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,” Excerpt from “Of Crimes And Punishment, Of False ideas of Utility, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, 1764.
He had this figured out in the 1700s.
Here they go again. NY is so angry about the first set gun laws being struck down in the Bruen case that they came up with an even more restrictive set of laws to replace them.
With an evil twist.
Assuming this newest suit reaches the supreme court, it will be shot down even more quickly than the previous law was.
Not content to merely infringe on Second Amendment rights, the newest laws from NY also now apply a political test to the First Amendment rights of a citizen desiring a pistol carry license, requiring that one’s publicly stated views be in line with the political dogma of the ruling “benevolent” liberal junta. Forcing firearms owners who wish to be granted the “privilege” of carrying a firearm outside the home to give the state access to their social media accounts means the state can not only use views it considers “unacceptable “ according to some arbitrary and constantly changing political standard to deny access to a pistol carry license now, it gives them the ability to continue monitoring citizens long term, with an eye toward rescinding their “privilege” should they ever run afoul of the latest political standard.
The right to carry a firearm for one’s personal defense is as much about the First Amendment right of freedom of expression as it is about the Second Amendment right to keep AND BEAR (CARRY) arms.
It’s about time. The FBI stated categorically that Alec Baldwin's gun could not have fired if he hadn't squeezed the trigger (https://deadline.com/2022/08/rust-gun-could-not-fire-without-trigger-pull-fbi-report-1235091716/), so he's been 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 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.
So is someone else guilty?
Watch this video carefully.
The agent is being handed firearms by the folks sitting at the table. Presumably, they are responsible to insure that the guns are unloaded. After receiving the guns, this “expert” fails to check them himself to insure that they are ACTUALLY “cold” (unloaded); he actually states, without clearing the gun himself, that the gun is unloaded. As a result, the “expert” shoots himself at point-blank range in the leg with a .40 s&w slug.
Now, using the logic being employed by Alec Baldwin and the “investigators” trying to protect him from any blame in the death of the director he shot, the only people in this video who have ANY guilt for the shooting are the ones who handed him the gun. The agent has ZERO GUILT in his shooting. Fortunately, he only shot himself as a result of his personal negligence; he could very well have shot one of the members of his audience.
So tell me, does Alec Baldwin deserve to be prosecuted for negligent homicide for failing to clear the firearm he was handed, or does the blame rest solely with the people who put the gun into his hands?
He’s guilty as sin - and he knows it.
So Gov. Whitmer said she will “protect people’s fundamental rights.”
A few of the bills she says she supports and is urging the legislature to pass that are teed up for the new legislature:
“Assault weapon” ban with definitions so vague that it bans semi automatic firearms that could never be considered “assault weapons“.
A red flag law that doesn’t protect the fundamental Constitutional right to due process.
A mandatory safe storage law that has already been declared unConstitutional under the SCOTUS decision, Heller vs DC: “[…] the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment… the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.“
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, as it is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and is the ONLY AMENDMENT that states it “shall not be infringed”. The Supreme Court determined under McDonald vs City of Chicago, “The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
No, she isn’t working to “protect people’s fundamental rights.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ladies and gentlemen,
There is a reason that annual fees have not been imposed on firearms owners in other cities: such fees have already been declared unConstitutional.
“4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.
“5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.
“6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.
“7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.
“8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116i.”
The right to own firearms unencumbered by ownership fees is as much about the First Amendment right to freedom of expression as it is about actual firearm ownership. Firearm ownership conveys a point of view - one with which this council takes issue and finds “… unpopular, annoying, or distasteful.”
The law does nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, nor will it serve to reduce suicide. The required insurance and annual fee simply shift the costs resulting from criminal activity, who will not abide by this law, to the law abiding. In the long run, the law will be more costly to litigate on Constitutional grounds than the city will be able to afford.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo has proposed both, reasoning that these two requirements will help diminish “gun violence”.
His proposals are wrong on two counts.
First, the people most likely to cause the injuries/deaths - criminals - are also the LEAST LIKELY to purchase the mandatory insurance on their illegally owned firearms. In other words, the law abiding are once again required to foot the bill for the results of crimes committed by criminals. Shifting costs to the law abiding is an eminently fair solution.
Not.
Second, there is a reason that annual fees have not been imposed on firearms owners: such fees have already been declared unConstitutional. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) ruled that municipal ordinances and state laws that burden a Constitutional right are unConstitutional on their face. While the case specifically addresses First Amendment issues, the precedent it sets applies equally to Second Amendment issues:
“4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.
5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.
6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.
7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.
8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.”
In the long run, the required insurance shifts the cost to the law abiding, and the law will be more costly to litigate on Constitutional grounds than the city will be able to afford.
So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:
“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.
No amendment is absolute. Those are his words.
On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):
*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations
*Universal background checks
*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)
*Minimum purchase age 21
*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms
*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm
*Track multiple handgun purchases
*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government
*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms
*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories
*Psychological assessment
*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees
These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level. And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.
Ok. So what?
The president said NO amendment is absolute. Those are his words.
We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS. But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.
So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.
Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.
39,700.
That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year. Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights. That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.
Terrible?
Absolutely.
But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.
More than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.
That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.
And those are just the SURGICAL abortions. That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.
If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”
So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?
First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.
Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).
She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).
She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).
She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.
Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)
She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).
Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).
Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)
Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).
This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths. Our Second Amendment rights are limited.
But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely un-infringed/unlimited.
Which is it? If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.
“You’re either with law enforcement or you stand with the fringe and believe that everybody should have a firearm, regardless of their character, capabilities and mental capacity,” Chief Ramirez, Miami Police Department.
Let’s discuss that.
First, while I know that there are a few out there - and I mean that, JUST a few - who believe that EVERYONE should be able to own a gun regardless of the issues Ramirez raises, I can confidently say that the majority of us in the Second Amendment do not. And I will point out, for the umpteenth time, that exclusions for those very individuals ALREADY EXIST WITHIN US LAW AND THE NICS SYSTEM - and the good chief should already know that.
Second, he is once again demonstrating the divide that exists between police chiefs and officers. I’m going to say this yet again: POLICE CHIEFS ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES WHOSE VIEWS ALIGN WITH THOSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HIRED THEM.
So what do OFFICERS really believe? Once again, I will refer to the largest survey of law enforcement officers (over 15,000) ever conducted:
“1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.”
“2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.”
“3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.”
“4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.”
“6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.”
“7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.”
“8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.”
“9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.”
There is nothing “fringe” about the views most of us in the Second Amendment community hold. Our views are actually the mainstream of law enforcement OFFICERS as well as indicated by this survey; contrary to what the good chief would have you believe, HE is on the fringe of law enforcement - not us.
I STAND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
Chiefs, not so much.
BTW, he’s making these pronouncements even though he 1) still hasn’t identified the shooters and 2) has no idea at this time how they obtained the guns they used. That’s called a rush to judgement and politicization of a tragedy, just so we’re clear.
"[...] Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation... These people [the victims - added] are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them... Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. 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 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."
