REALLY, Gov. Whitmer?!

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.

To The City Council of San Jose….

 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.  

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 address 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. 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.