He Is Certifiable….

Unreal.  

Trump actually suggests that we could send “peace keeping forces” into Mexico to deal with the border situation, a la Putin, calls Putin’s strategy “genius”.  An absolute madman.  

"This is genius," he said of Putin's decision on Monday to officially recognize the breakaway provinces and authorize the use of Russian military personnel to assist them. "So Putin is now saying it’s independent — a large section of Ukraine. I said, how smart is that? And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace, all right."

If these remarks don’t convince people that Trump is a madman and a dictator in the making, I don’t know what will.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-praises-putins-genius-incursion-into-ukraine-234001858.html

The Kyle Rittenhouse Road To Wealth….

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a celebrity, politician, or athlete.

I said it PUBLICLY, I believe it, I stand by it: Rittenhouse is a murderer.  He should be facing federal firearms charges. His “trial” was a sham, a show trial, a kangaroo court that the judge and prosecution did everything in their power to prejudice and throw.  It was a blatant miscarriage of justice.  I don’t care that a “jury of his peers”, a jury HE CHOSE in a move by the judge that, as far as I know, is unprecedented in US jurisprudence, found him “not guilty”.

Now Rittenhouse wishes to profit from his notoriety.  Why work if you can sue your way to wealth?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kyle-rittenhouse-says-hes-going-to-sue-whoopi-goldberg-and-other-politicians-celebrities-athletes-074102590.html

The Ukraine….

 “War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. And it’s always about greed. It’s always a nation that wants something another nation has. And you defeat that nation by recognizing what it wants and denying it to them.”

— Tom Clancy

The Ukraine is a treasure trove of natural resources after which Putin lusts.  The Ukraine was the ONE republic over which Russia hoped to maintain control with the breakup of the soviet union.  And now he wants it back to help address Russia’s financial and tech crises.

Meijer, Inc., Abandons Its Previous Stance Regarding Lawful Defensive Firearms Carry….

 In 2019, Meijer, Inc. issues the following statement:

The safety of our customers and team members is our top priority, so we respectfully request that our customers do not open carry firearms at Meijer. We’ve made this decision because open carry can create an environment that makes our customers and team members feel unsafe.

While I support the right to lawfully carry a firearm openly, which is legal in Michigan, I also understand the thinking behind the request.

Over this weekend (2/13/22), however, that changed.

Meijer has now adopted a prohibition against ALL lawful carry.

As a result, I am taking my business elsewhere, and I am urging all Meijer customers who lawfully carry their personal firearms to:

1. Contact Meijer to voice your opposition to their new policy (616) 453-6711)
2. Boycott Meijer until they PUBLICLY reinstate their previous policy.

Trump: My Opinion…

 This will be brief.

Donald “The Donald” Trump is a malignant narcissist with antisocial tendencies who has no business being FREE, let alone being president of the US.

While campaigning the first time, he promised to pay the legal fees of anyone who roughed up his detractors.

He incited the January 6 debacle.

He is running on blatant racism this time.

He is once again inciting insurrection, this time to protect himself from prosecution.

He is running PRIMARILY to keep himself out of jail.

He is blatantly pandering to his base, promising pardons for the January 6 rioters who have been convicted.

He belongs in jail, not the Oval Office.

Permitless (AKA: Constitutional) Firearms Carry….

Permitless firearms carry.  That term sends shivers through many, who assume that every criminal and gangbanger who wants to carry a firearm will be able to do so without any checks of any kind.

Nothing is further from the truth.

First, those people are ALREADY obtaining and carrying firearms without any checks.  It may come as a surprise to many that criminals/gangbangers don’t obey ANY of the laws we have in place.  They DON’T get background checks.  They DON’T observe waiting periods in those states that have them.  For some inexplicable reason, they just don’t care about any of the restrictions that are already in place.  So these laws have ZERO EFFECT on them.  As a practical consideration, firearms charges are prosecuted in fewer than 5% of cases nationally, anyway, in exchange for pleas to lesser charges.

Permitless carry of firearms doesn’t make it easier for the lawless to obtain/carry firearms.  There are a number of states that have already implemented permitless (Constitutional) carry.  People STILL need to be able to pass a background check in order to obtain their firearms.  The question is, why should the law abiding be required to pass MULTIPLE background checks in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights?  With few exceptions, they passed a background check in order to purchase their firearm (especially if it was a handgun) in the first place; with only a few exceptions in which a concealed pistol license is accepted in lieu of a federal background check, they are background checked for EVERY FIREARM they purchase.  Then, under existing permit schemes, they passed ANOTHER background check in order to get their carry permit.  In some jurisdictions, they are further background checked in order to buy firearm magazines or ammo.

Exactly how many background checks do we have to endure in order to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment?  This is the ONLY Constitutional right that is so encumbered.

Permitless carry isn’t the unregulated exercise so many represent it to be.

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. 

Mandatory Firearm Insurance And “Modest” Gun Fees….

 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.

Going Down That Road….

Attacks on the First and Second Amendments continue to escalate.  A professor from the University of Miami School of Law recently published what she believes would be “improvements” of these two amendments.

Her rewrite of the First Amendment: 

“Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

 

“Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.”

First, do you see what is no longer protected under her proposed rewrite?  There is no right to a free press.  And the “appropriate“ practice of the rights she DOES leave in place is determined by a government-determined  standard of equality.  Your right to practice your religion and speech is free only as long as you don’t violate this government standard.

And the Second Amendment?

“All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.”

You will notice immediately that the right to keep and bear arms has disappeared entirely, replaced with the previously non-existent (Constitutionally) right to abortion on demand.  The overarching right to defense is shifted to the government, the same government that has stated in more than a dozen supreme court opinions that the obligation to defend one self is on OUR shoulders.  And, once again, your ability to exercise your right to self defense is dependent on a government-determined standard of equality and fairness.  Amazingly, that limitation doesn’t apply to abortion and the right of a baby to continue living.

So the upshot of both of these proposed rewrites is that the GOVERNMENT determines what is/is not appropriate and acceptable.  The GOVERNMENT determines when and where we may exercise our “rights” in accordance with a nebulous standard of equality and fairness.

Final thought: a “right” that requires government approval is no longer a right.

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/ideas/graphics/2021/12/editing-the-constitution/redo-the-first-two-amendments

Please Sign This Petition…

Calling on the US Department of Justice to bring federal firearms charges against Kyle Rittenhouse.

Petition to the DOJ