Editorial O’ The Day – Page 5

Self-serving or not, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is a threat to the rights of all

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom garnered national attention by proposing his vision for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unsurprising given Newsom’s policy goals for the Golden State, the proposed amendment would advance Newsom’s gun control dreams nationwide. While it’s unlikely Newsom can gather the support necessary to make his dream a reality in the near-term, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers of his narrative.

On June 8, Newsom issued a press release outlining his specific vision for a new constitutional amendment that he describes as “common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.” The proposed amendment would write four key tenets of Newsom’s gun control religion into our federal system of government: (1) raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; (2) mandating (so-called) “universal background checks”; (3) instituting a waiting period for all gun purchases; and (4) barring “civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

It would be exceedingly challenging today for Newsom to actually achieve his goal. Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure necessary to amend the Constitution. First, two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states have to propose an amendment (with agreed upon language). Then, three fourths of states have to ratify that amendment for it to become effective. Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called “assault weapons” or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.

Setting that aside, Newsom’s rhetoric is still dangerous for a couple reasons. First, while Newsom’s campaign is, at face value, a poorly disguised political stunt and fundraising effort for his political ambitions, it continues to paint gun control as “popular” and those standing in its way as responsible for violence. Newsom quite literally called those opposing his proposed amendment “Merchants of Death.” This rhetoric continues to push gun control activists’ twisting of language to psychologically manipulate the public and advance the activists’ cause. It aims to shift public perception until enough people will assent to the authoritarian regulation of all individual’s natural rights.

Second, and to that point, Newsom’s proposed amendment carries with it the implication that, if enough people agree, the government should have the power to infringe on the People’s natural right to self-defense and to possess the tools necessary to effectuate that defense. The idea that the People’s rights can be put up to a decision of a popular vote is offensive and immoral. The entire purpose of our system of government was to protect the rights of the few from the many. Yet, today, we’ve strayed far from that original vision. Newsom’s proposed amendment is evidence of just that.

Not only is Newsom’s proposal an admission that he is losing his battle for civilian disarmament, and that he knows the Constitution and the Second Amendment stand in the way of his authoritarian utopia, but it also reveals just how far our Nation has strayed from its aspirations of individual liberty, choosing instead to grow the leviathan that is government.

Natural rights are not mere political talking points, nor are those who cherish them second class citizens, subject to the whimsy of polling results or political fads. The People should never weaken in their resolve to protect those rights that once one generation loses, future generations may never know.

Whether Newsom’s proposed amendment is likely or not in the immediate future, one thing remains constant—all those who cherish individual rights must treat each trespass exactly for what it is, a bridge to the next trespass.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is a senior attorney for constitutional litigation with FPC Action Foundation where he regularly represents Firearms Policy Coalition.

Giving the Constitution Teeth: The Truth About Aggravated Infringement—a Felony

The U.S. Constitution, for all its strengths, revered and imitated worldwide, has a fatal flaw. A weakness of Greek-tragedy proportions. The Constitution lacks punishment for those who would violate its terms. Yes, there are avenues of recourse, but these have been neutered and rendered feckless in so many ways.

Politicians these days believe they can get away with anything, right? Graft, bribes, gaslighting, obtaining office by any means legal or otherwise, all-out bald-faced lies, scare tactics, misappropriation of funds… They’ll use the organs of government to assault domestic opposition (not the same as domestic enemies), place them under arrest, strangle their voices by deplatforming, controlling so-called “news” media and playing them like stenographers, it has gotten totally out of hand. Why? And what to do about it? Even when they’re exposed, red-handed—did you review John Durham’s report?—they seem to skate. Here’s why:

The ultimate protection of our “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness”—a way to force government into compliance—is use of force. Our Declaration of Independence recognized and encouraged that “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

That option, which held more meaning right after our bloody founding, has lost some if not all its impact. It’s too extreme, too hard, too violent for subtle infringements and little incursions on our liberties. That allows the thousand cuts to build up until they are intolerable acts. Then use of force is too late. We’re there now. But there’s hope.

What America needs, what our Republic and Constitution need, is strict adherence to a policy of, “No infringement shall be tolerated.” Small encroachments—like licenses to carry arms or speech codes—must subject people proposing such violations to penalties. Gross infringements like, “We’re going to take away your favorite rifle—and of course we’ll keep ours,” require prison terms. Stiff penalties.

Continue reading “”

Most Gun Control Laws Render Us More Unsafe

Every time Democrats unveil a new gun control proposal, their message is the same: their bill, if enacted, will save lives. Actually the exact opposite is true.

States have recently rushed to pass new laws in response to a decision the U.S. Supreme Court made last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen.

It held that the Second Amendment prohibits government requiring applicants to prove a “special need” in order to be issued a concealed carry permit.

States that included this requirement are called “may issue” states; others, which comprise the majority, are called “shall issue” states.

Maryland was one of those “may issue” states, and concealed carry applications there soared in response to Bruen.

“The Maryland State Police has received 11 times the usual number of new permit applications since the court struck down state provisions requiring gun owners to demonstrate a special need for carrying a firearm for self-defense,” The Washington Post reported.

However, to paraphrase a verse in the Book of Job: “the government giveth, the government taketh away.”

Many “may issue” jurisdictions, including Maryland, scrambled to change their concealed carry laws to comply with Bruen, while still limiting the right to carry, despite the plain language of the Second Amendment that states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So while newly-elected Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, eased restrictions to obtain a permit, he simultaneously tightened them — by limiting the places where one may carry.

“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore said at a bill-signing ceremony. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”

But by signing Maryland’s new law, he only made Baltimore’s “mean streets” even meaner.

Continue reading “”

Judge right on history of gun owners’ rights

After the Supreme Court ruled nearly a year ago that making it unduly burdensome to acquire a permit to carry a firearm violates the Second Amendment rights of Americans, New Jersey and New York tried a new approach.

The two states attempted to disqualify Americans with permits from carrying a gun at a broad assortment of places — so broad that, as Reason magazine notes, “effectively prohibits the carrying of that handgun virtually everywhere.”

Fortunately, a federal judge struck down the attempt at circumventing the rights to self-defense and to bear arms in mid-May.

