Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment, by Ann Coulter

What liberals get right about the Second Amendment would be a very short article indeed. From Ann Coulter at townhall.com:What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

Source: AP Photo/Wilson Ring

Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?

Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!

In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?

[Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.

Continue reading→

Gun Rights Are More Important Than False Security And Appeasing Leftists, by Brandon Smith

If there is no government-recognized right to firearms, any other so-called rights will soon be dead letters. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.us:

If there is one Holy Grail target that the political left obsesses over more that anything else, it is getting their hands on the 2nd Amendment and molding it to their will or erasing it forever. The pursuit of American gun rights is paramount to them, beyond critical race theory, beyond gender politics, even beyond the abortion debate. The problem for them is that ever since the Obama era they have consistently hit a brick wall in terms of convincing the general public to give another inch of ground when it comes to gun control.

To be sure, there are many reasons for this that coincide. First, the credit crash of 2008 opened many people’s eyes to the possibility that the economic systems we take for granted today could disappear tomorrow. Gun rights were no longer a matter of “tradition,” but a matter of necessity. If the system breaks down and emergency services are overwhelmed or disappear then the only person you can rely on to protect your family is you. Mortal realities always win over emotional and reactionary demands. In other words, the benefits of individual self protection greatly outweigh any potential risks of criminality or abuse.

Continue reading→

Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule is Dead on Arrival Thanks to the 0% Receiver. By BKROP

The anti-gun nuts hate private ownership of guns because its a big obstacle to their totalitarian designs. From BKROP from themachinegunnest.com:

Yesterday, President Biden, the Department of Justice, and the ATF announced the details of their new 364-page rule for the redefinition of “frame or receiver.” In doing so, they have decided to attempt an illegal rewrite of the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

If you’ve been paying close attention to headlines the past few weeks, you may have noticed a surge in articles pertaining to “ghost guns.”

The corporate media has been setting up Biden for an easy “win” on guns with this new rule. Likely because of Biden’s low poll numbers headed into the midterms. 

Initially announced in April of 2021, almost a full year later, we’re finally able to see what sort of egregious gun control has been put together for the law-abiding gun owner. 

The rule stems from the gun control lobby’s obsession with home-built firearms. The problem here, though, is that to regulate privately made firearms, or “PMFs” as they’re defined in the new rule, the ATF had to cast an extremely wide legal net. 

In the 364-page rule, we can see that the Biden admin intends to ban “ghost guns” by creating a new class of highly regulated items by redefining the term “firearm” to include parts and collections of parts that the ATF now considers to be “readily” convertible into functional firearms. 

Continue reading→

Tick, Tick, Tick…: The Supreme Court Readies an Explosive Docket for 2022, by Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court has a big docket this year, starting with the Biden administration’s mandates. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

Below is my column in the Hill on upcoming year for the Supreme Court. The Court’s docket is likely to put the institution at ground zero of a heated election year. Major decisions on abortion and gun rights are expected by June 2022. Even with Chief Justice John Roberts denouncing attempts at “inappropriate political influence” on the Court, the threats of Court packing and other measures are likely to become even more shrill as these decisions rollout in the new year.

Here is the column:

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once observed that “it’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” However, there are some years that are bigger than others. That’s what 2022 is likely to be.

The court has accepted a series of transformative cases with few available exit ramps. It recently added to that list.

In other words, it is likely to issue historic rulings on abortion, gun rights and an assortment of other issues.

The fact that the Supreme Court is going to hand down such decisions in a major election year is also noteworthy. The court tends to be more conservative in the selection of cases before major elections, but 2022 will put the court at ground zero in one of the most heated elections in history.

For those calling to pack the court to ensure a liberal majority, the already furious commentary is likely to reach near hysteria if the conservative majority rules as expected in some of these cases in the first half of 2022.

Here’s just a partial list of what is coming in the new year:

Abortion

The country is awaiting a decision by June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. At issue is whether Mississippi can impose a 15-week limit on abortions. That is earlier than previously allowed by the court, but the United States is one of only seven among the world’s 198 countries to allow abortions after 20 weeks. While the court could simply overturn Roe v. Wade and return the area to the states, it is more likely that the court will increase the authority of the states while recognizing constitutional protections for such reproductive rights. That could result in a major reframing of “previability” cases.

After Dobbs was accepted, advocates sought to enjoin a Texas law that banned abortion after just six weeks. The court ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to be enforced. The Biden administration and other litigants then forced a reconsideration of that decision. The court — as expected — allowed the appeal to go forward for some of the litigants in the lower court but again refused to enjoin the law. To make matters worse, it declared the Biden administration’s appeal to be “improvidently granted.”

Continue reading→

Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear, by Daisy Luther

The gun control laws we have didn’t prevent the Texas church shooter from illegally acquiring firearms and shooting up a church congregation, and the gun control laws the gun controllers want would have prevented the man who shot the shooter from owning the rifle (a semi-automatic AR-15) he used. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:

By now, everyone has heard about the horrific shooting yesterday in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in which a man dressed in tactical gear entered the First Baptist Church and opened fire. 26 people were killed and 20 others were injured.

