Lock Up Your Self Defense Moves Forward
A ballot measure that will require you to keep your self defense firearms locked up and unavailable is moving forward.
Ballot Measure 40 has collected enough signatures to get a ballot title from the Attorney General.
In Oregon, the Attorney General is a vocal anti-gun radical. You can rest assured she will do all she can to write the most sympathetic ballot title possible. Of course, we will be doing all we can to prevent that.
The simple truth is, mandatory gun l0ck up laws are unconstitutional. This is not in doubt. The US Supreme Court made that clear in the Heller decision.
So now we have no choice but to gear up to fight them in court. We simply must not allow them to write a ballot title that misleads Oregon voters. They need to know that under the proposed ballot measure, victims of theft in Oregon will face harsher penalties than gun thieves will. It’s insane.
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Vox recently published an article by German Lopez that makes a logical error. The article conflates an increase in “gun deaths” with a decrease in public safety. The jump is made from an article published last year, in 2018, where the Rand Corporation published a chart based on a number of different and dubious studies on “gun deaths”. From the previous article:
But there were some things that could be gleaned from the available evidence. While RAND as a nonpartisan group avoided any sweeping policy conclusions in its analysis, its review does seem to point in a direction, based on my own reading: More permissive gun policies lead to more gun deaths, while more restrictive policies lead to fewer gun deaths. Coupled with other evidence in this area, that supports the idea that more guns lead to more gun deaths.
The keyway the Rand compilation of studies is biased is by the focus on “gun deaths”. The major bone of contention in restrictions on gun ownership and use is *not* gun deaths. It is, first, a philosophical determination of political power; secondarily, a question of practical effect, primarily about whether other methods will be substituted for guns in crime and suicide. A major part of that equation is whether guns have significant benefits for defense, which has little to do with how many people are killed.
The claim is made that Rand is “non-partisan”. The unstated assumption, made by Rand, and by Lopez, is that microscale pragmatism is the lens by which governmental decisions should be made. They implicitly reject the argument that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. That is a partisan assumption. They ignore Constitutional questions. That is a partisan approach. Rand is one of the think tanks that has prospered as the nation came under the sway of the Mediacracy. It has a vested interest in pushing increased regulatory schemes. It assumes the regulatory state is benevolent.
demoncraps Don’t See Bearing Arms As “Real Right”
“When government takes away its citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes the citizens’ duty to take away governments’ right to govern.” —credited to President George Washington
Here is how it is played out: On one side of the divide and conquer aisle (Mark 3:25) we have Donald Trump, sold to you as the Republican, who calls for illegal “red flag laws,” which are not law. In the end, they will be aimed at their political opposition.
On the other hand, we have those who are sold to you as the Democrats, who are calling for the removal of AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons.
Which do you prefer? Do you prefer small infringements through the good guy Donald Trump, or complete disarmament by the bad guy? Either way, you are being disarmed and tyranny wins out.
I would advise everyone to take heed to President George Washington, who is responsible for arming the citizenry that we are to “guard ourselves against impostures of pretended patriotism” (Matthew 24:5-8; 2 Corinthians 11:14).
If you are paying attention, this is not only leading through “created” opposition, but it’s also happening through what is called the Hegelian dialectic (John 8:44).
Hegelian dialectic is defined as “a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions (of a proposition— having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience) which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will produce the predetermined agenda (Outcome).”…
Friends, look to history. George Mason warned us that those who mean to disarm, mean to enslave.
Nothing new from the demoncraps, as this idiocy has been rolled out before, but it’s logistically impossible.
There are about 175,000 transferable machineguns on the registry and about 1,500,000 suppressors, not to mention Destructive Devices and Any Other Weapons.
Right now it takes about 8-10 months, at a minimum, for a transfer to be approved by the bureaucraps at the NFA branch of BATFE. As there are an estimated, minimum, 15,000,000 to 16,ooo,000 AR & AK style rifles (10 times) in the hands of the people, any paperwork would take 10 times as long to be completed without a drastic expansion of the NFA branch personnel and budget. Of course, with demoncraps, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and ’30s.
The gun control plan that Biden’s campaign unveiled on Wednesday also aims to tackle urban gun violence with an eight-year, $900 million program that would go toward efforts to combat shootings in 40 cities with the highest rates of gun violence.
It would eliminate legal protections that prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for how their products are used.
If you want to see how extreme the Democrats have gotten on gun control, you just had to listen to a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.
It is one thing for Democrats such as
BetoBetaBob O’Rourke and Rep. Eric Swalwell (R-CA) to call for confiscating AR-15s and civilian versions of AK-47s. But in the committee hearing this past Wednesday, the loudest applause came when Democratic witnesses called for bans on all or at least the vast majority of guns.
“I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” announced Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall M. Brackney in the hearing. Brackney and other witnesses showed just how far the Democratic Party has gone on gun control in only a few years.
Brackney was given a chance by Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) to correct the record if she might have misspoken, but she only doubled down. Steube pointed out that any firearm could be used to hunt people down, and Brackney responded by repeating the point. She only clarified that police and the military would still be able to have guns.
Ten years ago, if a Democrat witness had suggested banning all guns, one can only imagine that Democratic congressmen would be desperate to disassociate themselves from those comments. But not now. Not one, single Democrat expressed any disapproval.
Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center claimed that detachable magazines are the “most important and deadly feature” of assault weapons. But a ban on detachable magazines would result in the ban of virtually all semi-automatic guns, the most commonly-owned type of firearm in the United States.
Again, none of the Democratic politicians raised any word of caution.
Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed: “Assault weapons have become the favorite of many mass shooters.” But only 13 percent of all mass public shootings since 1998 involved just a rifle. Fifty-six percent involved only a handgun. Eighty-three percent involved either just a handgun or a handgun plus some other type of firearm…………
Assault weapons were singled out in the hearing because they have such features as accuracy and stopping power. But civilians value those same features for their own self-defense, especially if the attacker is bigger and stronger than they are.
Democrats are coming out for banning most or all guns, and virtually no one in their party even challenges such ideas anymore. But these views aren’t even shocking any longer, so it’s hardly surprising that the media didn’t view them as newsworthy.
There comes a point during every American gun-control debate at which the side calling for draconian restrictions gives up on arguing the specifics or proposing detailed legislative change and rushes stupidly to deceit. Often, this rush involves the frustrated and farcical insistence that the U.S. Constitution does not, in fact, protect an individual right to bear arms.
On other occasions, it involves the attempt to destroy the reputation of the Second Amendment by granting that, while the provision may protect the private ownership of guns in some form, it was nevertheless designed for ugly or base reasons, and that it is therefore tainted.
In both cases, the intention is the same: To short-circuit a debate that they know cannot be won. By removing from the discussion one of the core checks upon which the American political system relies, opponents of the right to keep and bear arms hope to demote it from a cherished part of the much-admired Bill of Rights to an embarrassing vestige of an age long gone, and, thereby, to cast it as a mistake that should be rectified as soon as is politically possible.
This tendency is a destructive one, in part because it is a sin to lie about history in order to advance contemporary political goals. It is also destructive because it has the effect of funneling all of our historical attention onto 27 words in the federal Constitution. This, in turn, permits the integrity of one of our core liberties to be rendered contingent upon our opponent’s willingness to accurately read a single sentence of law.
It was, of course, entirely obvious to the men who wrote the federal Second Amendment that its purpose was to protect the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. It was obvious, too, to the commentators who explained it, to the jurists who interpreted it and to the citizenry that ratified it. Nevertheless, contrary to the implications of the “but actually” brigade, it is simply not the case that the Second Amendment has served as the sole, or even the primary, protection of that right throughout American history—or, indeed, that it is the sole means by which the right is legally affirmed.
There are also ubiquitous equivalents at the state level—equivalents that are both numerous and robust. Should they wish to fight back against the straight-to-the-root tactics that are gaining currency and favor, advocates of gun rights must broaden the shoulders of the giants on which they stand and make it clear that they, not their opponents, enjoy the slam-dunk historical case.
In 1792, Kentucky included in its inaugural Constitution: “That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
In 1802, Ohio declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”
In 1816, Indiana ensured that “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”
In 1817, Mississippi entrenched that “Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defense of himself and the State.”
In 1819, Alabama recognized “That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
In 1820, Missouri affirmed that “[the] right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.”
In 1835, Michigan confirmed that “Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the State.”
In 1836, Texas maintained that “Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the republic.” And so on, and so forth. Were they mistaken?
In 1889, Wyoming declared: “The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.”
In 1896, Utah certified that “The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.”
In 1912, Arizona guaranteed that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired.”
Both Alaska and Hawaii copied the Second Amendment verbatim into their constitutions upon joining the Union in 1959. Nevada, Delaware, New Hampshire and West Virginia all realized in the 1980s that they had no explicit protections within their state charters and set about remedying that oversight.
If this is really only a right for state militias, then we are looking here at one of the great mass delusions in American history—a delusion that affected lawmakers, constitution-drafters and judges alike, and that, astonishingly, both predated and followed the ratification of the sentence that allegedly caused all the confusion.
How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate
The academic debate over gun control consists mainly of a war of statistics. New studies come out every few weeks, and as a result, both sides are constantly locking horns over the validity or invalidity of this-or-that study in this-or-that country.
For those who aren’t formally trained in data analysis, this debate can seem impossible to navigate. How should untrained laypersons go about interpreting the findings of statistical studies?
It’s About Resistance, Not Prevention
Statistics come in all shapes and sizes, so the first thing we need to do is determine which kinds of statistics are relevant to the gun control debate and which are irrelevant. To do this, we need a clear understanding of what the gun control debate is fundamentally about. We can’t separate the relevant from the irrelevant if we aren’t clear about how to frame the issue.
So, what is the debate over gun ownership fundamentally about? Many seem to think that it’s about deterrence; that is, whether gun ownership prevents crime. The most well-known proponent of this view is John Lott, who argues that shall-issue right-to-carry laws are effective at reducing crime rates by means of deterring criminals. Lott’s research has been corroborated by a number of other studies and criticized by others.
Regardless of whether Lott’s research stands up to scrutiny, I want to suggest that it’s mistaken to think about the gun ownership debate chiefly in terms of crime prevention. On the contrary, whether there exists a right to own guns depends chiefly on whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crime.
Although prevention is more socially desirable (it is better that a crime not happen in the first place), any deterrent benefits that guns may have would owe to their resistance benefits, so the latter is more fundamental. Guns are valued for self-defense primarily because of their ability to dispense lethal force, which means that resistance—not prevention—is primary. Prevention is an added benefit, but it is secondary.
None of this is to say that Lott’s research is wrong. Rather, the point I’m making is that prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.
To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk. I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife. I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime. In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime. The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.
This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated. Even if guns don’t prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime. As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Deterrence is not the key issue at stake.
The Wrong Kinds of Studies
With that point in mind, we are now in a position to evaluate the relevance of empirical studies. Suppose for the sake of argument that pro-control advocates are right that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. What follows from this? Nothing much, actually. Since the gun debate is primarily about whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crimes, the fact that guns may not work to prevent crime doesn’t really damage the case for gun ownership.
This same is true even if guns increase crime. Let’s revisit the earlier scenario involving the mugger. Suppose that upon seeing my brandished gun, the mugger becomes enraged and charges me. In that case, not only has my gun failed to prevent a crime, it may actually have worsened one. But that wouldn’t mean that my gun wasn’t a reasonable means of resisting crime, nor that I wasn’t justified in using it to defend myself.
The point here is this: even if studies showing that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws increase crime are right, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t follow that guns are not effective when used in self-defense. Since the merits of gun ownership center around their resistance benefits, it is misleading to attack that by focusing on their lack of preventative benefits. The failure of a gun to prevent crime doesn’t imply its failure at resisting crime.
Proponents of gun control are therefore guilty of a subtle sleight of hand when they cite studies showing that guns lead to more crime or that gun-owners have a higher risk of being killed by a gun. Even if all these studies are true (and there is considerable reason to doubt that they are), they are wholly irrelevant to what is actually at stake in the debate over gun ownership. It confuses the risk that guns have in general with their effectiveness when used for self-protection.
Now to be fair, many gun advocates are guilty of making this same mistake, in that they frame the entire debate in terms of deterrence and crime prevention. While it’s not wrong to look at these questions, they should be secondary to what really matters. Gun advocates should direct their primary attention to the number of defensive gun uses and the effectiveness of guns in self-defense, as they pertain directly to the core issue of the gun debate: resisting crime.
So, the next time you see a study showing how gun ownership may increase crime or one’s chances of dying, know that it is irrelevant to what is actually at stake. Being able to make the distinction between prevention and resistance won’t make you an expert at data analysis, but it will go a long way in helping you wade through the morass of anti-gun statistics.
The Right Kinds of Studies
The type of studies we should be paying attention to are those studies that deal directly with the effectiveness of guns when used in a self-defense scenario. On that topic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that guns are effective when used in self-defense.
A 1993 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that out of eight different forms of robbery resistance, “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victims.”
A 2000 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that men and women who resisted with a gun were less likely to be injured or lose property than those who resisted using some other means or who did not resist at all. In the case of women, “having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”
A 2004 study published in the journal Criminology found that out of sixteen different forms of victim self-protection, “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”
Finally, a 2010 study published in Crime and Delinquency found that resistance with a gun decreased the odds of robbery and rape completion by 93 percent and 92 percent, respectively.
Taking stock of these points, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council concluded in a 2013 review of the literature that
studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.
When it comes to the use of studies and statistics, both sides tend to focus on the impact of gun ownership and right-to-carry laws on causing or deterring violence. These are certainly interesting issues to examine, but deterrence (or lack thereof) isn’t actually relevant to the key question in the gun debate. What matters is simply the question of whether guns are effective at doing what they’re designed to do. And on that question, there is clear consensus that guns are extremely effective at self-defense.
It seems a lot of people have a misconception of the meaning of the Second Amendment; The Bill of Rights gives no one anything. What it does do is stop the government from infringing on your right that is inherent to you just being a person. This goes way back 200 years in British common law.As for getting the soldiers and National Guard on our streets to make them safe. Can’t do that because of Posse Comitatus. It makes it illegal for federal troops to be used as a police force. If you don’t think this is a problem, check on the fiasco of the aftermath of the Boston bombing where the police dressed like the military went door to door without warrants. If you didn’t want to comply, the police broke into your house and searched it anyway.
There are estimated between 5 million and 10 million AR-15s in America. As of this writing, there have been 20 AR-15s used by school shooters. That is 0.0002 percent of AR-15s. You are worried about this? This is going to sound heartless but your child is more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed by a school shooter. It isn’t callous, it is just math.
If you really want to understand the Second Amendment, read “The Federalist Papers” written by the real writers of the Constitution — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay — in particular numbers 29 and 36.
Rock Island County activist Eliza Siep is all in favor of legislation that she believes will make Illinois communities safer by protecting Second Amendment rights.
“I would stand for that,” Siep told Rock Island Today of a push among some lawmakers in the county to have the area designated as a Second Amendment Sanctuary County. “If people want guns in our state, in our counties and in our cities, I actually feel safer. When I’m walking around the Walmart I would love to think that somebody would be carrying a concealed weapon legally and would be able to help out. When people have their firearms legally, they’re able to protect themselves and others if need be.”
Rock Island County Republican Party Chairman Drue Mielke
Rock Island County Republican Party Chairman Drue Mielke
In adopting such a policy, Rock Island County officials would be following in the footsteps of Effingham, Mercer, Henry, McDonough, Stark, Henderson and LaSalle counties, all of which have recently passed resolutions not to enforce state laws that they believe “unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment.”
Rock Island County Board member and County Republican Chairman Drue Mielke told WQAD that he was recently approached by a local citizens group so intent on adopting the legislation that they were thinking of trying to have the issue appear on the 2020 ballot as an advisory referendum.
Siep said her mind is already made up.
