“Red Flag” Laws….

 For the record, I am not opposed to so-called “red flag” laws AS LONG AS they 1) protect the Constitutional rights of the lawful firearm owner under the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (yes, protections from all four of these amendments are involved), and 2) contain provisions to ensure that they cannot be used by individuals who personally object to firearms ownership to deprive others of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I participate in a few online discussion forums; I have see many individuals post inquiries regarding how they can use these laws to generally disarm people because they personally object to firearms ownership.  I have also received phone calls in the course of my job selling firearms from such individuals, asking us not to sell to someone because the caller doesn’t like guns themselves.

On the other hand, I have stopped transactions because I believed, based on my interaction with a customer, that they posed a threat to themselves or others, and I have personally been involved with at least three situations in which bona fide concerns regarding a threat of suicide prompted us to take measures to insure that someone did not acquire a firearm from us - including notifying law enforcement.

Show me a “red flag” law that includes these protections and I will support it.

Raising The Age To 21….

So I keep hearing the same gun controllers who point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, insisting that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to membership in the militia, then turn around and argue that the minimum age to buy a firearm should be raised to 21.  Such individuals demonstrate their ignorance with such arguments.

Founder Tench Coxe, when addressing questions regarding the composition of the militia, responded, “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen…”

Sixteen, not 21.

Ok, but he was just an individual Founder.

So let’s consider what the law says: 

“10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”

17, not 21.

So if they are going to claim that the Militia clause determines who may own a firearm, then they must also accept that the law establishes a minimum age of 17 to own and possess firearms, as all citizens who are at least 17 are declared to be members of the unorganized militia.

BTW, Michigan law also established a minimum age of 17 for militia duty:

“MCL 32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and unorganized militia.

“Sec. 109.

“The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state…. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over…”

In both instances, federal and state Constitutions, membership in the unorganized militia isn’t voluntary, the law declares membership to be a citizen duty.  If you are a citizen and at least 17 years old, YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE MILITIA.  As such, the minimum age to own/bear (possess/carry) a firearm is 17.

Gov. Whitmer Wants “Red Flag” Laws In Michigan….

Here’s what that means.

A family member is concerned that someone represents a danger to others or themselves.  They contact law enforcement - anonymously - and swear out a complaint.  The complaint and accompanying testimony/evidence goes to a judge, who then authorizes the confiscation of the accused’s firearms if he/she believes it is merited.  The accused loses their firearms, supposedly temporarily.

Looks good, right? 

Here’s the problem:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” Fourteenth Amendment.

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” Fifth Amendment.

First, such laws are expressly prohibited under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  The “red flag” law expressly abridges the right to due process and the immunity from a presumption of guilt.

Second, due process means the accused has the RIGHT to hear the accusations preferred against him, to confront his accusers, to present evidence in his own defense. BEFORE any confiscation - for ANY LENGTH OF TIME - can occur: 

“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There is no provision made for due process.

Third, “red flag” laws deny the accused “…the equal protection of the laws.”

Regardless of the good the law seeks to achieve, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed,” U.S. Supreme Court

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) Norton v. Shelby County 

Argued March 24-25, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 425

Here They Go Again In The Great Infringement State, New York….

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.

To Alec Baldwin’s Apologists….

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.

Trust Us, We’re Not Banning Your Stove…. Yet….

They said the same thing about our firearms. 

They’re working to ban THOSE, too.

It isn’t just about getting rid of gas stoves, it’s about the need to upgrade home electric systems, bringing electric to areas of homes that don’t currently have it, possibly even needing to upgrade home electrical service on top of having to purchase a new electric stove.

And this is just the beginning.  Eventually property owners will be required to replace ALL of their gas appliances with electric appliances as they need to be replaced.

California and other states already experience rolling blackouts due to grid overload.  Michigan is now warning residents that we could begin experiencing the same problem this summer.  So what sense does it make to force property owners to further burden an electrical grid that is nowhere near capable of handling the increased load?

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.

History Repeating….

 So Biden is once again trying to force medical practitioners to perform procedures that violate their First Amendment right to religion, their beliefs, and their sincerely held religious convictions.

“Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion - NOT WORSHIP, as Barack and Hillary tried to spin it, RELIGION].”

Congress can make no law infringing on this right, and the president cannot set it aside through executive order. 

The Supreme Court determined generations ago that any law affecting First Amendment rights must apply strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means the government must prove that the law meets a compelling government interest based on OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE DATA, and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means possible. It is the most difficult benchmark to satisfy. While the government may argue that it has a compelling interest in making abortion or other objectionable procedures accessible, the least restrictive standard means individual practitioners may not be compelled to violate their religious convictions; an individual is free to find other practitioners who are willing to provide the desired procedure. It is that simple.

A Choice Between Americans….

 “‘We did not forget about Brittney, and we have not forgotten about Paul,’ Biden said. ‘This was not a choice of which American to bring home’.”

Bull.

Whelan is just a straight, white, working class, dime a dozen, military veteran citizen with no particular political significance to Biden, while Griner is a black, lesbian, professional basketball player of significantly more political importance to him.

This was EXACTLY “a choice of which American to bring home.”  And they released a man who is a threat to our security to make it happen.

There is a reason why the Russians were willing to let Griner go.  Russia views the US as morally bankrupt, a condition that they believe will eventually lead to our downfall and a Russian victory over us.  They are letting Griner come back to the US as both a perceived victim and a perceived hero - because of which, one who will influence others, particularly young people, to support and participate in her perversion to further the moral demise of the US.

And they aren’t wrong.  Griner’s return WILL contribute to the continued moral decline of the US.

Well done, Mr. President.  Well done.

Trump And The Constitution….

 So now former Pres. Trump says the election provisions of the Constitution should be suspended to place him in office, still alleging widespread election fraud.

Which leads one to ask, if he is willing to suspend the election provisions of the Constitution to put himself back in office, what might he be willing to do to STAY in office should he win another election? Might he be willing to suspend the 22nd Amendment to give himself UNLIMITED terms of office, a LIFETIME presidency, set himself uo as dictator?!