One of the hallmarks for the right to bear arms the Supreme Court set forth was historical analogues — testing new policies against the history of our nation and whether similar limitations have ever existed. As Judge Renee Bumb noted, New Jersey failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to offer historical evidence. She was left to comb through the state’s history herself, and what she found was numerous examples of permissiveness toward carrying guns in many of the most similar conditions to which New Jersey attempted to limit the right to carry.

No one should be surprised by what this judge found. Modern sentiments aside, the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the necessity of guns as tools of deterrence and self-defense are ingrained in our nation’s history — and illustrate that guns are not the problem, nor gun control the solution.

Gun Control: MORE GUNS, Not Less.

So the powers that be have made you terrified of a piece of metal and plastic that goes boom? Have you ever seen a gun jump up and shoot somebody all by itself? Of course not. What we should really be concerned about is the wrong people having guns, not taking guns away from people who will use them safely, responsibly, legally, and lawfully.

Aside from all the anti-gun propaganda, let’s look at the reality of things. First of all, there are not enough police officers to protect you and arrive on time. There is clearly no guarantee. And because these things are so sporadic, there is a greater guarantee that they will not arrive in time. We see in active shooter incidents that the police arrive after people have been killed at least 90% of the time. And that is based on a review of over 300 active shooter incident in the last 20 years in the United States. You can check the FBI data for yourself.

But before I leave this point, I would be remiss not to mention that 90% or more of the active shooter incidents have one thing in common. Nobody seems to have any firearm to protect themselves, or at least nobody fires back at the murderous active shooter. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude if people had firearms in such cases and they were trained to use them, the active shooters would not be able to do nearly as much damage.

Let’s look at another example. How many cases of police stations being robbed or shot up have you heard about? How many cases a police officers being car jacked have you heard about? Likely very few to none. But have you ever stopped to think about why that is? Let me tell you why. The primary reason is not because a criminal would be concerned about going to jail. The primary reason is because criminals know that police officers carry guns, and they are trained to use them. Therefore, a criminal attacking a police station has virtually no chance of getting out of there alive. That by itself is a huge deterrent to criminals.

Let’s look at another scenario. Out of incidents with 300 active shooters in America, less than 1/2 of one percent have happened on military bases in the United States. Why do you think that is? Partially because the military bases have tight security, especially entering the base. But a big reason for such low numbers of active shooter incidents on military bases is because these bases employ and house military personnel who are trained with weapons, and will not hesitate to use them to protect themselves and others. Armed and ready, or at least trained and prepared.

Let’s look at one more scenario before we get to the average citizen in America. Rewind back to the old west where at least practically every adult male capable of carrying a weapon did so in order to protect himself, his family and his home. Each man may not have been the fastest gun in the town, but maybe he was just fast enough in the right situation as he was prepared to protect his family. Or at least he was prepared to try.

Now let’s fast forward to today. Every major city in the United States from Miami to New York, Chicago to Atlanta, New Orleans to Dallas and so on has a severe shortage of law-enforcement officers on the streets. And even if these police departments were at full staff, there still would not be enough of them to protect anywhere near even 1/4 of the citizens, tourists and commuters.

Police officers, regardless of how much you hear “protect and serve”, are not bodyguards. As hard as many of them work, they are “law enforcement” officers, not public safety officers. And did you know that around 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled by a majority vote that local law enforcement officers were not responsible for the individual safety of citizens unless you were in their custody or there were special arrangements that had been made? Furthermore, many of you have heroes (the good cops) confused with superheroes who always arrive on time. Police officers are neither Iron Man, nor Superman, nor Flash nor Wonder Woman. Thus they are not able to arrive on time, every time, all the time.

This brings us to the average citizen in the United States. Someone is walking toward you on the highway with a gun because they are a mental road rage case. This is a random incident and you were not even involved in the incident where he or she has the road rage. You have spoken out against guns and you don’t like them, so you don’t have one. What do you do? Clearly, the police cannot be expected to arrive in time unless they are sitting on the highway right near where you are and happen to see what is transpiring.

Someone is breaking into your house in broad daylight while you are home, a home invasion that the FBI says statistically happens more in broad daylight. They have just kicked in the door. But you are so afraid of guns that you don’t even have one. What do you do? You could dial 911 and then tell the home invader to leave because you have called the police, even though you don’t know when they will arrive. And the criminal invading your home just might turn around and walk out the door, but not likely. So what do you do?

You are in a department store bathroom when you hear gunshots and you see everybody running into the bathroom where you are. Terror on their faces. Fear and in their hearts. The gunman is coming to the bathroom as he shoots people. You are unarmed, so what do you do?

In each of these cases, you can pray and run, maybe duck and hide. But the only thing that will protect you from a gun in the hands of a maniac at that moment is you having a firearm to protect yourself and being trained to use it.

I don’t say these things just to promote guns. I say these things, because in a country full of crime, guns serve a purpose in you protecting yourself. I don’t say these things because I am a firearms instructor. I don’t see these things because I have guns, including … I don’t say these things because I am a former detective, executive protection agent, security expert, criminologist and retired Director of Public Safety. I say these things because they are true and once you realize that YOU have the PRIMARY responsibility to protect yourself, maybe you will start doing it.

Yes, there is a way to arm school teachers (selectively) without having incidents where Miss Mary left a loaded gun in her drawer and a student found it. I know because I wrote a plan on exactly how to do it. You may say that teachers are not the police. My response? First wake up to the world that we live in. And second, every day, millions upon millions of parents trust the teachers and the school with their children for education and safety. So let them provide both in a strategic, organized, responsible manner. It can be done, believe me.

The bottom line, whether you like guns or not, is that you and your family are the first line of defense in your safety. So it only makes sense that you are prepared to protect yourself, your family and your home. Especially when you don’t know what will happen, when or where. It’s time to wake up and stop being afraid of plastic and metal that can do nothing by itself.

A disarmed population is a population of sitting ducks just waiting for criminals to go duck hunting. And out of all the legislators and soccer moms and pastors and businesses that want to demonize and take the guns away, none of them are going to protect you and your family. It’s up to you. But if the criminal has a gun and you don’t, it’s up to them. And I don’t think they are going to do what is in your best interest.

AR-15 Bans Are (Still) Unconstitutional

The struggle to come up with a sound legal argument to ban a civilian rifle continues.

Gun control advocates have become so dependent on emotional arguments they often seem incapable of offering rational ones. So, I was eager to read a new Bloomberg column (via The Washington Post) headlined, “The Second Amendment Allows a Ban on the AR-15.”

The piece doesn’t get off to a promising start, as author Noah Feldman props up a familiar straw man:

If we each have the right to bear arms, is there a constitutional right to a military-style semiautomatic rifle like an AR-15? What about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? A small tank?

Notice how he jumps from the oxymoronic “military-style semiautomatic rifle” — not a real thing — to a small tank. Anyway, the proposition is that we should not have access to military-grade armaments. (Feldman is unaware that owning a small tank is legal.) But we’ll get back to that in a moment.

Throughout the piece, Feldman treats the Second Amendment as some kind of courtesy “extend[ed]” by the state, rather than an inalienable right that can only be limited in extraordinary circumstances. The best way to avoid this confusion is to plug the words “First Amendment” whenever you see “Second Amendment” and the words “newspapers” every time you see “guns.” Though perhaps these days that won’t help either.

The main problem in the piece, however, is that Feldman misunderstands the Supreme Court’s 1939 United States v. Miller decision, which he contends is “background to the current doctrine” that makes it permissible to ban a semiautomatic rifle.

Miller revolved around a small-time bank robber and alleged murderer named Jackson “Jack” Miller and a sidekick, who in 1938 were caught in possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun while “making preparation for armed robbery,” according to the police. The two were charged with violating the relatively new National Firearms Act.

If it were up to the two criminals, the case would have ended right there, because both pled guilty. But the judge, Hiram Ragon, a New Dealer and NFA booster, refused to accept the pleas, assigning a court-appointed lawyer to the case. Instead of fighting the charges, the two crooks went on the lam. (Within a few months, Miller’s bullet-ridden body was found in an Oklahoma creek.)

Still, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, which is probably what Ragon had intended all along. The ruling was something of a sham. Miller’s lawyers didn’t even bother filing a brief or showing up to make any oral arguments. And because anyone could buy any gun they wanted whenever they wanted, there were no Second Amendment advocacy groups in existence to take up the cause.

The Supreme Court issued a muddled opinion affirming the constitutionality of the NFA, finding that the Second Amendment didn’t guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun shorter than 18 inches, which was a weapon commonly used by criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court found, “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” (The justices were wrong, by the way. The military did use 14-inch barrel shotguns at the time, though there was no lawyer there to inform them of this fact.)

Feldman tries to argue that even Justice James McReynolds, a crazy “libertarian,” was a reasonable voice on guns 84 years ago. But the truth is the NFA didn’t ban any kind of mechanism or any class of weapon. In 1939, a person could walk into a drug store and buy a tommy gun if they pleased, after paying a tax.

Miller quite literally undercuts Feldman’s set-up. An unregistered sawed-off shotgun brought across state lines was illegal because such guns weren’t used by the military for the common defense. If it had been, it would have been legal. Meaning, not only an AR-15, but an M16 — a true military-grade weapon — would be legal.

Feldman dismisses this finding in the case as a “practical disadvantage.” Just ignore it, then, I guess. Instead, like many others before him, he pivots to claim that the Miller decision bolsters the revisionist case for a collective theory of gun rights. The left would have you believe they support gun rights, but only if you join a militia. Sure.

The problem is the court didn’t offer any broad ruling regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons,” Antonin Scalia wrote nearly 70 years later in D.C. v. Heller. “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

To counter this claim, Feldman throws in this well-worn contention about the Heller decision:

That opinion featured the astonishing act (astonishing for an originalist, at least) of reinterpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment. This took some jurisprudential jiu-jitsu. Scalia discounted the introductory clause that explains the purpose of amendment as ensuring a well-regulated militia. He shifted the meaning of the right to bear arms to personal self-defense.

The above paragraph is a completely concocted fantasy. Heller did not reinterpret anything. The “well-regulated” in the Bill of Rights refers to an orderly civilian military force, rather than a rabble of men. It always has. It does not mean “regulation” in its contemporary understanding of the state micromanaging your actions from the top down with a bunch of rules, which would have been alien to that generation.

And the regulated militia mentioned in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn’t erase the operative clause of the amendment, which protects the individual’s right to “bear” arms — a right that virtually every notable figure from the founding era is on the record defending. There is nothing astonishing about it. Anyone who’s spent five minutes reading about Madison and the Second Amendment understands why he wrote it the way he did. Many states codified the individual’s right to bear arms in their own constitutions before the Bill of Rights was even written, most of them in much more explicit terms. No SCOTUS case has ever treated the Second Amendment as anything but an individual right. No Founding Father ever argued otherwise. The “collective right” is an invention of the 1990s.

You have a right to own an AR-15 because it is a gun in common use among ordinary citizens. There is nothing unusual about it. The most popular rifle in America isn’t even close to being the deadliest weapon in the country.

The AR-15 has never been a military weapon. It was sold to civilians before it was modified. But even if we accepted the left’s contentions that ARs were some kind of military super gun — a talking point that might well contribute to its popularity with homicidal nuts — Miller still doesn’t allow for a ban.

Secret Service’s shady protect-Biden dodges make ‘em ALL look guilty

Ouch: The Secret Service is now officially the Bureau of Biden Butt-Covering.

The agency just issued a fresh denial of FOIA requests from The Post and the House Oversight Committee for visitor records from Biden’s Delaware houses — in the process showing that prior denials were factually false.

At last, the Secret Service admits that some records exist — contra absurd claims in earlier denials that they simply didn’t.

Now the agency is tendentiously citing a Trump-era 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that has no binding effect whatsoever on Delaware (which is in the 3rd Circuit) to insist it just can’t release the records.

Again: In response to earlier FOIAs, the Secret Service claimed for months it was diligently “reviewing thousands of records in an effort to locate any documents responsive to your request,” then said it had none.

Now it’s admitting they exist (as it should have known from the start: presidential protection is by far its highest-profile duty), but claiming it can’t share them.

It’s a multi-tiered Biden defense system, in other words:

Drag feet endlessly on producing information that belongs to the American people.
Tell flimsy lies, like saying that there are zero records relating to the people who visit the world’s most powerful man at his private homes.
Admit you told lies but still refuse point blank to hand over the goods.

And while the moves might fall within the letter of Freedom of Information law, they’re utterly against its spirit.

We get it: the Oversight Committee is drawing a net ever more tightly around the Bidens, producing hard evidence that seemingly ties “Big Guy” Joe to his family’s influence peddling.

The Delaware visitor logs, which track who comes to see Joe in private — and likely Hunter, who listed his father’s Wilmington home as his own address — will cast further light on that sordid situation.

They’ll also provide a list of people who might have had access to the classified info Joe improperly stored in the Wilmington house’s garage, which is unquestionably a matter of national security.

All the more so given Hunter’s shady international ties.

So the fear from the feds of revelations on this makes ugly sense.

Conceivably, this stonewall is just bureaucratic obstinacy-for-its-own-sake.

But the repeated prior deceptions from Hunter, Joe and the rest of the Biden clan around their mafia activities, plus the previous blatant falsehoods from the Secret Service, suggest there’s something to hide here.

Otherwise, why not just release the records?

Unless and until the Bidens and their security apparatchiks come clean, the American people should assume the worst.

Lysander Boomer

Given the threat to our economic and consequently political stability posed by the consequences of the curtailment of natural gas production, I would welcome a statement from the governors of producing states about what their intentions are in the future.

Assuming a second Biden term, it is probable that additional restrictions will be passed aimed at destroying domestic energy production. State governments must nullify such restrictions and ensure sufficient energy supplies.

I would encourage the formation of regional organizations between states to ensure that at a minimum, politically aligned states are not economically devastated by the policies of this administration. Joint litigation, joint resistance, joint production etc.
The lights must be kept on, the production of food must not be interfered with, the grid must be secured against sabotage, both physical and legislative in origin.

If we must have a constitutional crisis, let it be over keeping folks fed and living with proper amounts of air conditioning and electrical services. The feds will either yield or be displaced in such a circumstance.

Force the agenda out into the open. Use state power to the absolute maximum to ensure the prosperity of your state and confederate with other likeminded states to resist the inevitable federal repercussions. It may get ugly but it is a worthy fight.

Potentially consider passing legislation to allow for the recall of senators if they are judged to act against the interest of the state government. This will work to restore the intention of the senate as a battleground of the states.
State legislatures must wield their power strongly to defend against federal overreach. I can’t say it enough, the states must arm themselves (legally) against the federal government and prepare to fight with everything they’ve got.

These are semi automatic “assault rifles”, although the term is made up, this is what the left wants to take. I actually don’t care what you call them, at all, as long as you don’t call them “modern sporting rifles”. That term is a pathetic attempt at the gun movement trying to placate the left.

I dont own these rifles for sport, I don’t hunt with either of these rifles although I could. Both of these rifles are owned because they’re effective against two legged predators at varying distances. I own these rifles in case someone or a group of people intend to kill me or my loved ones. These rifles are owned specifically to defend myself against humans.

Let’s not mince words. Every attempt at banning them only makes me buy more and more. No legislation will make me give them to you, no tragedy will ever make me anti gun. Each shooting I see in the news makes me want to buy more and train harder to be more effective against the evil in this world.

These guns don’t make me a psychopathic killer. I’m not a violent person but I’m also not an idiot who believes the world is a safe place. As the world gets increasingly more dangerous I look for better and better tools to defend myself and my family. As the government gets more corrupt and the economy crashes I hedge my bets with effective self defense tools and the skillset to effectively deploy them.

My guns aren’t a threat to anyone that isn’t trying to kill me. So you can cry, you can protest and you can even legislate, these are mine and you’ll never get them. They’re absolutely no danger to you unless you’re someone who means me harm and tries to kill me. How many people need to die before I turn in my guns? There isn’t an amount. What do my guns have to do with shooting rates in this country? Do you advocate chopping off your penis to help prevent others from raping?

Tweet away, vote away, protest and cry. They’re still mine.

Maine legislators consider expanding adult access to guns on school grounds for school safety

AUGUSTA, Maine —
With more than one mass shooting a day in America so far this year, including many in schools and on college campuses, Maine legislators are taking a closer look at improving school safety by potentially expanding adult access to guns on school grounds for self-defense.

One bill that underwent a public hearing before the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee on Wednesday, LD 52, would let teachers and other school staff be armed at school following police-style training to use their guns.

Since there’s never been a school shooting in Maine, the bill’s sponsor sees lessons learned in mass school shootings in other states.

“In all of them, a quick response time would have saved lives, if we had the right person there that knew what they were doing for an active shooter situation was willing, obviously, to be that person and did so,” Rep. Steve Foster, (R) Dexter, said in an interview. “My district has one school resource officer with four buildings. So, this whole bill is about an immediate or almost immediate response in a building, and if you look at some of these past incidents around the country, the response time was a big key issue, and that’s what this is hoping to address.”

Continue reading “”

Attacking Second Amendment doesn’t address core causes of society’s violence and lawlessness

By Sen. Keith Wagoner

On the Saturday before Easter, the state Senate’s majority Democrats passed what they call an “assault weapons ban.” In reality, the bill targets several of the most popular sporting and self-defense firearms in the country, including most modern sporting rifles and even some shotguns used for hunting and competition shooting.

My Republican colleagues and I debated the measure for nearly three hours, using the amendment process to try to point out the fallacies of their arguments and mitigate some of the damage the bill would do to the rights of Washingtonians and small business owners who work as legal firearms dealers.

As it turned out, I was the only one able to get an amendment accepted – one to support our military members and allow them to keep their firearms when they are ordered to move to Washington.

The proponents of this bill and I agree on one thing and one thing only. We are in a crisis in Washington. But it is a crisis of general lawlessness across our communities, one exacerbated by bad legislative decisions over the past several legislative sessions.

We have seen soft-on-crime policies, releasing criminals from incarceration; vilification of our law enforcement officers; toleration of life-destroying drug proliferation and use; failure to address mental health adequately; and poor decisions during the COVID lockdowns resulting in learning loss and depression among our youth. We need to focus on addressing the root causes leading to chaos and violence, not vilify firearm ownership.

Our nation has always had a history of gun ownership, and the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution enshrines our naturally endowed right to defend ourselves and our families. But what we have not always seen – what is new to the moment – is the devastating loss of life we have witnessed due to crime, suicide, mass shootings and senseless violence.

House Bill 1240 declares the violent and inappropriate use of firearms ‘appeal[s] to troubled young men intent on becoming the next mass shooter.’ But where is the effort to help these troubled young males and heal whatever there is inside of them that is broken and leading to violence and rage?

Instead, this bill goes after the implement, and completely ignores the underlying root causes of the problems we see today.

The problems are not just reflected in deaths caused by a demented person with a firearm. We see it in the increase of drug-related deaths, teen suicides, wrong-way and drunk-driving assaults on our roads, and in the sunken eyes of lost souls we see roaming our streets with unattended-to mental-health and substance-abuse issues.

It is reflected in fatherless homes producing rudderless young men who feel hopeless and unsure of their place in this world. It is reflected in the general lawlessness we have seen explode across this state, thanks in large part to the failed policies of the Democrat majority in the Legislature and Governor Inslee.

Banning some of the most popular firearms kept and used by law-abiding citizens today will do nothing to address these problems. Absolutely zero.

Look no further than the City of Seattle. Despite Washington ranking in the Top 10 nationally for gun control for the past five years, we have seen the number of shootings – fatal or not – and ‘shots-fired events’ in our largest city hit an all-time high in 2022.

The fact of the matter is the law created by this bill will just be more of the same. Worse still, it will give the victims of these crimes and all Washingtonians a false sense of security that something is being done.

And let’s not forget that this ban is also blatantly unconstitutional, and likely to cost taxpayers crucial dollars that could be invested in mental health and public safety, but which will instead be used trying to unsuccessfully defend this law in the courts.

HB 1240 now goes back to the House to reconcile changes between the version that passed the Senate and the one that passed the House earlier this year. That means there is still time for lawmakers to do the right thing, put this bill down, and set their sights on real solutions.

Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley, represents the 39th Legislative District. He serves as the Senate Republican Whip and is a member of the Senate Law and Justice Committee.

The core message of Passover may be more than three millennia old, but it should never be forgotten.
FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY!
As a sign, an archetype, it foretold the sacrifice the Messiah would make to free humanity from the slavery of sin.

Socialism and The Holiday Of Freedom
Passover Is A Celebration Of Freedom And Personal Choice—Socialism Is Government Controlled Slavery

Karl Marx famously said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” Following Marx’s lead, Socialism tries to replace God with a socialist Government. It destroys principles inherent to Jewish and American traditions, such as limited government, individual responsibility, and traditional morals. It even tries to destroy the meaning of Passover, which is constantly repeated throughout the Torah-individual freedom “Once we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Eternal God took us out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” While we observe the holiday with friends and family, it is a holiday about individual freedom, “In every generation, one is obligated to see oneself as one who personally went out from Egypt … “In every generation, one is obligated to see oneself as one who personally went out from Egypt.

Let’s start at the beginning, or in the beginning; the creation narrative in Genesis explains that man is created in God’s image. But we are also taught that our maker has no bodily form, so how can that be? The Bible is not telling us that we are all dead ringers for the “big guy upstairs.” If that were the case, the picture on everyone’s driver’s licenses would be the same, no one would be able to get a check cashed, and all of those TV shows about using DNA to solve crimes would be very boring.

“Created in God’s image” is supposed to teach us that just as God acts as a free being, without prior restraint to do right and wrong, so can man. God does good deeds as a matter of his own free choice, and because we are created in his image, so can man. Only through free choice can man indeed be in the image of God. It is further understood that for mankind to have absolutely free choice, it must have inner free will and an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely; this is what the Rabbis mean when they said, “All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven” (Talmud, Berachot 33b). God controls all our options, but it is up to man to choose between correct or incorrect choices.

When it comes right down to it, free will is the divine version of limited government. God picks the correct direction and even gives us the Torah as a guidebook to follow, but he does not pick winners and losers—it is up to us to choose the direction we want to proceed.

Continue reading “”

Sometimes you wonder if that was part of the plan.

How Putin saved NATO

When Finland cleared the last hurdle for NATO membership last week, major Western newspapers buried the story. Yet Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto justly celebrated ‘these historic days’—the end of 75 years of neutrality. As of this week, Finland is formally in, and Sweden, another eternal neutral, will soon follow, once Turkey stops blocking its membership.

Why would these two countries throng into an alliance that French President Emmanuel Macron diagnosed as being ‘brain dead’ only four years ago, and which former US President Donald Trump saw as ‘obsolete’ in 2017? The wisdom of the 18th-century British wit Samuel Johnson offers a broad answer here: ‘When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.’

But there is an even pithier answer to this question: Vladimir Putin. The man who would be king of Europe has given NATO a new brain and a new lease on life.

What an irony! One of Putin’s many pretexts for subduing Ukraine was to stop NATO enlargement once and for all. Instead, by pushing two neutral Nordic countries into the alliance, he has achieved the opposite. NATO, now, has not been in better health for decades.

Yet Putin doesn’t deserve all the credit. NATO was never as sclerotic as Macron and Trump presumed. It is the oldest alliance of free countries, and longevity bespeaks functionality. In past centuries, royals changed coalitions more often than their wigs. As Lord Palmerston famously said, ‘We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.’

Continue reading “”

OUR CHILDREN NEED PROTECTION—THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO ARM TEACHERS

We need to focus on solutions that could have directly prevented the deaths that occurred in Nashville, Tennessee at the Covenant School—not unrelated gun control measures that would not have saved a single life in this situation.

Anti-gun activists and politicians cannot name a single gun control law that would have prevented this shooting, according to the details we have from the most recent reports at the time of distribution.

Arming Teachers

We must discuss real solutions to preventing this type of evil from striking again by arming willing teachers—which is a solution supported by 81% of police.[i] Absolutely nothing should come between a teacher who wants to defend children and their right to carry a firearm. No school that has armed teachers or staff has ever experienced a mass shooting.[ii] If our elected officials are important enough to receive armed protection, so too should our children!

Repealing the Gun-Free School Zones Act

We must also repeal then-Senator Biden’s unconstitutional Gun-Free School Zones Act which leaves our children vulnerable to criminals and our parents unarmed to defend them.[iii] The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a blanket ban on firearms on school property[iv] with the sole exception of self-defense minded Americans with the permission of their state and local governments.[v] Even in the 1990s, it was not outrageous that Americans would carry firearms on school grounds for self-defense.

But the red-tape enacted in the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is outdated three decades later when half of the country—twenty-five states[vi]—have enacted Constitutional Carry or permitless carry laws—and at least 32 states allow armed teachers, parents, and school resource officers on campus.[vii] For this reason, Gun Owners of America endorses Rep. Thomas Massie’s H.R. 7417, the Safe Students Act.[viii] This bill would eliminate federal restrictions unnecessarily placed between a teacher or parent and their right to defend our children.

Armed Guards and Other Hardening Alternatives

While society may see fit to place police or armed guards in schools, this is not a one-or-the-other type choice. Teachers and parents must be allowed to carry firearms, according to common sense and our Constitution. On the other hand, schools may choose to harden themselves in other ways.

But remember, no matter how hard of a target we make our schools, securities and defenses may be penetrated. Banks get robbed. Security guards can be targeted, as was the case in Buffalo, New York.[ix] Listen to GOA’s Florida State Director, who also served as a School Resource Officer:

Part of my law enforcement career was spent working as a school resource officer in Florida. I was charged with protecting our most cherished of resources: our children. I made it my mission to ensure the safety of the children entrusted to my care. I would have given my life, if necessary.

But the hard truth is that I was just one cop on the campus; I couldn’t be everywhere at once. I patrolled the grounds, I made sure the gates were locked and the doors were shut, and I kept watch for strangers. Still, one officer is not enough, given that most modern schools are vast and sprawling.

We must be honest about what makes a school safe, and right now, as a society, we are not being serious. The desire to “do something,” has been met by politicians actually enacting counterproductive legislation. It’s time to reverse course… I know more needs to be done and no, the answer isn’t gun control.[x]

Ultimately, the most important thing we can do as a nation is to allow school faculty and parents to exercise their constitutionally protected right to defend their lives and the lives of our children.

Continue reading “”

A Re-Declaration of Independence.
Tyranny is already upon us. To defeat it, we must first learn to reject its premises. And to say so aloud.

Be it so understood:

I refuse to “unpack white violence.” I reject the idea that my existence “perpetuates white power structures.” I will not — and in fact cannot — “examine my implicit biases.” I’m an individual. I refuse to grant determined interpretive communities authority over my being. My meaning is mine. It is what makes me me.

I will not “respect your pronouns” or “celebrate” your “queerness.” I am hostile to your sexualizing of children. I reject your neologisms, your “triggers,” and your desire to control my speech. I know who and what you are: you are my presumptive master, or else the Useful Idiot who empowers him. But I will grant you and your ideology no power over me.

I reject “equity” because it is collectivism disguised as virtue. I reject “inclusivity” because it is inorganic, superficial, and contrived. I reject mandated “diversity”: I will not surrender to the Crayon Box Mafia, nor to the gender changelings who pretend I am a construct answerable to their whims.

“Cultural appropriation” is merely culture: it expands to include, and it makes up the very fabric of a pluralist society. There’s no such thing as “digital blackface.” My whiteness is not “violent”; my sex is not “oppressive”; my religion doesn’t concern you; and my children are not yours to mold. Your beliefs will not be imposed on me. The State will not parent my sons.

“Queer theory” is “critical race theory” is “critical consciousness” is the Marxist rejection of the individual as individual. Cultural Marxism is determined to raze norms, sow chaos, tear families asunder, and reduce being to collective conformity. I reject its premises as fully as I reject its adherents. I will not comply.

I will not mouth your slogans. I will not denounce on command. I am not your tool, and you are not my minder. I reject your social hectoring. I find abhorrent your authoritarian urges. I laugh at your disingenuous outrage. From me you will receive no apologies. I reject your premises entirely, and I hereby reclaim my time.

My speech is my own. I reject each of your excuses to silence me. I don’t ask for your protections. I can filter information without your interference, and I despise your presumption to protect me from myself.

I am your sworn enemy, as you are mine. I will not perform for you. I will not read from your script or dance in your follies. I utterly reject your revisionism, your ahistorical impertinence, your presentism, your self-appointed expertise. I will not bow before your theorists, nor admire your social prophets.

I am not a disease. My existence doesn’t “warm the planet.” I’m not interested in your “sustainability” concerns. I am not yours to manage.

I won’t eat your bugs, live in your pods, surrender my cars, or without consent be packed into your cities. I reject your charity. I unmask your intentions. I know what a woman is; I know that any member of any racial group can practice racism; I know that 2+2=4, regardless of how contingent you wish to make reality. I despise your ideology. I refuse your relativism. You are not the Elect, and I am not answerable to the various neuroses you wear as badges of honor.

I know you better than you know yourselves. You are conditioned. Programmed. Automotons who believe themselves sentient beings. Your intolerance of “hate” is not a virtue. It’s a ruse. An excuse to practice your own intolerance and luxuriate in your own hatreds. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are that which you claim to despise, and I am that which you claim to be.

I see you. Clearly. And I aim to misbehave.

I strive to be self-sufficient. I honor the founding ideals of my country, and I work to live up to their measure. I recognize the great fortune of my birth. History does not frighten me. I reject your blood libels: I am not responsible for that which I didn’t do, nor are you victims of what was never done to you. I will not proclaim your goodness while knowing your evil.

I am a free man. You wish to take me from me. You will fail. I will win. And God willing, I will live to spit on your graves.

Outlaw.

The post-Bruen “Sugar High” is a serious threat to our Second Amendment

The NYSRPA v. Bruen verdict passed by the Supreme Court last June was a watershed moment in American history. What began as a fight against the arbitrary power of government apparatchiks to grant concealed carry permits, often with a dollop of corruption, ended with a judicial standard that limits the power of government to infringe upon our right to keep and arms. The new guidance from the Supreme Court places the burden of proof on the government to show that a law that implicates the Second Amendment rights of citizens is in line with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.

The implications have been massive. From coast to coast, laws that were previously rubber-stamped by a jaundiced judiciary are being struck down.

Laws that created a malleable category of “assault weapons” and banned them? Gone!
Laws that mandated non-existent James Bond technology? Gone!
Magazine capacity restrictions? Poof!
Laws that banned out-of-state ammunition purchases? In the process of getting shot down.
Laws that restrict young adults from owning guns? On their way out.
Ammo background purchase requirements? About to get overturned…

California has seen a lot of the above action but New York, my state of residence, has also seen its fair share of lawsuits after the Empire State struck back.

There is a lot to celebrate. Gun owners in anti-Second Amendment states are giddy at being able to own pistol grips instead of obscene workarounds, threaded barrels, detachable magazines, and folding/adjustable stocks. They’re no longer limited to Gen3 Glocks, and are no longer discouraged to apply for a carry permit because they aren’t rich, politically connected, or refuse to participate in Third World bribery.

Yet, amid all this, I see reason for alarm. Granted, things were far worse and on a bad trajectory but seem to have turned around. Those gains, in my opinion, are tenuous and can be rolled back within our lifetimes. The scoreboard as it stands now is the result of a razor-thin Electoral College victory in 2016. Regardless of one’s sentiments and policy positions on abortion, the overturning of Roe v. Wade should serve as a warning.

In an ideal world, lawmakers would refrain from passing laws that violate the Constitution, the Executive Branch would stop usurping the authority of lawmakers, and the judiciary would make use of its lifetime tenure to judge cases on their merits and not be cowed down by public opinion or political pressure. But the world we live in is far from that. The weakened separation of powers will be dangerous in the long run, not just for the Second Amendment, but for the overall health of the Republic.

Secondly, the enemies of our freedoms are organized, well-funded, and waging an all-out war. They’re working secretly with the CDC, pushing propaganda in Hollywood, applying pressure campaigns on private industry, conspiring with academia, and using public money to push their agenda. I hesitate to say this, but they’re behaving like modern-day Benedict Arnolds, colluding with foreign nations to subvert the American Bill of Rights because of their deep-seated hatred and basic denial of our right to keep and bear arms.

I’ve heard people say that “we’ve got ’em on the ropes” but I’m doubtful. What I see is a danger arising from a post-Bruen “Sugar High” and complacency on the part of gun owners.

Will you stop your activism now that you can buy pistol grips and folding stocks? Will you stop calling your elected representatives now that you have your carry permit? Will you show up to vote or relax at home? Will your rifles gather dust in your safe as you go about your life assuming that the law and political circumstances will stay as they are now, and your freedoms will remain safe?

It’s a good idea to live like an optimist but prepare for the worst. I implore the reader to still act like your freedom is on the verge of obliteration: continue dutifully calling your elected representatives, speak up when needed, and most importantly, continue taking inexperienced people to the range and bring them into the fold of gun ownership, so our freedoms can be enjoyed by our grandchildren and their descendants a hundred years from now.

Will Phobias About AR-15s Keep Schools From Adopting This Innovative Product?

Time is of the essence in mass public shootings. Civilians and police stop a lot of mass murders by carrying handguns, but sometimes you need a larger round than is available in a traditional handgun. It often simply isn’t practical to carry around a rifle. And school staff might not have time to run to a locker to retrieve the needed gun.

Andrew Pollack, whose 18-year-old daughter, Meadow, died in the 2018 Parkland school mass murder that left 17 people dead, is fighting to give school districts the tools they need. Byrna, a company that makes innovative self-defense tools, has donated eight backpacks containing collapsible AR-15s to Pollack’s “Meadows Movement” nonprofit. These guns fire .223 caliber rifle rounds and are more powerful than traditional handguns.

On January 4th, Pollack will give the backpacks to the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office for use by school resource officers (SROs) and Will Hartley, superintendent of Bradford County Schools.

“The folding rifle is easy to carry throughout the day for a school resource officer inside the bulletproof backpack,” Pollack said. “The seconds to get minutes lost retrieving a rifle from a locker vs. pulling the bulletproof backpack into a vest and having the rifle on hand equates to the number of lives that could have been saved.”

The school superintendent echoes his comments. “I wish more people could have it,” Hartley notes. “Because if someone comes on your campus and they have a long gun, we need to be able to meet their force with the same kind of force.”

Bradford County Schools is smart enough to have multiple layers of protection. Even when school resource officers are in the right place at the right time, they have a tough job. Uniformed guards may as well be holding neon signs saying, “Shoot me first.” Attackers know that once they kill the sheriff’s deputy, they have free rein to go after everybody else.

To prevent that, the Bradford County schools are part of Florida’s Guardian Program. As in nineteen other states, teachers and staff are trained to use guns to protect people. But their guns are concealed. Permit holders make guards’ very difficult job easier. If an attacker tries to kill a school resource officer, he reveals his position and makes himself a target to someone with a concealed handgun. As with concealed handgun permit holders generally, the whole point is that the attacker doesn’t know who else he needs to worry about.

Instead of a sign in front of these schools saying “Gun Free School Zone,” they are replaced with signs warning: “Please be aware that certain staff members at Bradford County Schools can be legally armed and may use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.”

But, unfortunately, there are plenty of schools around the country that haven’t learned the lessons that Bradford County has. And these backpacks, with their built-in bullet-resistant vests and ARs will help protect school resource officers from surprise attacks from behind them and will give them more potent firepower if they get into a firefight with attackers. In literally just a couple of seconds, the bullet-resistant vest can also be put on their front side.

Technically these guns are called AR-pistols rather than AR-15s, but the difference in terms is entirely arbitrary and results from nonsensical government regulations on how to define a rifle. Instead of a stock, an AR-15 pistol usually has a tube, but the two guns are functionally identical.

Pollack so believes in Byrna’s products that he is now their chief public safety officer.

It will be a shame if school districts’ phobias about AR-15s prevent them from taking advantage of this innovative product.

Who Wants to Tell California AG Bonta that Access to ‘Weapons of War’ as a Check Against Tyranny is a Core Tenet of the Second Amendment?

I spent much of the last week assisting my brilliant colleagues in preparing their supplemental brief in Duncan v. Bonta. This is the magazine-capacity case that kicked off the now-famous “freedom week” in California in 2019. Our win in district court was affirmed on appeal by a 3-judge panel, but then was reversed by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court acted on our appeal by vacating the en banc decision and remanding the case for further proceedings in light of Bruen.

Back in the district court, the Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted an overlong brief making all sorts of inane arguments, which our brief responds to quite well. However, one throwaway line from the Attorney General bugged me immensely . . .

In neither Heller nor Bruen did the Court find that the Second Amendment’s protections were grounded in the need to bear arms for militia service…or as a “check against tyranny”. In fact, Bruen repeatedly confirms that self-defense (and not militia or military service) is the “central component” of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Personal self-defense is certainly a critical aspect of the Second Amendment, but both the founders as well as the generations immediately after them considered one other purpose paramount: a final defense against a tyrannical government that attempts to overthrow our constitutional order.

This idea, once accepted as common knowledge, has become controversial. It has been derided by modern day gun control advocates as the “insurrectionist theory” of the Second Amendment that was invented by the NRA in the 1970s.[1]

Yet it certainly wasn’t invented by the NRA, nor is it some tinfoil hat theory. It instead goes to the very core of what the Second Amendment was intended for, as the historical record is indisputable on this point.

Embarrassing as it may be to admit for some polite society academics of today, the Bill of Rights was written by people who just finished violently overthrowing their former government. Based on that experience, they were obviously very fearful of the new government they were forming becoming tyrannical, and so they included the Second Amendment, in part, as a failsafe.

You don’t need to take my word for it – the Founders said so themselves. James Madison tried to assuage fears of a tyrannical federal army running roughshod over the people in one of his many Federalist Papers:

Continue reading “”

Opinion: Gun control and the right to self-defense in a Culture of Death
Those in favor of gun control are right about one thing: there is no excuse for inaction. But they are wrongheaded in acting toward stricter but ultimately futile regulations.

As the nation continues to mourn the victims of the Uvalde massacre, and with old wounds aching over the sentencing of the Parkland shooter and the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist trial, Catholics should be the ones who offer answers when it comes to gun violence.

Some legislators want to focus on gun ownership and gun control. But the remedy won’t be found there. Rather, the remedy is spiritual. The nation must realize that saving lives begins with returning sanctity to life in all its stages. And sometimes, as counterintuitive as it may seem to say so, it might, at times, actually take a gun to do that.

A common response to the continual tragedy of school shootings in the United States is to assert that if there are no guns, there will be no shootings. But this perspective is both impractical and misguided. Christians are still called to defend the lives of the helpless—and sometimes an opposing firearm is the best tool to accomplish that. To a virtuous person, the Second Amendment bestows the real potential to be a lifesaver. In these dark days, exercising the right to keep and bear arms may even be considered a responsibility where it is permissible.

As the Left makes arguments that gun control is about saving lives, Pope Francis and the American bishops have taken this tack as well. Though the USCCB’s emphasis is certainly on sensible measures (such as reasonable background checks), the push to have Congress tighten the legislation around the buying and selling of firearms ever since Columbine seems a little too in lockstep with the liberal sectors of government—such as their support for banning assault-style weapons and limiting handgun ownership.

In the wake of Uvalde, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago was particularly direct:

The Second Amendment, unlike the Second Commandment, did not come down from Sinai. There is an understanding that we all have in our hearts, engraved in our hearts, a natural law about the value of human life. And there is no amendment that can trump that.

His Eminence is both right and wrong. Yes, the right to bear arms is not a sacred right, as is the right to life. But there is an often-neglected angle of argument concerning that truth that responsible citizens bearing arms can save lives, and at certain times and situations, it does take an amendment to protect the lives that Cardinal Cupich affirms is a duty of natural law.

But, in fact, the criminals and even the criminally insane will often get their hands on firearms. Severe legislative restrictions, however, will keep many honest citizens unarmed, and that can lead to more unnecessary deaths as well. The bishops might say that being anti-gun is being pro-life, but allowing for the increasingly common scenario where the strong will take evil advantage over the weak is not pro-life at all.

Continue reading “”

Even in Los Angeles………

U.S. Supreme Court aids gun rights yet again

The United States Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its rulings, but the justices are doing what they can to enforce their decision earlier this year in a major Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc., v. Bruen.

Last week the court took a dim view of a Massachusetts law that bars people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors from ever being allowed to buy a handgun again.

In Morin v. Lyver, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Massachusetts law using a two-step balancing test that the Supreme Court forcefully threw out in its New York State Rifle & Pistol decision. The Supreme Court has now vacated the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back down to be heard again under the high court’s new standard, which is based not on subjective judicial balancing tests, but on history.

This time Massachusetts will have to prove that its law barring some people from buying guns is similar to restrictions that have traditionally been viewed as consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Dr. Alfred Morin was arrested for carrying a gun without a permit while on a trip to Washington, D.C., in 2004. Morin was licensed to carry in Massachusetts and didn’t realize his permit was not valid in D.C. due to the city’s total ban on carrying a gun (later declared unconstitutional). He was arrested after he complied with a no-gun sign at a museum and tried to check his gun with security. He pleaded guilty to carrying a gun without a license and was sentenced to jail time, but never required to serve it.

That misdemeanor conviction now bars Morin from ever again obtaining a permit to buy a handgun. He sued the state, but the U.S. District Court found that the law was constitutional because Morin was not a “law-abiding citizen,” having been convicted of a gun-related misdemeanor warranting imprisonment. The Court of Appeals agreed with that reasoning.

However, under the Supreme Court’s new standard, it’s no longer enough for courts to find that the states have “an interest in preventing crime” and then determine if the law is “reasonably tailored” to meet those needs. The presumption now is that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. States must prove that any laws restricting that right have traditionally been consistent with Second Amendment rights going all the way back to the early days of the Republic.

Morin v. Lyver is the fifth case the Supreme Court has vacated and sent back down for reconsideration under the new standard. One is a California case, a challenge to the state’s 10-round magazine limit. In addition, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel vacated a decision in McDougall v. Ventura County, involving a challenge to the closure of gun shops early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The case has been sent back to the trial court to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York case.

This is an important course correction. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that governments may arbitrarily withhold or revoke. A written constitution is the consent of the governed, and it places limits on government power. Enforcing those limits is the job of the Supreme Court. Freedom depends on it.