Of course, the tears were still wet on people’s cheeks when the anti-gun folks began screaming for gun control. Chelsea Handler, struggling to be relevant, made this ignorant Tweet:

If the pro-gun control people want to blame someone besides the man in there pulling the trigger, the man who illegally got a weapon, maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they should consider their own complicity in making guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry. Maybe they should look at their part in this war on guns and gun owners. Perhaps their derision played a part in seeing to it that no one in that church had the means to stop that killer.

If these folks had their way, none of us would be allowed to be armed…except, of course, the criminals who wouldn’t follow the laws anyway. The New York Times published an op-ed solemnly titled, “It’s Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control” immediately on the heels of the shooting. Okay. If that’s what you want, then here’s my side of the debate. And it’s based on facts, not on emotional rhetoric.

Let’s be honest. The person to blame for this tragedy was the shooter.

To continue reading: Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear

Attorney General Maura Healey Has Destroyed the Rule of Law in Massachusetts, by Yojimbo

The Attorney General of Massachusetts is simply rewriting gun law in that state to conform to her own anti-gun views. For some earlier background on this story from Yojimbo at theburningplatform.com, click here. For Yojimbo’s latest at theburningplatform.com:

Let’s face it. It must be oh-so-hard to write law on the fly to take away the civil rights from the citizens of an entire state, as Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has been attempting to do. One reason it is hard to do is that IT IS NOT HER JOB. Last time I checked, it was the job of the Massachusetts Legislature to write legislation.

But she has been trying very hard to craft legislation that strips citizens of the State from owning semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines (the dreaded black scary “assault weapons”). That power must be reserved only for the State and its agents.

For those unaware of her tyrannical actions, the AG of Mass decided to “reinterpret” (that is her word) the Assault Weapons Bill to find an entirely new meaning to the law. For the past EIGHTEEN YEARS, there was a mutual understanding that “assault weapons” could not be purchased in Mass (the AR-15, AK-47, FN FAL, etc), but “Mass Compliant” versions could. These versions were lacking certain features that made them scary to Liberals. However, Maura Healey, singlehandedly and without consulting the legislature, decided that even Mass Compliant versions were assault weapons as well, and were illegal.

What she did was issue a Enforcement Notice which was so detailed, lengthy, and such a novel interpretation of the existing law that it was effectively a new law itself. Her office went to great lengths to try to write the new “law” so that the old law encompassed “similar or substantially similar” weapons, i.e. Mass Complaint versions.

The result of her Enforcement Notice? COMPLETE CONFUSION. No one knew what was legal to purchase or sell or transfer. No one knew if they were now felons for possessing the Mass Compliant versions. No one knew if local D.A.’s would go after them, even if AG Maura Healey said that she would not.

The confusion was so great, that she had to issue a Q&A page, which she would update. And for true Kafkaesque lunacy, here was the last line on her initial Enforcement Notice:

The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.

Oh, OK, so the new “law” could change at a moment’s notice. AND IT HAS.

To continue reading: Attorney General Maura Healey Has Destroyed the Rule of Law in Massachusetts

The Constitution, the President and Guns, by Andrew Napolitano

From Andrew Napolitano, on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In 2008, the Supreme Court laid to rest the once-simmering dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court articulated the modern existence of the ancient personal right to keep and bear arms as a pre-political right.

A pre-political right is one that pre-exists the political order that was created to protect it. Thus, the court held, the origins of this right are the ancient and persistent traditions of free peoples and their natural inclinations to self-defense.

The court also characterized the right as fundamental. That puts it in the highest category of rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Though the origins of this right are from an era well before guns existed, the textual language in the amendment — “arms” — makes clear, the court ruled, the intention of the Framers that its continuing purpose should be to recognize the right of people to keep and use the same level of technologically available arms that might be used against them.

That, in a nutshell, is the history, theory and purpose of the amendment as the modern Supreme Court has found them to be. But as we have seen, the constitutional guarantees that were written to keep the government from interfering with our rights are only as viable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping.

In our system, principal among those are the hands of the president; and sadly, today we have a president seriously lacking in this fidelity. And that lack is salient when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced that he will sign executive orders that expand the size and scope of federal monitoring of the acquisition and use of guns — traditionally a matter left to the states — and he will interpret the laws in novel ways, establish rules and impose obligations that Congress rejected, and prosecute those who defy his new system.

The president has very little room to issue executive orders on guns because the congressional legislation in this area is so extensive, detailed and clear. In addition to ordering your doctor to report to the Department of Homeland Security any mention you may make to the doctor of guns in your home, the president has decreed on his own and against the articulated will of Congress the obligation of all people who transfer any gun to any other person to obtain a federal gun dealer license. This is among the most cumbersome and burdensome licenses to obtain.

