More misinformation from Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and Bloomberg shill.

This is in reference to the heroic action taken by Elisjsha Dicken to stop a mass shooting:

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but when a 22-year-old illegally brings a loaded gun into a mall and kills a mass shooter armed with an AR-15 after he already killed three people and wounded others is not a ringing endorsement of our implementation of the Second Amendment,”

First, think about that statement.  Gun controller Watts would rather have seen the mass shooter given free rein to kill more people rather than be stopped by a good guy with a gun.  How messed up is that?!

But here is the misinformation that so many will unquestioningly accept as fact: she states that Dicken “illegally” brought a loaded gun into the mall.  To say this is a massive lie is an understatement.  Unless the law designates a location as a “gun free” zone, IT ISN’T ILLEGAL TO CARRY A FIREARM THERE.

Some locations have declared themselves “gun free”; they have posted signs indicating this.  But in Indiana, as is true for the vast majority of states, such signs DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE IF LAW; they are essentially house rules.  The same is true of Michigan.  Now, if you happen to get caught carrying your firearm in these places, you can be trespassed, asked to leave the premises and not return.  If you refuse to leave, police can be called and you can be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.  If you return after being asked to leave you can be charged.   But carrying a firearm  in violation of what is essentially a house rule IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Shannon Watts is hoping that people won’t question her, will take her at face value when she says Dicken committed a crime when he stopped the mass shooter.

But her accusation actually goes farther than that.

You see, a claim of self defense under a stand your ground defense assumes that the defender isn’t committing a crime himself when he uses deadly force.  While Watts doesn’t actually say the words, that is the true gist of her statement: she wants him to be prosecuted for stopping a mass shooting, for saving lives.  Watts would rather see innocent people die while waiting for police to respond than to see an obviously prepared and well-trained lawful firearms carrier come to the rescue.Just how messed up is THAT?!

Now That The Forensic Results Are In….

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.

One Can’t Prevent What One Isn’t Present To Prevent….

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.

Another Open Letter To The January 6 Committee….

 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee: 

Former Pres. Trump has requested immunity for his role in the January 6 debacle.

Take it for what it its: an admission of guilt.

If he were not guilty, it would be unnecessary for him to seek immunity for his role in spurring on his supporters to storm the nation’s capitol.

In requesting immunity, he has effectively admitted that he is responsible for setting a hoard loose in an effort to prevent the votes from being certified.

Charge him and arrest him, immediately.

An Open Letter To The January 6 Commission….

To the ladies and gentlemen of the January 6 Commission:

Enough already. 

We, the taxpayers, are tired of hearing report after report after report telling us that you have overwhelming evidence that former President Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection among other crimes, but doing nothing about it.

I have no doubt that you have overwhelming evidence of his crimes. I heard the man’s rhetoric in the months leading up to the January 6 incident. 

I have no doubt that he tried to interfere with the election and the certification of the results.

I have no doubt that he wished for a civil war that would place him on a throne.

He is still trying, two years down the road, to overturn the results of the last election.

I have no doubt that fears that he will create a new deep state comprised of his loyalists are well-founded.

I have no doubt that former President Trump has all the makings of a dictator.

I have no doubt that former President Trump is guilty of everything for which he is being investigated.

On that note, if, indeed, you are going not going to charge him because of fears that doing so will lead to civil unrest or even civil war, then end of the charade, publish your findings, and stop wasting our money. Put it on the record publicly that he is guilty of inciting insurrection and other crimes.  But it’s time to fish or cut bait. 

Hopefully you are able to do SOMETHING that will make it impossible for him to run for the presidency again.

Give Foster Kids A Chance….

 

Marbury vs Madison: Implications For Today….

The Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs Madison, is best known for its declaration, “… an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”

In other words, a law that violates the Constitution is unenforceable.

But Marbury v Madison does more than declare unConstitutional laws void.  It also declares that the only proper method  to understand and interpret the Constitution is Constitutional Constructionism with emphasis on original meaning. In dealing with the question of whether the legislature can change Constitutional rights just by passing laws, it notes, “But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.” This court case DESTROYS the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” that can be changed just by writing a new law.

This case is one of the most important ever decided by the SCOTUS: 

1) it declared that the federal government was to be limited in scope BY DESIGN (“This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written….”); 

2) it declares Constitutional constructionism/originalism to be the ONLY valid method to determine the Constitution’s meaning; 

3) it declares that the Constitution is NOT a “living document”, it is “a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means…”. It CAN be changed, but it must be changed CONSTITUTIONALLY - by means of the amendment process.

Every Constitutional constructionist/ originalist should have this opinion in their files, and it should be required reading for every government class AND EVERY LEGISLATOR WHO RAISES HIS/HER HAND AND SWEARS TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.

The text can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

Russian “Referendums” In Alaska?

“State Duma Vice Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy proposed holding a referendum in Alaska, Volodin said, according to RBC.”

That dog don’t hunt, comrade.

Assuming you could somehow force a referendum in Alaska, you ain’t got enough loyal russkies living there to vote for your takeover.  And I’ll guarantee armed Alaskans will put up an even bigger fight than you have seen in Ukraine.

There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

The Beat Goes On… And On, And On….

 OK, I have to make the observation.

Again.

I initially posted this in April; I repost it now, updated with more recent examples.

A black man in Ohio is recently pulled over for a routine traffic stop.  Whether he fired a single shot from his vehicle before fleeing is in question.  The chief of police for that department, who readily acknowledges that the driver was unarmed when he fled, after viewing video from THIRTEEN body cams admits he did not see the movement that put his officers in fear for their lives as they chased the driver.  At least 90 shots are fired, 60 of which hit Jayland Walker; officers continued firing after he was down.  He was unarmed.  What appears to be an unloaded glock 43x is recovered from the front seat of the  vehicle; the loaded magazine is on the seat next to the gun, not inserted in the gun.  It is impossible to determine from the police photo if the gun had actually been fired.

On July 4, a white man with a long history posting violent content on social media and in the music videos he produces as a rapper shoots into an Independence Day parade in Chicago, killing 6 (so far) and injuring dozens more.  He also runs from police, but is apprehended without a single shot being fired.  He will face trial with all of his Constitutional rights in tact and protected.

I get it - different law enforcement agencies, different policies, different cultures.  That may factor in to some small degree, but nationally this is a reality that is beyond disturbing: white suspects, even obviously dangerous ones, apprehended safely while black suspects, even unarmed, are assumed to be a threat to life and limb and injured or killed outright.  I wish I could say that such disparate outcomes are rare, but they aren’t, and I am tired and angry that they continue.  

I back the Blue; I also expect the Blue to do better - to police THEMSELVES for problem officers.

End the war on crime.

Return to Serve and Protect.

Pro-Death - As Long As It’s On THEIR Terms….

Amazing, isn’t it.  

People are ready to riot and rampage to protect a right that was created 50 years ago, recently overturned, and resulted in over 60 million deaths during its lifetime.

On the other hand, those same people are willing to riot, rampage, and even change the Constitution to shut down an explicit right that has been abused to cause a fraction of the deaths caused by abortion over the 230 year history of the Second Amendment.

They’re pro-death - as long as it’s on THEIR terms.