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

WHO, Exactly, Is 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?

“… No amendment — No Amendment To The Constitution Is Absolute…“

 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.

To Those Who Call Themselves Christians, But Refuse To Get Vaccinated…

 I offer this:

“…For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.” Galatians 5:13-15 [NASB].

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” 1 Peter 2:13-16 [KJV].

Yes, we have certain freedoms, liberties, in this country.  They are intended to be exercised with consideration for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens and the country.  This means that there may be times when we WILLINGLY put the needs of others ahead of our own, even if it means limiting the exercise of a personal freedom. 

Sadly, many of those freedoms have been turned into license.  License is the exercise of our rights regardless of the effect it has on others - even if it hurts them.

What we are witnessing today among those who call themselves Christians is more accurately classified as license. It is the fixation with MY wants, MY needs, MY RIGHTS regardless of how that might  affect others.

The Apostle Paul acknowledged that we do indeed have certain freedoms, liberties.  He also acknowledged that we have the right to exercise those liberties free from the judgement of others:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved” 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 [NASB].

While this passage refers to spiritual salvation, it is not also possible that limiting my liberties might also lead to their physical salvation?  Something to consider.

But at the end of the day, he says we have the obligation to place the needs of others ahead of the exercise of those rights.

Do you have the right not to get vaccinated?  

Yes, you do.

Now honestly ask yourself this question: does the exercise of that right help or hurt others?

If you conclude that it even MIGHT hurt others, then consider that the right decision might be to willingly put your rights on hold, to get vaccinated for the good of others.

That is what ultimately led me to get vaccinated.

Even though I honestly don’t believe I am going to catch the bug - I have worked face to face with thousands of customers since the beginning of the pandemic; I have had ample opportunities to become infected - I did it for the wellbeing of my family, my friends, my coworkers, my customers, even if only for their MENTAL wellbeing.

There has been too much emphasis on MY rights, and that has had the effect of driving us further apart as families, communities, and as a nation.

It is time to begin putting the needs of others ahead of our own.

Self Explanatory….

 

A Note To Those Who Were Relying On The US to Build A Better Afghanistan….

“One Afghan university student described feeling betrayed as she watched the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy.

“You failed the younger generation of Afghanistan,” said Aisha Khurram, 22, who is now unsure of whether she’ll be able to graduate in two months’ time. “A generation ... raised in the modern Afghanistan were hoping to build the country with their own hands. They put blood, efforts and sweat into whatever we had right now,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/taliban-seize-jalalabad-cut-off-afghan-capital-from-east/2021/08/14/131e00aa-fd75-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html

Then instead of relying on the US, you need to pick up weapons and fight the taliban yourself - and build the country yourselves.  We spent 20 years shedding our blood, training your military, and left a lot of weapons behind for you to use - if you can get to them before the taliban do.  You grew up in a country that has shaken off foreign powers a multitude of times throughout your history via insurrection.  Time for you to relearn those skills and start your own insurgency against the taliban if you don’t want their vision for Afghanistan to become your reality - again.

Or you can blame everyone else, roll over, and play dead.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the reality.

Memorial Day 2021….

 

Chief Ramirez: Politicizing A Tragedy….

 “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.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/30/miami-pd-chief-calls-for-tighter-gun-laws-after-concert-shooting/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR1FkuWuE_-9zo8efVyHxyjd9THO0ong3z_Q6Sav8taSRjzu_pzrIEHXmjk