“Even in schools, I wished that teachers had the right to bear arms,” she said. “Whatever we can do to keep our streets and children more safe, I’m willing to do. If people have guns around me and they’re willing to use them correctly, I am more than happy to have them.”
Siep said she can only hope that more Illinois residents will come to feel as she does on the issue.
“I hope that Chicago would follow suit and try something different because whatever we’re doing hasn’t worked,” Siep said.
Massive NRA lobby, pro-gun judges and other key factors which could defeat any gun buy-back scheme in the US
A number of Democratic presidential hopefuls have sought a buyback but the number of guns in circulation is at 16 million and the challenge is huge.
So the gun grabbing proggies may be coming to the understanding that their fantasies are just that; fantastical
Democrat presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke has proposed a massive buy-back in a bid to curb the shooting menace which is rampant in American society. The Representative from Texas vowed in a recent debate to take back the deadly AR-15 and AK-47 rifles from people. However, O’Rourke’s idea has not struck a chord with many, even from his own party, for people feel there are far too many weapons in the country to confiscate. However, O’Rourke is not the only politician to have proposed such an idea. At least two other Democratic candidates in Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, besides other leaders, have backed the idea of buying back weapons.
O’Rourke’s idea has a similarity with New Zealand government’s move of buying back guns following the mosque massacres in Christchurch in March 2019. Six days after the attacks, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern government came up with a ban on “military-style” semi-automatic rifles. New Zealand’s neighbor Australia is also known to have implemented strict gun-control laws in the mid-1990s that have reduced the menace on their soil substantially.
Can gun violence in the US be controlled the way it has been in Australia and New Zealand? In New Zealand, over 10,000 firearms were bought by the government in less than a month as part of its gun buyback scheme.
In the US, the number of guns in circulation is at 16 million which creates an immense challenge in rounding them up. New Zealand has a population of around five million while the US is home to 330 million people and it is the third most populous country in the world. Buying those many guns back will also put the government’s finances under a big pressure.
The number of AR-15 and AK-47s in the US is estimated at a staggering 16 million, creating logistical challenges to take them out of circulation. Many gun owners are also unwilling to turn in the weapons, and if the government offered to buy them all back at face value, the price tag could easily run into billions of dollars. New Zealand also doesn’t have gun ownership as a constitutional right which makes it less challenging for the government to impose the sanction.
But apart from the problem with the quantity or constitutional right, there are some other realistic reasons that make the idea of buying back weapons in the US a tough one.
The NRA challenge:
Irrespective of the growing anti-gun voice in the US and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors designating it as a domestic terror organization because of its pro-gun stance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not withering away any time soon……
The Second Amendment of the Constitution makes it challenging for the anti-gun groups. The left-leaning states have shown more interest in carrying out gun-control measures but overall, the country’s judicial system has emerged as a hurdle. The Supreme Court has said more than once in recent times that right to keep personal weapons is constitutionally assured…………..
Lack of genuine will
The problem with America’s gun violence is that the anti-gun groups come up with their demands and movements after a tragedy occurs while the pro-gun lobbies maintain their stance consistently…………
The Democrats came to control the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections in 2018 and one would think that this could put the pro-gun Republicans under some challenge. But the way the House congressional districts are laid out, many by state legislatures controlled by the GOP, more seats have the possibility of tilting towards the right……….
Senate Republicans Shut Down ATF Nominee
GOP senators wary of Chuck Canterbury’s support for gun control
Chuck Canterbury, President Trump’s nominee to serve as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is likely to see his nomination withdrawn due to stringent opposition from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Free Beacon learned on Thursday.
“Chuck Canterbury does NOT have sufficient support in the Judiciary Committee and is now expected to be held up instead of getting a vote today,” a GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon on Thursday morning. “Republican members are (1) Concerned about his stances on gun control, and (2) there is still some bad blood for him flipping the Fraternal Order of Police in support of the First Step Act (after opposing the more moderate version), allegedly in exchange for the ATF Director nomination.”
“His 2A views are bad and he’d lose a lot of votes in committee,” a second Senate source told the Free Beacon. “We expect the White House will pull him given lack of support from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.”
At least one Republican senator, Utah’s Mike Lee, seemed to agree with this assessment when reached for comment.
“Sen. Lee has concerns about Canterbury’s Second Amendment views and is pleased the markup has been delayed,” Lee’s office told the Free Beacon.
Canterbury, who served as the president of the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), was expected to receive a vote out of committee Thursday morning. But his nomination was blocked by conservative Republicans who voiced concerns about his stances on gun control.
Canterbury’s nomination seemed in trouble during his July confirmation hearing when he frustrated Republican senators by refusing to deviate from the official positions of the FOP on gun control. He avoided answering questions about his views on the Second Amendment and even explicitly said he did not understand ATF regulations well enough to say what gun control policies he could or could not implement.
“If you’re not familiar with the process running the ATF, then you are not qualified,” Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) told him at the time.
It was Canterbury’s views on gun control, however, that sealed the deal. His past support for universal background check proposals and for President Obama’s attorney general Eric Holder were both major stumbling blocks, according to the second Senate source.
While head of the FOP, Canterbury explicitly supported background checks. In a 2013 letter, he told then-Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) that “expansion of background checks on firearm purchasers” was an “absolutely critical” element of “addressing gun violence.”
“We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system,” Canterbury wrote on behalf of the FOP. “Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals.”
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, just 10.5 percent of gun violence offenders purchased their firearm through a transaction that would be covered by any expanded background check proposal. Additionally, a Free Beacon analysis earlier this year found Colorado’s universal background check law had little effect on the number of checks done in the state, suggesting it was not as effective as advocates claim.
In 2009, Canterbury testified on behalf of then-nominee Holder, calling “his positions, his policy work, and the official acts … consistent with the goals of the FOP.” Holder would go on to oversee operation Fast and Furious, a gun-running investigation where officials allowed guns to be sold to people connected with Mexican cartels in an effort to track their networks. The program was poorly overseen and led to the death of a Border Patrol agent. Critics argued the program’s failure was due to Holder’s negligence.
Opposition to Canterbury also stemmed from his convincing the FOP to change its position on the FIRST STEP Act, the White House’s landmark criminal justice reform bill. The FOP initially opposed FIRST STEP, but changed its view after several revisions.
GOP Senate aides indicated that Canterbury was integral in bringing about this shift and that his work on FIRST STEP helped him clinch the ATF nomination, a view further indicated by Politico reporting in May. The Fraternal Order of Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While GOP aides expect Canterbury’s nomination to be withdrawn, that has yet to happen officially.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment as to its intentions.
They’re calling Beto O’Rourke the “AR-15 salesman of the year” after he forcefully stated in the last Democratic debate that an O’Rourke presidency would mean the mandatory government confiscation of such rifles. His exact quote was: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47– We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
He’s the first to be so direct, but he isn’t treading into empty waters. Many Democratic presidential hopefuls want to curb, regulate, and restrict gun ownership and sales.
America has seen tragic gun violence recently. Everyone can agree that these seemingly regular mass-shootings are horrific and detestable. We can do more as a society to prevent these occurrences. But the guttural reaction of the left to use government regulation to fix the problem is harmful, not helpful, to the safety of the American public.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms to the American citizen. Here, many misunderstand the basic founding principles of our country. The right to bear arms, just like the right to free speech, assembly, life, and liberty, are all rights we are born with. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law grant those rights, they are our inheritance. The Second Amendment reminds and restricts the government from its ability to interfere with those rights. Here’s the full text of the Amendment:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Our founders had no more ability to grant us those rights than the modern American political leader has to take them away. They are natural rights: ours and ours to keep. Even repealing the Second Amendment wouldn’t change this. And we should be so thankful. A government that has the power to grant rights has the power to take them away – and the nullifying, retracting, or ignoring of natural rights by government has been the vehicle by which the most egregious human rights abuses have and will continue to take place worldwide.
Even the most ardent progressive would agree that protecting human rights at home and abroad is a persistent and unending challenge of the civic minded activist. Nothing can secure a people’s rights more firmly than to recognize they are ours by birth, not granted by any human or government. For this alone I encourage the left to rally around the American system and think twice before slashing into any Constitutional protection…………….
There are about 393 million guns owned in America, or 46% of the world’s total gun supply. After the Christchurch shooting this year in New Zealand, the mandatory government buyback program made underwhelming performance, barely making a scratch in the estimated number of firearms held by the public. And that was in a country with far less identity wrapped around the right to bear arms.
The government simply cannot collect them all.
Cities in America with some of the strictest gun control laws often appear among the list of the top 10 cities with the highest gun-crime rates in the country…………..
Important yet absent from the gun control debate is an examination of how many crimes are prevented because of legally owned guns, or the role of guns as a defensive verses offensive tool. An Obama-era CDC study estimated as many as 3 million crimes are prevented in the US by guns annually—or 8,200 a day. According to the Foundation for Economic Education:
60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
I believe the issue we face in society is not a product of the guns we own but of the lack of morality we are fostering. We are seeing a devaluing of the nuclear family unit, the secularization of society, a de-emphasis of religion and tradition, and an embrace of emotional and identity politics.
America should curb gun violence with a measured and principled response.
The guns we own, and even the Second Amendment that protects the right to own them, is an easy but misplaced target. And it is a starting point of dire vulnerability from which our recognition of natural rights can be dismantled.
I’m not praising guns, I am explaining the rationale behind the sacred rights that we each carry with us by virtue of being born, and how unique and important it is that the American Constitution recognizes and prohibits the government from taking these from us, including the right to bear arms. We shouldn’t be so quick to forsake Second Amendment protections in misplaced attempts to tackle gun violence because other precious rights will become negotiable in the same way at a later time. We can’t stop the bleeding on this one. Either we acknowledge and protect all natural rights, or we have none.
Bryan Griffin of the London Center for Policy Research is a lawyer and author who specializes in American policy in the Middle East.
Earlier this month, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled a person charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a trial by jury, because the state Legislature in 2017 enacted a law saying someone convicted of such a crime could have their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms denied.
In keeping with a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision, our state’s high court had previously held that only those persons charged with a “serious” crime are entitled to a jury trial, which was defined as a crime carrying a sentence of greater than six months.
The unanimous opinion written by Justice Lidia Stiglich stated the change in state law to prohibit firearms possession by someone convicted of domestic violence effectively increases the “penalty” and makes the crime “serious” rather than “petty.”
“In our opinion, this new penalty — a prohibition on the right to bear arms as guaranteed by both the United States and Nevada Constitutions — ‘clearly reflect[s] a legislative determination that the offense [of misdemeanor domestic battery] is a serious one,’” Stiglich writes in a case out of Las Vegas.
The ruling concludes, “Given that the Legislature has indicated that the offense of misdemeanor domestic battery is serious, it follows that one facing the charge is entitled to the right to a jury trial.”
Attorney Michael Pariente, who represented appellate Christopher Anderson, told the Las Vegas newspaper, “I applaud the Nevada Supreme Court for unanimously doing the right thing. I think it’s a huge decision. They spoke with one voice, and it’s a good day for people who are charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. It forces the prosecutor to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a 12-person jury instead of one single, sitting judge.”
But Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, whose office argued against allowing a jury trial in such cases, put out a statement saying, “The devastating consequences of this decision cannot be overstated. Misdemeanor courts across this state are not equipped for jury trials, and this decision could have a widespread chilling effect on domestic violence victims coming forward. My office is working hand-in-hand with city, county, and federal officials to formulate a response and prevent the domestic violence epidemic in this state from further devastating our communities. The most immediate priority for my office is doing whatever it takes to ensure more people are not killed by their abusers as a result of this decision.”
Frankly, we have to ask: Why did it ever come to this?
The Webster’s definition of “all” is: “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of; every member or individual component of; the whole number or sum of; every.”
You see, Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury …”
The Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”
The Nevada Constitution says: “The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever …”
How the U.S. Supreme Court decided “petty” crimes do not warrant a trial by jury is beyond our feeble minds, but in any case the Nevada high court is to be applauded for deciding that the denial of the fundamental right to bear arms constitutes a serious matter and deserves a trial by a jury of one’s peers. — TM
Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing.