Monday, July 24, 2017

Second Amendment

by -
judge

In D.C. Comic’s fictional “Bizarro World,” all things are done opposite of here on Earth. According to the “Bizarro Code,” inhabitants of the cube-shaped planet “hate beauty,” “love ugliness” and consider it illegal to “make anything perfect.” Ironically, here on planet Earth, many liberals – and a disturbing number of judges – subscribe to a similar Bizarro Code when considering matters involving the Second Amendment. To these Earth-bound Bizarro Code adherents, it should be — and in some cases is — illegal to legally exercise the fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed right to possess a firearm.

While the Supreme Court, and a number of other courts across the country, have made progress in recent years in rolling-back some of the more onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, the trend is by no means uniform; especially regarding concealed carry.

For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in January that mere lawful possession of a firearm poses a danger to society. Specifically – and incredibly – that court opined that there is an inherent risk in “a person who is armed even when the firearm is legally possessed.” While some may laud this ruling as a move to protect police officers facing armed suspects, its potential scope is far broader and more problematic.

The opinion opens the door for the search of any concealed carry permit holder, regardless of whether the individual ran a stop sign, was selling cocaine, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In effect, this federal court of appeals decision means that simply exercising one’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm negates that person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

As Slate Editor Mark Joseph Stern noted recently, the real-world consequences of the Fourth Circuit’s “logic” did not take long to play-out in another federal Circuit — the 11th (which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia). In March, that Circuit threw out a lawsuit against a Florida police officer who fatally shot an apartment resident who happened to be holding a lawful firearm when he answered the door late at night after the officer unexpectedly banged on the door.

The gun owner’s only “crime” was legally having a firearm in his hand, inside his home, when answering an unexpected loud knock on his door late at night.

This is far from the only example of such Second Amendment perfidy by judges in recent years. In 2015, Corey Jones, who possessed a lawful concealed carry permit, was leaving a band gig at 3:00 AM when his car broke down in an undesirable part of town. When a white van with tinted windows pulled in front of him and a man wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap exited, Jones apparently grabbed his firearm.  This move to lawfully protect himself was answered without warning by the plain-clothed law enforcement officer driving the van, shooting Jones dead.

These incidents hit close to home for all responsible gun owners; especially those who carry firearms for self-defense. These and many other such incidents illustrate not uncommon situations in which law-abiding individuals find themselves, and when having a firearm for self-defense is most needed. Yet, despite some progress on gun rights, a worsening problem within states and local jurisdictions due to wrong-headed court rulings, or simply bad police training, are placing gun owners directly in danger by criminalizing the very act of possessing a firearm.

The problem is made worse by the prevalence of data-sharing with so-called “Fusion Centers.” These largely unregulated centers take vast quantities of personal information on citizens that has been collected from both public and confidential sources, and disseminate it to law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. Thanks to this growing, government-based “Dark Net,” firearms owners can look forward to more harassment; such as Maryland transportation police who stand accused of using concealed permit data that they apparently can access at the touch of a computer screen in their vehicles, to stop out-of-state drivers.

Rolling back this tide of anti-Second Amendment court decisions requires continued and aggressive efforts by the National Rifle Association (which is holding its annual convention in Atlanta this week) and other Second Amendment-focused civil liberties organizations.  They – and we — need to support the appointment and election of judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, state legislators,  and members of Congress who live in and understand the real world and our real Bill of Rights; and who are not beholden to some Bizarro World Constitution in which “shall not be infringed” means “shall be infringed.”

by -
What's that saying? Never bring stupidity to a gun fight?

In a case that has surprised the entire nation since it happened last week; Zachary Peters, a twenty-three year old, shot and killed three home invaders with an AR-15 rifle at his parents’ home in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez, 21, is believed to have planned the robbery and also admitted to being the getaway driver for the burglars. She drove the three boys to the house and waited outside to drive them away. Reportedly, Rodriguez made several deliveries to the house and knew the owner by name.

Even though almost everyone, including law enforcement agencies, unanimously agree that Zachary shot the three teenage boys out of self-defense, the grandfather of one of the suspects is now speaking out. Currently, there are no charges being filed against Peters, who fatally shot and killed Jaycob Woodruff, 16, Jacob Redfearn, 17, and Maxwell Cook, 19.

Police say, Peters shot each of the burglars only once in the chest but that was quite effective at eliminating the threat. Even though one of the burglars crawled over 100 yards outside the house, he succumbed to the gunshot wound on the driveway. Peters insists that he did not intend to kill anyone and only wanted to defend himself and his family.

However, Jacob Redfearn’s grandfather believes Peters actions were a result of rash decision making and he should not have resorted to shooting with an AR-15 rifle.

“What these three boys did was stupid,” Leroy Schumacher said. “They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die,” he continued.

Comparing his grandchildren and his accomplices’ brass knuckles against an AR-15 rifle, Schumacher was clearly displeased with the way they had been shot and killed.

“Brass knuckles against an AR-15, come on, who was afraid for their life?” said Schumacher, “There’s got to be a limit to that law, I mean he shot all three of them; there was no need for that.”

Did Peters use excessive force in defending his life and home? Comment below.

by -

Gun ownership has always been a “conservative” thing in the eyes of at least the media. In actuality it’s a “libertarian” thing, but that’s a topic for another day.

Since the 2016 presidential election concluded with Donald Trump coming out on top, some liberals have shifted their view on gun ownership and . . . gasp . . . the second amendment.

Conceptions of liberalism assume that most will not even consider owning a gun; however, a poll conducted by PRRI showed that 32% of Democrats had a firearm in the home.

The key to that statistic is that not all Democrats are liberals.

However, since November gun retailers are reporting a shift in buyers and are seeing many more “non-traditional” buyers walking through their doors.

The report is bolstered by Black Friday sales reports that set another all-time record.

Even a group called “The Liberal Gun Club” which has been around since at least 2010, reports a 10% growth in membership since Donald Trump won the election.

An internal exit poll conducted by the preferred gun club for lefties also showed that 32% of the Liberal Gun Club’s forum members voted for Donald Trump, while 41% voted for Hillary Clinton and 11% voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

In late November, NBC News ran with the headline “Trump’s Victory Has Fearful Minorities Buying up Guns.”

The article led with “Yolanda Scott is upgrading the crowbar she keeps in her purse to small-caliber pistol.”

Given the journalistic integrity of NBC News, the report should be taken with a grain of salt. Plus, who carries a crowbar in their purse and how big is that purse?

A quick scan of Twitter shows the reports to be correct as countless liberals are telling the world that they’re now armed:

Comment below.

by -

Many have read the stories of California’s new bans on guns and ammo that include the prohibition on online ammunition sales and the requirement of identification when purchasing ammo in a store; however, some other shocking new laws have remained under the radar for those outside of the increasingly liberal state.

First, and back to gun laws, there is run on guns in California at the moment as “assault” weapons will be officially banned as the state voted on legislation to close the “bullet button” loophole (basically it’s a magazine release that requires a “tool” to use).

Since Californians have a five-day waiting period, the day after Christmas will be the last day they can submit their background check and purchase what will be a banned firearm.

For those current owners of soon-to-be-banned AR’s AK’s and other “evil” rifles, they will be required to register their guns with state law enforcement authorities.

Even more draconian is the new law on “high capacity” magazines. On July 1st, 2017, anyone in possession of a magazine that holds 11 or more rounds will face fines of $100 to $500.

No grandfather clause exists for gun owners and Californians will be required to dispose of banned magazines in one of four ways: ship it out of state, sell to a “licensed firearms dealer”, destroy, or surrender your magazines to law enforcement.

Anyone looking for a deal on magazines would be smart to check California posts on Armslist.com (basically the Craigslist for guns).

Moving on to the bizarre new regulations hitting the Republic of California in 2017, one that specifically stood out was the decriminalization of prostitution that will take place statewide . . . but it’s not what you think.

Only prostitutes under the age of 18 will be safe from arrest and conviction. Whaaat?

Yes, state legislators in their brilliance decided that child prostitution should no longer be a crime as underage prostitutes should be seen as victims and not criminals. They must have missed the movie Taxi Driver.

For those not concerned with the legalization of child prostitution, they may be a bit worried about the new distracted driving laws that limit drives to ONE touch or tap on a mounted phone.

While that may ease distracted driving accidents, the effort is undone with a new laws that requires children under the age of two to be strapped into a REAR FACING child seat.

This demented new law which shows that the majority of California law makers who are likely childless due to homosexuality or preference, love to cram kids in back seats with their legs crunched Indian-style in notorious LA traffic.

Those same children will grow up to attend public schools that have been sanitized of offensive mascots thanks to yet another 2017 law that bans the use of “Redskin” as a mascot name for schools.

As Californians enjoy their new laws, they should realize that this is just the start of the madness as another new law gives “low-level” felons the right to vote.

Way to go guys!

by -

For criminals interested a little car jacking, they would be wise to avoid a four door white pickup on their streets.

As shown in this video, an armed criminal attempts to scare the occupant of this truck from the driver’s seat, but as a pedestrian clears the line of fire, the would-be-thief gets crumpled by the bullets that spray through the driver’s side window.

The video, which was posted on Instragram, seems to be authentic although no other details are given about what appears to be security camera footage.

Comment below.

A video posted by 1776reborn (@1776reborn) on

Comment below

by -
second amendment

In the Preface to their new book, “Shall Not Be Infringed,” David Keene and Thomas Mason, two veteran Second Amendment advocates, include a quote from former President Ronald Reagan:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in their bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same . . .

Reagan uttered those words not during his two terms as president but in 1961, several years before he was first elected to public office. While the former president’s words might not have been delivered in the precise context of the Second Amendment, Keene and Mason quote him here because his admonition to all Americans of all generations, that freedom is not a self-executing principle but must be fought for by every generation, is particularly acute right now, in the election fast upon us.

A central theme of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is that, despite her efforts to soften her express words, President Hillary Clinton would take steps to do precisely what candidate Hillary Clinton has vowed to do – undermine the fundamental Supreme Court ruling in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller opinion, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Second Amendment supporters and opponents alike understand that if you overturn that underpinning of Heller, you open the door for all manner of government actions to not just “chip away” at how an individual chooses to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights, but measure to effectively deny any ability to exercise them in the first place. This clearly will be a litmus test for any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Clinton.

In addition to detailing some of the ways in which the Obama administration has moved to place restrictions on Second Amendment rights without pressing for legislative measures (which would be the proper, constitutional procedure to employ), authors Keene and Mason spend considerable time explaining why the anti-gun actions of the United Nations is a very relevant and timely topic for discussion this election.

Why and how the United Nations is involved actively in gun control are very good questions; especially when voters consider where a President Hillary Clinton would stand on the Second Amendment.

The United Nations is – if nothing else – one of the best, if not the best bureaucracies in the entire world. The bureaucratic behemoth on the East River in New York City has turned the concept of “mission creep” into a true art form. Since its formation in the immediate aftermath of World War II as an international organization to promote peace and limit chances for another catastrophic world conflict, the UN has created a maze of bureaucracies that would make Rube Goldberg envious.

Recognizing that most member nation governments never want to appear to not be supporting the UN’s peace efforts, and mindful of the basic law of bureaucracies that once an office is funded the first time it is almost certain to be funded each year thereafter, the UN over the years successfully morphed its general mission for peace and [nuclear] disarmament into a mandate to fight international trafficking in illicit firearms (with the term “illicit” left purposefully vague). This formal effort was launched in the summer of 2001, and has continued to gain funding and support for 15 years.

Why, the reader might ask, is this a problem for gun owners in the United States? It is quite simple actually — the UN knows it cannot implement any meaningful system of tracking the movement of firearms internationally, unless there exists a system for knowing what firearms exist within each member state and when those firearms cross a border. Bingo! Gun registry. And that’s but the tip of the ATT iceberg.

Keene and Mason understand all this. They also understand how quickly a proposal that appears non-threatening one day, can the next day become terribly real and problematic.

For example, throughout the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. consistently opposed adoption by the UN of the ATT. However, shortly after becoming Secretary of State in 2009, Hillary Clinton reversed that policy, and the ATT was adopted by the General Assembly in April 2013. The Treaty now awaits action by the US Senate after having been signed in September 2013 by Clinton’s successor at Foggy Bottom, John Kerry.

The very real problem in 2017 if former Secretary of State Clinton becomes President Hillary Clinton, and especially if she wins a Democrat majority in the Senate? The Arms Trade Treaty, already on the shelf awaiting Senate action, could quickly and quietly be dusted off, brought to the floor for a vote, and passed. And that, my friends, is a major reason why every voter who supports the Second Amendment, should read “Shall Not Be Infringed” . . . before November 8th.

TRENDING STORIES

Environmental Disaster

The feds believe that spending $200,000 on a video game that focuses on the importance of clean water can be a total game changer...