To continue reading: The Constitution, the President and Guns

Feds Illegally Maintain Registry Of Firearm Owners; Media Fails To Report It, by Justin King

From Justin King at theantimedia.org:

(TFC) Washington D.C. – One of the largest fears of firearm owners is the prospect of a database of their names and personal information in the hands of the federal government. The idea of the government in possession of a list of gun owners has been one of the most opposed proposals in the gun control debate. The stiff opposition is linked to the justifiable fear of the government using such a list to confiscate firearms by force.

The idea of registering with the federal government brought such stiff opposition that when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was instituted, the law specifically prohibited the collection of data about legal gun owners and the implementation of any kind of registry. The law reads in relevant part:

“The NICS, including the NICS Audit Log, may not be used by any Department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a firearm by 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n) or by state law. The NICS Audit Log will be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis to detect any possible misuse of NICS data.”

In plain English, unless a person is prohibited from owning a firearm, their information cannot be retained. However, a recent Washington Post article parroted the Government Accounting Office’s numbers related to firearms purchases:

“Between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 2,233 times. And in 2,043 of those cases — 91 percent of the time — they succeeded.”

Upon first reading, many Americans might be glad the authorities are keeping an eye on those potential terrorists in our midst. Of course, the facts are a little different. The term “suspected terrorists” in this case means somebody on the combined terrorist watch-list. These are people that may have never been convicted or even charged with a crime. The list has expanded so much that there are around 700,000 names on the list. They include a number of journalists, former Department of Justice ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack, Nelson Mandela, and the list of non-terrorists and false positives goes on forever. Known nonviolent activists have been added to the list because there is no real justification required to be placed on it, only a “reasonable suspicion.”

Even more disturbing is that to make the matches, the government must retain records on everyone, or at least have every purchase in a supposedly confidential system scanned. That data is being shared within the government, contrary to federal law. When the FBI released its figures, it went as far as saying that 2,000 known or suspected terrorists bought a pistol, sports rifle, or assault weapon. This means they are collecting information about the types of purchases as well. Just matching a name to a list would not be enough to come up with accurate data. This means the NICS program, which was promised to be free from other agencies, is sharing personal data such as name, date of birth, address, and social security number.

To continue reading: Feds Illegally Maintain Registry of Firearm Owners; Media Fails to Report It

The War On Preppers: Obama Bans Ammo For The Most Popular Rifle In America, by Michael Snyder

President Obama’s continues to wage war on the Constitution’s seperation of powers and the 2nd Amendment (see “The Most Important Amendment,” SLL, 12/12/14). From Michael Snyder at theeconomiccollapseblog.com:

Because he can’t get Congress to approve the things that he wants to do, Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House. One of Obama’s latest moves is to try to ban some of the most popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Previously, the Obama administration attempted unsuccessfully to ban the AR-15. That didn’t work, so now Obama is going after the ammunition. This is yet another example of the war on preppers that is going on all over the nation. Whether you are a gun owner or not, this assault on our constitutional rights should disturb you greatly. Barack Obama has promised to try to squeeze as much “change” as possible out of his last two years, and in the process he is “fundamentally transforming” America. But what will our country look like when he is done?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/war-preppers-obama-bans-ammo-popular-rifle-america

To continue reading: Obama Bans Ammo

Washington Gun Owners Plan Mass Defiance of New Background Check, by J.D. Tuccille

From J.D. Tuccille, at Reason‘s Hit and Run blog:

Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners chose to become overnight felons rather than comply with that state’s new gun registration law. The defiance spurred the Hartford Courant editorial board to impotently sputter about rounding up the scofflaws.

New York’s similar registration law suffers such low compliance that state officials won’t even reveal how many people have abide by the measure—a desperate secrecy ploy that the New York State Committee on Open Government says thumbs its nose at the law itself.

Now Washington state residents pissed of about i594, a ballot measure inflicting background check requirements on even private transactions, plan an exercise in mass disobedience next month.

The fellow getting much of the credit for organizing the rally is Gavin Seim, a former (unsuccessful) congressional candidate and passionate conservative. Seim got a lot of buzz last month when he pulled over an unmarked police car and demanded that the officer show identification. Perhaps surprisingly, Seim not only wasn’t ventilated, but the officer complied.

Seim and his allies (the Facebook event page lists Kit Lange Carroll, Sondra Seim, and Anthony P. Bosworth as co-hosts) plan a rally for the Washington State Capitol, in Olympia, on December 13 at 11am PST. That’s nine days after the law goes into effect. So far, almost 6,000 people have indicated their intention to attend and “exchange guns” without going through a background check, in defiance of the new requirements.

According to the state Attorney General’s analysis, there are exceptions to the background checks, but they’re pretty clearly delineated.

The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.

Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.

A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.

Those are pretty broad exceptions (to unenforceable requirements), but they still don’t seem to accommodate exchanges at political rallies. What are the chances the authorities decide this is a “performance” and so they need take no action?

Even so, if the event comes off as planned and thousands of people show up to demonstrate an intent to publicly defy the law, that should be an indicator that Washington’s background checks are destined for the same fate as the registration laws in New York and Connecticut.

Below, Seim speaks about guns and i594 in the days leading up to the measure’s passage.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance