When people desperately trying to avoid a fight are left no choice but to fight, they are often the fiercest fighters imaginable.
The reason being an explosion of righteous anger – of berserker fury – directed at the bullies who will not leave them be.
Governor “Coonman” Northam of Virginia is such a bully.
He intends to rescind the current, ancient and long-acknowledged legal right of Virginians who aren’t criminals to possess more than single shot rifles and pistols – by criminalizing anyone who does possess them. These newly minted “criminals” will then be required to turn in their formerly legal firearms to the government or be subject to Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers sent by the Coonman to enforce his criminal acts.
This is a recipe for 1775.
Another bully – Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts – attempted a “Coonman” in that year, which lit the fuse of what became the Revolutionary War. He sent armed government workers – Redcoats – to confiscate the weapons of the colonists – who had finally had their fill of being bullied. These long-ago AGWs eventually gunned down several colonists on the village green at Lexington.
Word of the massacre spread and the people rose in response, fighting back with whatever means available, harrying the column of armed government workers as it made its way back toward Boston, some 18 miles away.
The fury incited by that long-ago “Coonman” was subsequently described by himself:
“These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French . . . They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up. A small body acting in one spot will not avail, you must have large armies making diversions on different sides, to divide their force. The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear. Small armies cannot afford such losses, especially when the advantage gained tends to do little more than the gaining of a post.”
Eight years later, those furious colonists finally succeeded in getting the bullies off their backs – permanently.
They probably never imagined that homegrown bullies even worse than “Coonman” Gage would eventually arise to torment them.
The current “Coonman” may not realize just how very tired the people are of being bullied – and how willing they are to fight, if a fight is forced upon them.
The “Coonman” feels confident. He has the full weight and force of the government and all its means at his disposal. He has legions of armed government workers available to enforce his writ.
But he hasn’t got the fury – and that is something he ought to reckon with, before it it is too late.
If this thing starts, it will not end until one or the other side is no longer capable of fighting. It will be no-quarter-given. It will be awful.
But it will be righteous.
And it may be necessary.
Category: RKBA
Signature Gathering to Repeal Gun Control Measure Turns Ugly in WA
An ambitious grassroots effort to repeal a gun control initiative passed by Washington State voters in 2018 allegedly turned ugly over the weekend when one of the highest profile volunteer signature gatherers was apparently the victim of verbal attacks by two different men outside a major sporting goods outlet, when both of them made remarks that could be interpreted as threats.
Jane Milhans, a veteran rights activist, certified firearms instructor and president of the Tacoma Rifle & Revolver Club—who also is a home invasion survivor—told liberty Park Press one of the men actually asked her, “Do you want me to shoot your now, or later?”
According to Milhans, when two other volunteers confronted the man a few minutes later, he apparently denied making the statement and drove away.
Apparently the police were not called.
Sorry Democrats: New Zealand’s gun confiscation program just failed miserably
Almost every Democrat running for president supports so-called “gun buybacks.” Too bad they don’t work.
Proposals range from Joe Biden’s voluntary gun buybacks to the more radical mandatory confiscation proposed by Cory Booker. (He still misleadingly calls it a “buyback.”) So it’s worth examining how such buybacks played out recently in New Zealand, which passed a ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons and a mandatory gun buyback program after a tragic shooting in April.
The deadline for the mandatory gun buyback program was Friday. The New Zealand program successfully led to the compensated confiscation of 51,000 of the targeted firearms. But as the left-leaning Guardian newspaper reports, this is out of an estimated 170,000 such guns currently in circulation. And there are still a minimum of 1.2 million legally owned firearms in New Zealand on top of that.
This means that many people ignored the demand that they turn in their guns and trust the supposedly benevolent government to protect them from themselves.
And it’s almost certainly safe to say that those who surrendered the 51,000 semiautomatic guns will skew heavily toward the law-abiding, nondangerous end of the spectrum. Thus, getting these guns off the street in this fashion only tends to disarm the good guys, leaving their society at large more at risk, not less. Americans use firearms in self-defense hundreds of thousands of times per year, analysts estimate, usually without firing a shot.
One must avoid drawing direct conclusions based on how policies affect countries with different populations, characteristics, and societal norms. But rough comparisons can be fair, for what they’re worth. And the massive failure of what was a sweeping, bipartisan gun control measure in New Zealand bodes poorly for how more obstreperous Americans would react to the partisan, contentious gun control measures Democrats are contemplating.
Moreover, assuming that American gun owners complied in similar proportions, common sense dictates that those planning to use their guns to commit crimes would be among the last to comply. Meanwhile, millions of people in the United States who pose no threat would become criminals overnight. They could face incarceration or even deadly consequences if police really do go around kicking in doors to seize guns, as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke once called for.
And even in the case of a voluntary buyback, it is far less likely to attract guns that are going to be used in crimes.
All in all, New Zealand’s mandatory buyback program is a massive failure. But don’t expect that to change the minds of most Democratic presidential candidates. They’re concerned with what polls well among the Democratic base — not with what actually works.
Second Amendment Sanctuaries Started in 1774
The capture of Virginia’s legislature by Democrats, who also command the executive branch, has unleashed a spate of bills to criminalize millions of law-abiding gun owners and send them to the penitentiary. The most radical proposal, Senate Bill 16, would make it a felony to possess an ordinary semiautomatic rifle with harmless features like an adjustable shoulder stock, a flare launcher, and a muzzle device to reduce kick.
Reflecting trends in states as diverse as Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, and Washington, where politicians have declared a war against gun owners, about half of Virginia’s counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. County governments and elected sheriffs pledge not to enforce unconstitutional diktats that violate the right to keep and bear arms.
Sanctuary places are the darling of “progressive” jurisdictions determined to hide and harbor criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities. Progressives now accuse officials of being “vigilantes” for seeking to protect American citizens from imprisonment for exercising their constitutional rights.
Spearheading the war on Virginia gun owners is Gov. Ralph Northam, best known for his gig in blackface or Klan attire, and for calmly endorsing post-delivery abortion, that is, infanticide. To divert attention from the backlash, he is moving to criminalize all sorts of innocent conduct that has been lawful in the Commonwealth since Jamestown was settled in 1607.
It’s as if “the Redcoats are coming” again. Northam’s counterpart in 1774 was Lord Dunmore, the last royal governor, who took measures to disarm “disloyal” Virginians led by Patrick Henry. The patriots were arming and organizing themselves into independent companies to protect their rights.
None other than George Washington formed the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. “Threat’ned with the Destruction of our Civil-rights, & Liberty,” wrote George Mason, the volunteers pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a musket, six pounds of gunpowder, and 20 pounds of lead.
That was a lot of ammo. There’s a parallel here to the “large capacity” magazines that Northam wants to ban. And there’s an irony that Fairfax County is now the center of the blue wave that supports Dunmoresque gun bans.
The rest is history. In 1775 the Redcoats marched to seize colonists’ arms at Lexington and Concord and the Americans repulsed them. The inhabitants of Boston were ordered to turn in their guns, which were seized by British General Gage. The Continental Congress cited this perfidy in the Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms.
Nothing like that will happen today. Counties that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries make clear their dedication to use all lawful means to protect their constitutional rights. Law-enforcement authorities have scarce resources and must choose how to allocate them. Work to solve murders and robberies, or track down gun owners because they have rifles with those oh-so-deadly pistol grips or adjustable stocks? That’s a no-brainer.
But those who support filling the prisons with law-abiding citizens just because they have, for instance, a rifle that will also shoot flares — which is nothing more than a distress signal — should remember our history. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent exactly those kinds of infringements……………..
Second Amendment sanctuaries reflect the will of people who value the Constitution
As leftist politicians continue to threaten the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, citizens are standing up for themselves.
Dozens of counties in California, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas and elsewhere have voted to become “Second Amendment Sanctuaries,” declaring that sheriffs in those counties will not enforce gun-control legislation that violates the Constitution.
In New Mexico, 29 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs signed a resolution earlier this year opposing sweeping gun-control bills proposed in the state legislature. Most recently, Virginia made headlines as more than 40 counties joined the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that is sweeping the nation.
A February NPR article noted that “professional discretion is a constant feature of policing,” as law enforcement officers do not have the time nor the resources to enforce every single law every time one is broken. It is customary for police to decide which laws are a priority and whether pursuing lawbreakers to the full extent of the law is worthwhile. In the case of extreme gun laws, sheriffs have expressed several concerns: the laws are ineffective and unenforceable, they put police officers at increased risk, and they infringe on the Second Amendment rights enshrined by the Constitution.
“(Senate Bill 8, a background check bill) … does nothing to protect citizens and is unenforceable,” the New Mexico Sheriffs Association wrote in a letter earlier this year. “We also oppose House Bill 83 (a red flag gun-confiscation law), as it violates due process and puts law enforcement in a more dangerous situation and does nothing to protect citizens. This bill could disarm the very people trying to defend their lives and personal property.”
There is concern that the sanctuaries undermine the will of the people (though such concern was notably not expressed when counties declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants); however, sheriffs are elected officials. Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, who has vowed not to enforce Washington state’s Initiative 1639 — a package of gun-control laws — told NPR, “As an elected sheriff and a constitutional sheriff, I believe it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and, more specifically, violates the Washington state Constitution.”
In an interview with Reuters, Songer expressed the attitude prevailing among Second Amendment sanctuary sheriffs: “Unfortunately for the governor and the attorney general, they’re not my boss,” Songer said. “My only boss is the people that elected me to office.”
These sanctuary resolutions are the last resort for voters in rural areas whose lifestyles and views are not represented by urban voters and lawmakers. As Reuters reports, the sanctuary movement “is exposing the rift between rural and urban America as much as the one between the Republican and Democratic parties, as small, conservative counties push back against statewide edicts passed by big-city politicians.”
Zach Fort, president of the New Mexico Sport Shooting Association, told Gunpowder Magazine (of which, full disclosure, I am the editor), “There’s a lot of pessimism shared by those who want to protect their gun rights right now. A lot of people think they’re being railroaded and not being listened to.”
New Mexico Sheriffs Association President Tony Mace expressed a similar frustration, “When this legislation is drafted every session, we are not invited to the table,” he told Gunpowder Magazine. “Our voices are falling on deaf ears. They’re not giving our point of view any attention at all. … If they’re not going to listen to us, then we are going to use their tactics against them. I, like the other sheriffs, was elected to protect our citizens’ constitutional rights. And that’s exactly what we plan to do.”
In sum, Second Amendment sanctuaries are sheriff-led movements. Sheriffs are elected by the people of the counties they oversee, and if the people agree with sheriffs that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, then Second Amendment Sanctuaries are the supreme fulfillment of the rights and freedoms the Constitution protects.
West Milford NJ Declares Itself A ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary’
WEST MILFORD, NJ – West Milford has become one of the first towns in New Jersey to declare itself a “sanctuary” for law-abiding gun owners.
A non-binding resolution, which was approved unanimously on Dec. 4 by the township council, designates the Passaic County community a “Second Amendment/lawful gun owner sanctuary township.”
Click here to read the full resolution.
According to the resolution, the township opposes gun control, “gun safety” legislation, and “red flag laws,” whether state, federal or local. It also “opposes further interference with, or abridging of, the rights of lawful gun owners.”
West Milford, the resolution says, “supports the rights of lawful gun owners to lawfully use firearms; to defend themselves, their loved ones and other innocents; to lawfully hunt to provide sustenance for their families; and to lawfully participate in shooting sports up to and including Olympic sports.”
It also criticizes “red flag laws” that have been adopted by more than a dozen states, including New Jersey.
“Gun control laws, including a plethora of current proposed legislation, are not evidence-based legislation called “gun safety” legislation or ‘Red Flag Laws,’ factually have nothing to do with teaching or promoting the safe and lawful use of firearms,” the resolution said.
Get Ready For War: FL Sheriff Warns Citizens To Arm Themselves
Most law enforcement officers suggest running, hiding, and calling 911 when violent criminals strike – not Sheriff Wayne Ivey.
What is our nation coming to? Impeaching the president when no actual crime has been committed. Taking away our Second Amendment rights. It’s so surreal. We have state governments fighting against federal agencies trying to protect us from the surge of illegal immigrants and human and drug trafficking. Politicians want to force us to give up our guns while mass shootings are becoming more frequent, and violent organizations like Antifa are gaining more power. On top of all that, you know things are critical when law enforcement tells citizens to arm themselves and be prepared for war.
Sheriff Wayne Ivey of Brevard County, Florida, has a strong message to impart in what he calls a strategy for survival. In a video, he warned citizens, “This is war, and you’d better be prepared to wage war to protect you, your family, and those around you.” The police usually recommend calling 911 in an emergency rather than fighting. But not Ivey. He suggests people be prepared; anyone with a concealed carry permit, he says, should be armed at all times.
First Line Of Defense?
“Folks, now more than ever is the time for our citizens to be prepared to serve as the first line of defense,” the sheriff warned.Ivey’s message is strong – and a bit scary – but is he right? Some might consider his call to arms speech a tactic to alarm people unnecessarily, but when one takes into account all that is happening in the country today, he might just be right on target. We had two shootings on military bases a couple of days apart: Pearl Harbor, HI, and Pensacola, FL. If safety cannot be reasonably guaranteed at a military facility, why would anyone feel protected at a mall, a concert, or in their own home?
The 2A Resistance
The Florida sheriff isn’t the only one pulling back the reins on anti-gun policies. Local law enforcement agencies across the nation have vowed to uphold the Second Amendment, despite what state or federal officials may try to enforce. Virginia is a prime example of this resistance with 90% of the state’s counties turning into Second Amendment sanctuaries. And if that weren’t enough, Tazewell County has gone even further by approving a resolution to create a militia for the protection of county citizens and law enforcement from unfair firearm restrictions. This new policy came just days after Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, threatened “consequences” for refusing to enforce state gun control laws, which, according to one lawmaker from the Democratic Party, might include deploying the National Guard!The American people have finally reached their limit, and all the aggressive pushing by the liberal left and demanding Democrats is only sending us that much faster into the next civil war.
St. Germain may soon follow Florence County as only Second Amendment Sanctuaries in Wisconsin
ST. GERMAIN – Gun store owner Jason Hyrczyk’s phone ringtone of gunfire says it all.
“It’s part of our American heritage,” said Hyrczyk, owner of Blacked Out Arms in St. Germain. “That’s why we’re different than any other country. It guarantees our freedoms.”
Hyrczyk strongly supports the second amendment, and agrees with the town board members who proposed a resolution to make St. Germain a second amendment sanctuary.
“We want to have a voice up here as well,” said St. Germain Town Supervisor Jim Swenson.
With talk about restricting gun access in the state capitol, Swenson said he and others feel left out of the political process.
“We’ll keep going forward with what the constitution states and what our belief is,” said Swenson.
Resolution SG19-12-1 was proposed by town supervisor Brian Cooper at the Dec. 9 meeting.
It states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the second amendment.”
Debate arose at the Dec. 9 town board meeting about a how a potential future law could be at odds with the second amendment.
The resolution states “the town supports the sheriff of Vilas County to exercise sound discretion not to enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law.”
This could put law enforcement in a difficult position – should they follow their interpretation of the constitution or state law?
But Vilas County Sheriff Joe Fath has no problem with this.
“It wouldn’t have any effect on our department,” said Fath.
Fath, a resident of St. Germain, doesn’t believe Wisconsin will pass any of what he calls ‘unconstitutional second amendment laws’.
Rachel Alexander: Liberals Want Sanctuary Cities? We’ll Have Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities.
You’ve heard of sanctuary cities. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Cities that protect people. But who do they protect? Illegal immigrants from deportation or prosecution. They ignore federal immigration law. These cities undermine the federal effort to protect our country by guarding our borders.
But here’s a twist. Now cities and counties declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Conservatives have taken a page out of the progressive playbook. Localities pass resolutions vowing not to enforce gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment. They believe that many laws violate the Constitution’s clear language.
And increasing numbers pass these. It’s become a serious movement. Over 80 counties and cities across Virginia have adopted them. Because you now what? If the lawless progressives can do it, so can Constitution-loving conservatives.
Danger and Opportunity in 2020
The year 2020 is going to rank as a very important one for Second Amendment supporters. The 2020 elections are going to be very high stakes. Then, there is that Supreme Court case heard earlier this month. That means that 2020 poses the potential for great danger and yet, there could also be great opportunities with regards to our rights.
The elections have obvious dangers and opportunities. The election, of course, risks seeing pro-Second Amendment lawmakers voted out. On the flip side, they can also be the chance to replace anti-Second Amendment lawmakers. If Second Amendment supporters are successful in the latter, then changes to bring things closer to the ideal become much more achievable.
The biggest prize in the 2020 election is, of course, the presidency. Donald Trump has largely been a supporter of the Second Amendment and has appointed pro-Second Amendment judges to the appellate courts. Take a good look at the front-runners to replace him. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloombergare all hostile to our Second Amendment rights – and all plan to push an anti-Second Amendment agenda.
But the danger doesn’t just come from the usual laws we hear about. Several of these contenders have expressed support for a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College, including Warren and Buttigieg. All would appoint anti-Second Amendment judges. Some of these contenders have promised worse.
In the case of Elizabeth Warren, it is the weaponization of the IRS against pro-Second Amendment organizations. Oh, she says it is just the National Rifle Association, but when she has argued that the failure of gun control to pass is due to “corruption,” then could other pro-Second Amendment groups be far behind? This would be in addition to very onerous “reform” of campaign finance laws – and you can bet they would be rigging the rules to the detriment of Second Amendment supporters.
Buttigieg is no better, even as he tries to take a more moderate tone. He was an early supporter of packing the Supreme Court with as many as six new justices. How do you think those justices would rule on anti-gun legislation? Or, for that matter, on campaign finance reform? It would not be good for either the First or Second Amendments.
Yet with these dangers come opportunities. The extreme agendas that some of these candidates are pushing will make many Americans recoil. We are already seeing this in Virginia, as the initial steps of effective civil disobedience are in full swing. Already, anti-Second Amendment extremists are backing off a total ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms.
In addition, the election will bring opportunities as well – a chance to return pro-Second Amendment leadership to the House of Representatives, a chance to add to a pro-Second Amendment majority in the Senate, a chance to get more pro-Second Amendment state lawmakers, a chance for pro-Second Amendment governors, and most importantly, returning President Trump to the White House for four more years.
With Trump coming back, and a pro-Second Amendment Senate, the continued confirmation of pro-Second Amendment federal judges would continue to reshape the courts.
These are dangerous times for our First and Second Amendment rights. However, these times are also a great chance to change the political landscape in a manner that will advance the cause of freedom. Whether 2020 will be remembered for danger or opportunity is up to us.
“Be not afraid of any man;
No matter what his size;
When danger threatens, call on me—
And I will equalize!”
—Anonymous, on the virtues of the Colt revolver, c. 1875
The anti-gun movement is compelling. How could you not be when your entire argument is based on saving human life? Their objective is noble; however, their reasoning has flaws. Guns don’t simply exist to allow crazed murderers to take innocent life – they are the great equalizers for a civil and law-abiding society.
Studies have shown that there is a large range in how many times weapons are used for self-defense in America every year. Estimates range from 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year, affirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of defensive uses is higher than one would likely suspect, the firearm is usually dispatched for defensive use by someone completely ordinary, and the majority of these occurrences receive little media attention.
In fact, the rate of occurrence is so high and so under-reported that The Heritage Foundation has launched a project to share some of the stories of Americans who use their weapons in a defensive manner each month. While readers may follow the link to read the rest of the November stories they shared, I wanted to share one particularly compelling story verbatim:
“Nov. 5, Genesee County, New York: A 76-year-old man used his shotgun to fend off an armed home intruder, potentially saving both his life and the life of his wife. The man responded to a knock on his door during the night, only to have the intruder force his way inside at gunpoint and tell the couple to give him all their money or else he would kill them. The intruder then ordered the couple to go into the basement, where the man thought the intruder was going to kill them. Instead, the man was able to grab his loaded shotgun and shoot the intruder in the hip, then held him at gunpoint for 15 minutes until police could arrive.”
Any loss of human life is horrific, hands down, full stop. I completely agree with the anti-gun lobby there. However, I would count myself naive if I believed that adding barriers to obtaining weapons would actually reduce the amount of gun violence we see in this country, and not simply reduce the number of law-abiding gun owners who rely on their weapons for defensive use every year.
Guns are the great equalizers of our society, the things that deter crime and allow everyone to stand on equal ground.
They are there for the elderly couple who could by no means fight off an intruder who breaks into their home.
They are there for the college student living by herself in a cheap apartment in the city.
They are there for the young mom who wants to protect her family.
And, they are there for every community and ethnicity in America that has ever felt marginalized or discriminated against. They are there to remind them that they are equals under the law, and that includes their right to defend themselves.
As Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty, once said, “An armed society is a polite society.” If society is to be equal and to treat one another lawfully, that equalization must begin with the right to self-defense.
Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Spreads To Kentucky.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement isn’t just sweeping the state of Virginia, though it’s certainly getting the most attention thanks to the sheer number of counties, cities, and towns that have adopted resolutions in advance of Governor Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda seeing action in the state legislature next month.
Remember, this movement actually began in Illinois in 2018 before spreading west to Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico. In recent months we’ve seen more Second Amendment sanctuaries take root in Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and even New Jersey. Now several counties in Kentucky are leading the charge in their state………..
Will other counties in Kentucky hop on the 2A Sanctuary bandwagon? Given the amount of support we’ve seen for the movement in Virginia and eastern Tennessee, I would be shocked if the movement didn’t take off in the Bluegrass State. Expect more counties to follow the lead of Harlan and Marshall counties over the next few months.
Five More Texas Counties Pass ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary’ Resolutions
Something, something, rookie numbers, Texas
Update: The piece has been updated to reflect additional counties that were found to have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions since the time of publishing.
The commissioners’ courts in Navarro, Brown, Coleman, McCulloch, and Titus counties all unanimously voted in favor of a resolution to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” on Monday.
“I’ve had a lot of citizens ask me about this,” said Eddie Moore, a Navarro county commissioner, “and there have been eleven counties prior to us to do this in the state of Texas. And this basically shows the commissioners’ court and the county’s support for the right to keep and bear arms, and that we will not allow county funds or county personnel to assist in the infringement of those rights.”
Moore told The Texan that he had been working on introducing and passing the resolution for about a month and a half, around the time when the movement in Texas started gaining traction.
According to Brownwood News, Brown County Judge Paul Lilly could not attend the meeting, but expressed his support for the resolution, saying, “The Second Amendment is, to a degree, the amendment that guarantees all the others. Firearms in the hands of responsible adults help assure our way of life. For this reason I am a staunch supporter of the second amendment and welcome Brown County becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary county. I couldn’t be more proud.”
While mostly in rural areas, over a tenth of all counties in Texas have passed the resolution that the local governments will not “authorize or appropriate government funds or resources” to enforce “unconstitutional” firearm restrictions.
Thanks to the work of the Virginia Citizens Defense League most everyone is now familiar with Second Amendment sanctuary cities and counties. As of yesterday, there are now 101 sanctuary cities and counties.
This is all good and well but what if you had an entire 2A sanctuary state.
It should be noted that cities and counties are creatures of the state. Under Dillon’s Rule, they only have the power to act when given an express grant by the state or if it could be implied from there. Thus, a state can take power away from local governments or even dissolve them but the converse isn’t true.
Rep. David Hardin (R-86), Assistant Majority Whip of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, has pre-filed a bill that would make Oklahoma a Second Amendment state. HB 2781 or Second Amendment Preservation Act would ban any Oklahoma state or local official from enforcing any Federal law, act, executive order, court order, etc. that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the bill has a very detailed definition of infringement that includes:
- taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
- registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
- any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
- any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The bill allows civil suits against any one who violates the law and knowingly violated a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Very interestingly, the bill would remove sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense in such suits. (Section 7.C.)
The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Oklahoma law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Oklahoma law enforcement again, and federal agents could not work in Oklahoma law enforcement.
As the Supreme Court has ruled in Printz v. US, the Federal government cannot force state law enforcement officials to implement or enforce Federal laws. This is known as the doctrine of anti-commandeering.
While the Federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement to enforce Federal law, it can engage in partnerships with them to do so. A prime example of this would be requests from ICE to local law enforcement to hold illegal aliens who are arrested for other reasons until such time as they can be remanded to Federal custody. Likewise, for any Federal gun control law to be effective, it needs the help of state and local law enforcement.
I don’t know the likelihood of this bill passing the Oklahoma State Legislature. However, given the sponsor is part of the Republican leadership, this is more likely than if introduced by some freshman back bencher. I will keep you updated.
Government Funded ‘Gun Violence’ Research Is Really Political Propaganda
On Monday, House and Senate negotiators announced a deal where $25 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on gun violence research, $12.5 million is earmarked exclusively for public health researchers. If history is any guide, but of the rest will also end up going to public health researchers.
Headlines claimed: “Congress reaches deal to fund gun violence research for first time in decades.” The funding described as “a major win for Democrats.” While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.
It should go without saying that everyone opposes gun violence. But it’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.
The idea behind the research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things.
The National Rifle Association – regularly demonized in the media and by many Democrats – has been blamed for preventing academics from doing research on firearms. So supporters of the spending to research gun violence as a public health issue say their bill is needed to stop the NRA from blocking vital research that will save lives.
But there’s a big problem with the argument: it’s not true.
Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, (R-AR) – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”
The point of that plain language is to say CDC-funded research is fine. CDC advocacy is not. So despite what gun-control zealots say, objective research based on facts is allowed under the Dickey Amendment.
The amendment came in response to top CDC officials advocating various gun control laws, such as prohibiting people from carrying concealed handguns.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns falsely claimed in a 2013 report that as a result of the Dickey Amendment “academic publishing on firearm violence fell by 60 percent between 1996 and 2010.”
But the mayors’ group measured something different: firearms research in medical journals as a percentage of all medical research.
There was no decrease in either the total number of papers or pages devoted to firearms research. But with whole new fields of medicine being developed, there was an explosion of published medical studies in other areas.
In fact, between 2011 and 2016, firearms research in medical journals has increased more than five-fold and even more since then, as former New York City Mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has poured untold tens of millions of dollars into the effort.
Everybody’s Polite at the Shooting Range
There’s a lot of talk about how civility has declined in America since Donald Trump took office.
They are right, of course.
I was driving in Los Angeles the other day, and people behaved like animals. The homeless people downtown looked quite sane compared with the lunatics in BMWs piloting their murderous machines like go-carts, driving with their knees while they text with one hand and sipped their frappa-latte with the other.
Ijits of the highest order were driving on the shoulder and using turn lanes to go to the front, then cut people off at the last second, flipping them the bird as they did so. I thought I was in Mexico City or New Delhi … except for the flipping-off part. It would have been funny, had it not been so dangerous.
It was so bad that–when a fleeing robber crossed into oncoming traffic and nearly hit me head-on bypassing stopped cars at an intersection–I wrote it off as just another LA psychopath trying to save ten seconds. Then five police cars came around the bend after him, and the helicopter with the spotlight.
Americans are wound up and stressed out, sure; but civility was cratering long before Donald Trump took office. Many people took his election as a cue to turn the a**hole up to 11. Our loss of civility is a feature, not a bug.
Speaking of a**holes: the riots after the UK election inspired me to go get some pistol practice this morning in anticipation of our own 2020 extravaganza coming up soon.
I went to the San Diego GlockStore for a spring, then The Gun Range for 30 minutes of practice. In both establishments, I noticed something:
Everybody … was … polite. Everybody. Super polite.
Patrons were courteous and patient with one another in the parking lot. Customers waited their turns and said “please,” “thank you,” and “sir/ma’am.” Nobody yelled at the (armed) employees to hurry up with their order. I felt as though I’d stepped into a time warp.
It’s not like people were walking around in terror of one another, worried about dissing someone and getting capped. On the contrary, everyone seemed relaxed, comfortable, and friendly.
All present seemed to understand one another, to know within those two micro-communities
Around here, Words and Actions have Consequences
Pro-gun message supplants pro-transgender slogan on U. Virginia bridge.
The University of Virginia’s Beta Bridge has played host to student messages for some 50 years. Most recently, the bridge featured the mural “PROTECT BLACK TRANS WOMEN,” but this was painted over during the weekend with a pro-Second Amendment slogan.
According to The Cavalier Daily, the terms “2A” and “GUNS” were painted, while “WOMEN” was crossed out. The original message, put up by the SABLE Society, was repainted, but was again modified with the pro-gun terms.
The report notes the gun message appears to reference various Virginia towns threatening to become Second Amendment “sanctuaries” if the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature follows through with (allegedly) unconstitutional firearm restrictions.
It is not yet known who is responsible for the pro-gun message.
UVA spokesman Brian Coy said that although the bridge “is a long recognized public forum that may on occasion cause controversy or disagreement,” the university acknowledges “that people, particularly black trans women, feel demeaned or threatened by this message and the way it appeared.”
Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuaries: An Update
Last week I wrote about the spread of Virginia’s “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — counties, towns, and cities that vow not to enforce state gun laws they deem unconstitutional, in the wake of the Democrats’ taking control of the state government. There are a few new developments worth noting.
For starters, the sanctuaries have spread dramatically. They’re up to 93 jurisdictions — covering roughly 40 percent of the population, by my quick spreadsheet tally. That’s huge, though the biggest victory, in Prince William County, is likely to be overturned when the county board flips to the Democrats, and some of these places have passed vague resolutions in support of the Constitution rather than the more aggressive language proposed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
As I noted in my previous piece, these resolutions have limited legal effect; local governments are basically subordinate to state governments. But defiance like this can put political pressure on moderate Democrats — and, failing that, can force the state government to either (A) take drastic action to stamp out resistance or (B) give up and let these places refuse to enforce new gun laws, possibly ramping up state-police activity there as a replacement.
On the politics, it’s worth noting that the state Democrats have already caved on confiscating “assault weapons,” modifying a bill so that it would still ban sales going forward but would require current owners to register their guns rather than turning them in.
It’s also worth comparing this map of sanctuaries:
. . . with this one of Virginia senate districts. (Click here to see the interactive version via the Virginia Public Access Project; I chose the senate because it’s much closer politically than the house.)
If an area is blue in both maps, it’s both a sanctuary and represented by a Democrat, suggesting a senator who might experience this movement as pressure from home. Such places do exist, though often the sanctuary jurisdictions make up only a minority of the Democratic district’s population. (See, e.g., districts 18, 21, and 25.) However, the senate is split 21–19, so it doesn’t take a lot of side-switching to stop a bill.
Finally, on how the Democrats will respond in the event they pass new gun laws and many local law-enforcement agencies refuse to enforce them, the governor has threatened “consequences,” and other Virginia Democrats have floated everything from prosecutions of local authorities, to cutting off state funds, to National Guard deployment.
Fun times.
Today is Bill of Rights Day when the Virginia legislature’s vote in 1791 surpassed the number of state’s needed to ratify the amendments.
Now, they’ve got some of the modern day Virginia legislators threatening to use the Virginia National Guard to confiscate arms if the local LE agencies won’t execute proposed laws to ban & confiscate arms in the hands of the citizenry.
If I recall history, almost the same thing happened in Massachusetts back in 1775 and we all know how that ended up.