Category: RKBA

Opponents of Measure 114 gun laws say case is about “individual rights” in trial opening

In opening statements Monday, lawyers for two people suing over Oregon’s new gun laws said Ballot Measure 114′s provisions are the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”

“This case is not about public health, public safety or public concern,” plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello told Judge Robert Rascio. “This is about individual rights. This is about the individual right to self defense and the right to bear arms to secure that right.”

Aiello said plaintiffs in the state trial plan to show that Measure 114, approved by voters last year, effectively limits Oregonians to owning only antique firearms. He said Measure 114 regulates firearms that were plentiful prior to 1859, the year Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution — the section protecting the right to bear arms — was ratified.

The new laws would ban high capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, require a completed background check to buy or transfer a firearm and require a person to take training and receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Raschio, an Oregon Circuit Court judge based in Harney County, blocked the new laws from taking effect in December pending this week’s trial.

In their opening statement, lawyers defending the new rules for the Oregon Department of Justice said the court must determine if large capacity magazines are considered “arms” under the state constitution, and thus protected, a question they said had already been resolved by the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Continue reading “”

More evidence that the law only applies to law-abiding

Over and over again, we’re told we need more gun laws because of the actions of people who are anything but law-abiding.

We shouldn’t have so-called assault weapons because some people have misused them. Never mind that these same people would have used whatever they could get their hands on to kill just as many people. No, those who actually obey the law should be punished for the actions of evil people.

But the truth is that people who don’t care about obeying the rules will simply break whatever rules they want.

Take this example out of Rochester, NY.

Rochester Police say they found six loaded guns inside a building on North Clinton Avenue early Saturday morning. Officers say there was gunfire inside that building while it was operating an unlicensed bar.

RPD first responded to the property on North Clinton Avenue near Rauber Street around 11:30 p.m. on Friday after getting complaints about an after-hours party. Officers say they heard loud music and saw multiple illegally parked cars.…

Three hours later, RPD returned to the building after getting reports of shot fired. Officers saw people running and found multiple guns, along with a large quantity of narcotics, inside the building. No one was hit by the gunfire.

Among the firearms was an AR-style pistol and several other handguns.

Now, let’s look at this case for a moment. We’ve got everything from parking violations and loud music to an unlicensed bar to illegal guns and drugs.

I mean, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear these weren’t law-abiding citizens here.

See, one of the problems with gun control is that it only impacts the law-abiding. It only controls those who are willing to accept that control.

Criminals, however, don’t.

For one thing, they don’t think they’ll get caught. The police showed up at this illegal bar earlier in the evening and were told that this was just a birthday party. When they left, the guy figured he was golden and probably felt pretty cocky.

He’d been breaking the law under the cops’ noses and got away with it.

I won’t say that people who break one or two laws will break any law. No, most people have a line somewhere that they won’t cross. It would be silly to say that someone who speeds will commit murder, after all.

But those who are willing to take a life aren’t necessarily going to quibble about speeding.

When it comes to gun control, those who are law-abiding are the only ones who will follow gun control laws, just like it’s the law-abiding who don’t run illegal bars out of their homes or tend to partake in illegal drugs as a general rule.

The biggest problem, though, is getting some other parties to understand it. They continue to push the idea that somehow you can control criminal behavior with just a few more laws despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The truth is that many simply choose to believe the laws will work because it makes them feel better about the laws they’re pushing for.

Can There be Good News About Public Violence?

Some of us are afraid of bad news. Most of us know someone who is afraid of going to the doctor because they don’t want to make hard decisions about their health. The great news is that most medical conditions can be treated. That emotional reaction is also common when we consider public violence. It is particularly accurate about how we feel about mass-murder.

Many of us feel both compelled to watch the news about public violence, while at the same time we want to turn away and pretend it doesn’t happen. Let me bring you good news. We learned how to stop mass-murder in several ways. We’ve done it, so we are talking about actual practice rather than mere theory. The first thing we have to do is get past the fantasy of Hollywood violence and talk about what really happens.

I’m going to go back to the medical model for a moment. I’ve had friends who oscillated between denial and helplessness. They feel that there can’t be a problem, or that the problem is intractable so why bother. They become hopeless and vulnerable to people who sell quack cures. I won’t do that to you. I’ve studied public violence for a decade, and there is real hope to stop mass-murderers. For a moment, let’s set aside both fantasy and our fears.

Part of us knows that what we see from Hollywood isn’t real. Yes, we might be caught up in the story. At the same time, part of our mind knows that hundreds of people don’t suddenly explode in a flash of flame and get thrown backwards when someone waves a gun around. The truth is that mass-murder is hard, and ordinary citizens stop mass-murderers most of the time. That is fairly obvious if we’re willing to look at it for a minute. Again, I promise it will only be a minute. It turns out that you have lived through the critical experiment many times.

Remember one of the times you walked into a group of your friends and shouted hello. Your friends look at you. One of them points their finger at you and you point back at them and wave. You do that a number of times as more of your friends recognize you.

Then you see a friend of to the side that you missed. You wave and smile to see someone you didn’t notice at first. There is a feeling of an unexpected, pleasant surprise. We didn’t see them at first because we were concentrating on someone else in the group. We thought we saw everyone, but we really didn’t. A friend we didn’t see slaps us on the shoulder and asks how we’ve been. We were looking at the group so we never noticed our friend come up behind us.

Hold that experience in mind for a minute. I could ask you all kinds of questions about your friends and we’d find out that you didn’t really see them at all. How were they sitting? Who was talking to whom? How were they dressed, and what were they doing with their hands when you said hello? We are not a camera, and we imagine that we see more than we really do.

We don’t see everything. As soon as we look at one thing,
we become blind to the rest of the world around us.

(The hard part starts now, but it won’t be long.)

That common experience explains why we kill mass murderers time after time. To put it in simple terms, they don’t see us and we shoot them. Maybe they die right there, and maybe they are only wounded. Being shot at makes the attacker feel deeply vulnerable. Usually, they run away. This wasn’t the violence they had imagined and they usually take their own life.

(The gruesome part is over so you can breathe again.)

There are other perceptual and tactical factors at work, but I’m not trying to make better murderers. The fact is that mass-murderers are vulnerable.

Where ordinary citizens were allowed to be armed, we stopped attempted mass-murderers almost two-thirds of the time. That also had a drastic effect on the number of people who were injured or killed. Ordinary citizens like you saved over a thousand lives. Again, the reasons might not be obvious to everyone.

It is clear that stopping the murderer means that more innocent people aren’t getting shot. It also means we can move the people who were injured to safety and we can quickly start life-saving treatment by stopping the bleeding. EMTs get to the injured victims faster because the scene is safe. There are fewer victims to treat, so each victim gets more attention, and the victims are in better condition when EMTs first reach them.

That is what happens time after time. On average, we’ve done that about every 18 days for the last 8 years. None of that happens while we wait another 15 minutes for the police to arrive.

It turns out that the murderer wasn’t so deadly because he had some Hollywood super weapon. Mass-murderers hunt us in “gun-free” zones. The murderer was deadly because he could kill at will without someone to stop him.

Millions of us go armed every day, but we obeyed the rules and left our guns outside.
The mass-murderer didn’t.

I’m sure that some of you can see the answers already.
  • The personal solution is easy. Make sure that someone can shoot back.
  • The public solution is time tested. We’ve done it for the last decade, and we’ve never had a school attacked where they had a public program of armed school staff.
  • The legal solution is simple. Make property owners responsible when they disarm the people who obey the law. If you stop me from protecting my family, then you become responsible for their safety.
  • The media solution is easy as well. Most mass-murderers kill innocent people so the mass-media will show us their face, their name, and their manifesto. Stop giving mass-murderers a multi-million-dollar publicity campaign.
  • All that might sound simple, but the political solution is harder. We have to ignore quack cures that have failed in the past.

I told you there was good news.

Michelle Lujan Grisham tries to revive Democrats’ “Massive Resistance” to civil rights

Just off the main drag in Farmville, Virginia there’s an unassuming brick building next to a brightly painted tarpaper structure. The unobtrusive sign out front identifies the building at the Robert Russa Moton Museum; a largely unknown place that was the site of one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement. The museum was once R.R. Moton High School, the black public high school in Prince Edward County. In 1951, then 15-year-old Barbara Johns led her fellow students on a walkout in protest of the deplorable conditions of the building and the education they received.

After years of frustration with Prince Edward County school which she describes (later in a memoir) as having inadequacies such as poor facilities, shabby equipment and no science laboratories or separate gymnasium, Barbara took her concerns to a teacher who responded by asking, “Why don’t you do something about it?” Barbara describes feeling as though her teacher’s comments were dismissive, and as a result she was somewhat discouraged. However, after months of contemplation and imagination she began to formulate a plan. As Barbara describes it,

“the plan I felt was divinely inspired because I hadn’t been able to think of anything until then. The plan was to assemble together the student council members…. From this, we would formulate plans to go on strike. We would make signs and I would give a speech stating our dissatisfaction and we would march out [of] the school and people would hear us and see us and understand our difficulty and would sympathize with our plight and would grant us our new school building and our teachers would be proud and the students would learn more and it would be grand….”

Seizing the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16 year-old high school girl in Prince Edward County, Virginia, led her classmates in a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School. Her idealism, planning, and persistence ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions for Moton High School.

After meeting with the students and the community, lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill filed suit at the federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. The case was called Davis v. Prince Edward. In 1954, the Farmville case became one of five cases that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka when it declared segregation unconstitutional.

While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, public schools weren’t integrated in Prince Edward County for another decade. The school system dragged out any attempt to abide by the decision for years, and when that became untenable the county decided to shut down the public schools entirely rather than integrate. The “Massive Resistance” movement eventually resulted in several communities shuttering their schools, though none for as long as Prince Edward County. It took another Supreme Court decision in 1964 to re-open the schools, this time to both black and white students.

When I first moved to the Farmville area a decade ago I met a man who’d spent several years being taught in a church basement and in the living rooms of family and friends by parents and other adults who refused to let kids go unschooled. In fact, he was the one who told me about this shameful history in the first place.

Both Farmville and the nation at large have come a long way since 1951. Sadly, Massive Resistance to a Supreme Court decision is making a comeback among Democrats, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham seems intent on becoming the standard bearer for the movement.

Grisham made it clear when she first announced she was unilaterally suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County that she didn’t care what the Constitution says, much less the Supreme Court. Even after the police chief and sheriff said they wouldn’t enforce her order because of constitutional concerns she insisted that curbing violent crime required disarming lawful gun owners and rendering them defenseless in public.

During the court hearing that led to her original order being put on ice, the governor’s attorney repeatedly argued that there was no difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a bad guy, that every concealed carry holder was a murderer waiting to happen, and bemoaned the Bruen decision for it supposedly taking away the governor’s ability to “try” to effectively fight violent crime.

If Grisham truly thinks that the only way to do that is to prohibit the right to carry, then there’s no way she would have let her initial order expire after its 30-day period was up. She would have extended it for as long as she got away with it, just like Prince Edward County did with the public schools in the 1960s.

Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the bigots engaged in Massive Resistance today aren’t doing so on the basis of race (though there’s a strong argument that racial minorities are still suffering a disproportionate amount of harm from gun control laws). Instead, it’s the mere exercise of a constitutional right that causes Grisham and others to view their friends, neighbors, and constituents as dangerous “others” who must be suppressed in the name of public safety. Black, white, gay, straight… it doesn’t matter. If you’re a gun owner, and certainly if you’re a gun owner who wants to carry your gun in public, you’re the problem. You must be “fixed”. You must be put in your proper place, and your right must be deemed a wrong.

I don’t know if Michelle Lujan Grisham is smart enough to have realized this, but the Massive Resistance movement failed. In Farmville the worst fears of the segregationists have been realized. Black and white kids are going to school, becoming friends, getting married, having kids, and living their lives in a community that is much changed for the better.

Like her fellow civil rights suppressors in the 1950s and 60s, Grisham is ultimately lashing out because she’s losing. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there’s a portion of the gun control movement that believes it’s time to start lobbing Hail Marys through executive orders and tossing verbal hand grenades at the Supreme Court over Bruen, while the more institutional wing seems intent on taking a more traditional incrementalist approach.

If Grisham thought she was acting in a position of strength in proclaiming a constitutional right suspended because of a self-proclaimed public health emergency (at a time when homicides are actually trending down in Albuquerque, by the way), the backlash from many of her fellow Democrats and the refusal to enforce her order by local and state officials should have disabused her of her delusions. I think she was well aware of the weakness of her position before she made her announcement. She just decided if she was going to “do something”, she might as well do something big.

Grisham has backed down slightly from her original order, a decision I suspect that is almost entirely based on the unwillingness of police and prosecutors to go along. Massive Resistance implies mass, after all, and in Grisham’s case she (so far, anyway) hasn’t had the institutional backing she needs to pull off her unconstitutional scheme. That may have even factored into her decision to revise her original order instead of bringing lawmakers back to Santa Fe for a special session to address this “emergency”; she knows that she doesn’t have the political capital at the moment to control the outcome and ensure that her desired gun control bills get passed.

Lately, it seems like the governor’s been more interested in burning bridges with her fellow Democrats than building them, but that could easily change over the next few months. The self-proclaimed “emergency” in Albuquerque was her first attempt at massive resistance to the Bruen decision but I doubt it will be the last, and if she (or her handlers) have an ounce of political acumen they’ll be looking for buy-in and political cover from the Democratic majority before she unveils her next terrible and tyrannical idea.

Oregon judge to decide in new trial whether voter-approved gun control law is constitutional

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge is set to decide whether a gun control law approved by voters in November violates the state’s constitution in a trial scheduled to start Monday.

The law, one of the toughest in the nation, was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.

Measure 114 has been tied up in federal and state court since it was narrowly passed by voters in November 2022, casting confusion over its fate.

Continue reading “”

Random Thoughts on Hunter Biden, Domestic Violence, and Disarming Those Who Haven’t Been Convicted of a Crime.

One of the most entertaining aspects of Hunter Biden being indicted on three gun-related charges due to his drug use is the reaction of those on the left side of the political spectrum. They’re screaming that given how few people are prosecuted for lying on 4473 forms, the only reason he’s been charged is his prominent father.

Note that the Venn diagram of the people who are making this argument and those who blew a blood vessel when a man whose conviction was overturned for gun possession while under a domestic violence restraining order is almost a perfect circle. Yet the legal principles are virtually the same.

In the domestic violence case, US v. Rahimi, the target is a certified scumbag who’d been involved in at least five prior crimes involving firearms and had beaten the hell out of his girlfriend. Zackey Rahimi was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm and had been convicted of violating that order.

When the Fifth Circuit circuit overturned his conviction based on the lack of a history or tradition in this country of voiding the gun rights of people who hadn’t been convicted of a crime, the reaction was as if they’d OK’d human sacrifice, dogs living with cats…you know mass hysteria.

Continue reading “”

Anti-gunners really don’t understand concept of freedom

AFTER NEGOTIATION WITH ANJRPC,
NJ ISSUES REVISED CARRY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Joisey Goobermint; Loser O’ The Day

25-Yard Target Distance – Dropped!
Tactical Maneuvers – Dropped!
Timed Fire – Dropped!
Requalification Deadline – Extended!

September 17, 2023. After extensive discussions with ANJRPC, the State of New Jersey has issued revised carry training requirements addressing nearly all gun owner objections and concerns. The newly revised requirements eliminated any demonstration of tactical maneuvers, eliminated a demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, significantly extended the compliance date for current permit holders to requalify, and eliminated inappropriate content from the use of force instructional materials.

Click HERE,  HERE,  HERE and HERE to see the newly updated training requirements, which were negotiated by ANJRPC attorney Dan Schmutter, with input from attorney Evan Nappen.

Specifically, New Jersey eliminated any testing requirements for kneeling, one handed shooting, timed fire, and retention drills. Additionally, New Jersey has completely eliminated any demonstration of shooting proficiency at 25 yards, instead requiring shooting from 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Also, New Jersey has extended the deadline for current permit holders to requalify from October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. New Jersey also eliminated from the “use of force” instructional materials content unrelated to right to carry, including provisions related to citizen’s arrest and use of handcuffs.

This development represents another extremely significant moment for New Jersey gun owners. The State of New Jersey has, for the second time this summer, explicitly taken steps to limit the harsh unintended consequences of erroneous rules for gun owners. It is a testimony to the newly found influence gun owners have attained in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, and ANJRPC is pleased to have been able to deliver this result.

If you want to contribute to the carry-killer lawsuit click here to make a donation.

If you are not already subscribed to these free email alerts, click here to sign up — there will be critical updates and alerts coming in the near future.

‘Busiest day I’ve had in months’: Guns flying off shelves in Albuquerque after gov’s anti-2A move

It would appear that New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order banning the carrying of firearms in Alburquerque has had an unintended consequence: Sales in the city’s gun stores are booming.

ABQ Guns owner Arnie Gallegos told The Epoch Times, “Today was the busiest day I’ve had in months.”

“I’ve been getting a lot of people who have never come into a gun shop before who are rightfully concerned about their freedoms,” Gallegos added. “A lot of people are saying, ‘I can’t rely on the police anymore, and I need to be able to protect myself.’”

As BizPac Review reported, last week, Lujan Grisham declared that firearms could not be carried in Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for a minimum of at least 30 days in response to several recent shootings that left children as young as five and eleven dead.

“The recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year spurred the governor to declare gun violence a public health emergency on Thursday,” her office said in a press release.

According to the order, “no person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021.”

The move sparked immediate backlash, even from those within her own party.

Continue reading “”

California passes call for constitutional convention on guns

California Gov. Gavin Newsom floated his idea for a 28th Amendment that would codify certain gun control measures into the Constitution and called for a constitutional convention to pass it.

It’s kind of hilarious because gun control advocates can’t get these things passed as actual laws at the federal level, but they’re sure getting them in as a constitutional amendment would be easier.

Apparently, none of them ever took civics.

Regardless, Newsom’s effort required the state legislature to actually pass a call for a constitutional convention. On Thursday, the legislature did just that.

California lawmakers on Thursday approved Gov. Gavin Newsom’s resolution calling for a constitutional convention of the states to consider a new amendment on gun control, a politically astute yet seemingly unattainable proposal from the Democratic leader.

The governor introduced the proposal on national television over the summer, boosting his profile in the culture wars between Democrats and Republicans at a time when many voters feel increasingly frustrated over the lack of action in Washington to address mass shootings that have anguished communities all over the country. But constitutional scholars have warned that Newsom’s plan could be risky by opening the door for other changes to the U.S. Constitution if a convention took place.

Newsom’s resolution asks Congress to call a constitutional convention to allow states to approve an amendment that imposes new laws requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, raises the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, institutes a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases and prohibits the sale of assault weapons to the public. The resolution also calls for states to be able to approve an amendment to affirm that federal, state and local governments may adopt safety regulations limiting firearm sales, possession and carrying guns in public.

For Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to be considered, legislatures in two-thirds of the states must vote in favor of a constitutional convention.

And, to be fair, according to Common Cause 28 states have already called for a convention, with California being the 29th.

So it would really just take a few more to reach that threshold.

Continue reading “”

Ryan Busse, Liar, Hypocrite & Shill for Anti-Gun Orgs, Now Wants to Be MT Governor!?

Ryan Busse Wrong for Montana

Montana needs to wake up and cancel this bad actor’s campaign for state Governor …and fast.

“Hi there, I’m Ryan Busse, [Senior Advisor, Giffords, gun Control Org], and I’m running to be the next Governor of Montana. I’m a father, a husband, a hunter, and a proud Montanan who wants our great state to be a place where all of our freedoms are protected.” ~ Ryan Busse X.

Conman, Busse, might try to fool uninformed Montanans that he is all for protecting freedoms. But his track record on the Second Amendment is a Freedom-Gutting horror show.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation called Busse a “Fear Merchant and Liar.”

NSSF’s Larry Keane continued in a second OP-ED: “Busse likes to pass himself off to adoring gun control media types as a firearm industry “expert” but make no mistake…he’s nothing of the sort. He dresses up in Fudd-ish plaid flannel, hunts with expensive shotguns and spends more time dabbling in blue-anon progressive politics than he does actually concentrating on things like the facts. Don’t believe him. He’s nothing more than a modern-day snake oil salesman hawking gun control as a miracle cure-all elixir.”

“Busse is a charlatan. He’s a paid shill for gun control who has yet to find a media outlet that won’t fawn over his “Saul-to-Paul” conversion from defender of firearms to shotgun-toting, plaid-wearing doomsday prophet shouting repentance admonitions at anyone who dares to disagree with his gun control crusade.”

Those are pretty tough words from the starched-shirt, National Shooting Sports Foundation, which spends more time in board rooms and government offices negotiating with bureaucrats and not throwing verbal bombs at freedom haters.

Blah, blah blah, but where is your proof Busse is a two-faced shill against your right to keep and bear arms you might ask?

How about this proof: 18+ times, Ryan Busse has appeared in lawsuits to defend gun control in attempts to kill your second amendment rights.

Wake up, Montana!

Continue reading “”

The Tool Who Governs New Mexico Has Handed Patriots a Potent New Tool

I want to thank the versatile governor of New Mexico, whose name I don’t care about, for being a communist and a fascist all at once. Now that may seem strange, coming from somebody who actually believes in freedom and actually defended it for 27 years, but I want you to hear me out. She may be an aspiring dictator and a mid-wit Karen brimming over with Xanax wishes and Chardonnay dreams, but she’s providing us with a valuable opportunity that we should take full advantage of. She has decreed that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms must yield to what she unilaterally decided is a “public health emergency.” Cool. Now, I’ve got some decrees of our own.

I’ve long said that there are three ways things can go. Option One is a free society where there are norms and rules that we all abide by and our Constitutional rights are protected and everybody has a right to participate in their own governance. This is my favorite option. It’s the one that I grew up in back when America was a free country and not a pronoun-fixated banana republic. Option Two is an authoritarian dictatorship where guys like me are in charge. Not my first choice, but I can live with it. Finally, Option Three is a communist dictatorship, and then it’s basically break out the rifles, boys. I was never good at kneeling, and at my age, my knees just won’t tolerate it any better than my attitude will.

Well, Governor Paula Pot has made it clear that Option One is now off the table, so I guess we have to go with Option Two – ironically, during the week of the 50th anniversary of Augusto Pinochet overthrowing the communist dictator of Chile. Now, I think it’s a bad idea and I’m still pushing for Option One, but it’s pretty clear that freedom no longer an option. So Option Two it is.

Let’s start decreeing stuff, Republicans!

The first thing red states need to decree is a ban on the teaching, advocacy, or practice of socialism in any of its putrid forms. Those who care nothing about the children will immediately pipe up about the alleged right to speak freely, but they refuse to acknowledge the harm this poisonous ideology does. Harm trumps rights, as colleges and the regime media have taught us. And boy, is socialism harmful. It’s violence – literally. Marxism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last century. That’s more deaths than net neutrality, Republican Medicare cuts, and dead-naming combined!

From the killing fields of Russia and Ukraine, to those of Red China and Cambodia, Marxism is murder. We must prioritize safety, for the children, and there is no safe space when an ideology of death like socialism is able to be articulated and advocated in public. Free speech is nice, I guess, but it is officially known that no right is absolute. Socialism is clearly hate speech, which is totally a thing in our Constitution, according to sources and experts who you can watch on MSNBC anytime you want – well, not after we ban socialism! Because socialism is hate speech, not only can we ban it, but we must ban it as the public health menace that it is.

And when we retake the White House, it won’t just be red governors doing it. As a nation, we will be able to scratch “Destroying Socialism” off our to-do list. It will be totally illegal and we can get right on enforcing the ban with the reconstituted FBI, the reformed Department of Justice, and the United States Army helicopter corps.

The next public health decree? No trans insanity! We’ve got a public health crisis where children are being mutilated with chemicals and scalpels to conform their God-given bodies to the delusions of their Chardonnay-sodden Munchhausen mommies. This must stop. I know it’s weird that I have to say it, but castrating a boy so he can more effectively pretend to be a girl causes harm. And it is unsafe. And therefore it should be subject to being banned by a decree issued by a caring chief executive. And if you disagree, you clearly don’t care about the children – wait, that’s actually not sarcasm.

But why stop at kids? The decree should include outlawing mutilation as a treatment for mental illness in adults as well. I know that there are some well-meaning libertarianish folks out there who buy the idea that after age 18, we as a society have no interest in what you do to yourself. Well, we don’t let people walk into a hospital and say “Chop off my arm” because they feel like it, and what’s good for the arm is good for the penis.

If you want to cut up your body because you think you’re the other gender, you have a mental problem and not a physical one that can be cured by some quack surgeon slicing you into pieces. Some people will say this isn’t tolerant, and that’s fine with me. We tried tolerance, and we ended up with men dressed like Charo twerking their be-thonged butts in the faces of our kindergartners.

The next decree should address a massive public health crisis among children, because it’s always about the children, who are failing to learn and be educated in unionized schools. That’s public healthish, right? Clearly, teachers unions must be outlawed, and those running them prosecuted and punished for the lasting harm they have inflicted on a generation of kids. Now, some might argue that this is the kind of policy that should go through the normal legislative process, but I beg to differ. It’s a public health emergency when children are failing to learn to read and write because I said so, and if you disagree that’s violence, and if you oppose this common sense measure, you clearly hate the children. There’s blood on your hands. You should be deplatformed. You’re also racist and probably a transphobe or something.

Remember, we must protect Our Democracy, which is why those in power – us – must be able to rule by decree. Now these decrees may represent an expansive reading of “public health emergency,” but that’s OK. As currently understood, laws should be read expansively if that’s what’s required to, say, get the result a politicized prosecutor wants. Once again, it’s not the paradigm that I support – I think this is all a terrible idea – but it is the operative New Rule, and I know that because I see a governor of a miserable desert state issuing decrees that the Second Amendment is no longer in effect, and I watch a senile, corrupt, desiccated old pervert’s Department of Justice (sic) being sicced on a man who will very likely be his opponent in the next presidential election.

Again, I don’t like any of this, but you know what I like even less? Taking this crap without hitting back. Leftist jerks, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I told you so.

Grisham responds to backlash, ruling blocking her order

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had to know that she’d get pushback with her declaration of a “public health emergency” regarding violent crime in Albuquerque and the subsequent order banning the lawful carry of firearms there.

I mean, it’s a gun order. There’s literally no way that she could be oblivious to the fact that a lot of people weren’t going to like it.

However, Grisham got a lot more than she likely bargained for.

I mean, members of her own party pushed back. Then, on top of everything, a court issued a restraining order stopping enforcement of the rule.

But Grisham isn’t taking her lumps and learning from them. No, she’s trying to push back.

The governor told “GMA3” earlier Wednesday she has the “courage” to take a stand against gun violence in response to backlash over her emergency public health order.

“Everyone is terrified of the backlash for all of these political reactions,” Lujan Grisham told Eva Pilgrim on “GMA3” Wednesday. “None of those individuals or groups focused on the actual injuries or deaths of the public.”

“They aren’t dealing with this as the crisis that it is,” she continued.…

“How would you feel in a city or a community if people had handguns in their belts, on parks, near schools, on public trails, at the grocery store?” Lujan Grisham told “GMA3.” “It’s outrageous and it must stop. And I will keep doing everything that’s based in science and fact and public safety efforts to clean up our cities to make this the safest state in America. And I will not stop until that’s done.”

The thing is, it’s not the bad guys walking around openly carrying. Criminals never open carry so far as I’ve seen.

If this is what Grisham is pushing then it’s about theater, not safety. It’s about giving the illusion of making things better. What’s more, she knows it.

Of course, much of this is about responding to the pushback to her order.

She also had this to say following the restraining order being issued.

“As governor, I see the pain of families who lost their loved ones to gun violence every single day, and I will never stop fighting to prevent other families from enduring these tragedies,” Lujan Grisham said in the written statement.

“Over the past four days, I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years,” she said.

No, she hasn’t.

What she’s seen is her entire party–at least those who spoke out–calling her out for this blatantly unconstitutional action. Everyone has been telling her that she can’t do what she’s tried to do and now a federal court has done the same.

Grisham’s problem is that she can’t see beyond her own partisan blinders. She can’t comprehend that there might possibly be ways to address violent crime in cities like Albuquerque that don’t involve restricting people’s rights.

Which is funny, because this whole “public health crisis” isn’t just about restricting guns. Among other things, it calls for state police to go to Albuquerque to help crack down on violent crime in the city. It actually does do a few things that might well help all on its own, and they’re far less controversial than trying to unilaterally restrict someone’s basic, constitutionally protected rights.

Then again, so many anti-gun Democrats can’t think beyond gun control for solutions to such issues.

And that’s a problem since gun control doesn’t really solve those issues.

Presidential candidates discuss their ideas on protecting children from gun violence

MANCHESTER, N.H. —
As school gets back into session across New Hampshire and the country, the possibility of a mass shooting is once again on the minds of parents, students and staff.

Many want to know what ideas politicians have to stop another massacre. During WMUR’s “Conversation with the Candidate” series, several presidential candidates shared their ideas about how to keep children safe from gun violence.

“I am not going to take people’s guns away,” said Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “I believe in gun control myself. But you know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns at the margin that has been left to us by this very expansive Supreme Court decision is not being truthful with you.”

He said more security may be needed at schools.

“My policy is going to be to figure out ways to protect these children,” Kennedy said. “We cannot have any more school shootings. Even if that means protecting schools the same way we protect the airlines – you don’t get shootings on airlines anymore. If we have to do that, we have to protect our children.”

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he also would not be in favor of taking anyone’s guns.

“So, it is true that I am also personally an unapologetic defender of the Second Amendment, because I do think that’s what protects all of our other freedoms,” he said. “Iran, China, other countries, they actually claim to offer the same freedoms we do in our Bill of Rights. The only thing they don’t have is a Second Amendment. So I think that’s fundamental.

“However, I don’t think we can tolerate in this country another, for example, mass school shooting. I have two kids. They’re about to be of school age. I think it’s unconscionable for us to see another school shooting in this country. The way I want to stop that is by putting three armed security guards in every school across this country.”

Candidates also acknowledged the relationship between mental health and gun violence, talking about background checks as preventative measures.

“Well, you pointed out that it could be mental health. That is a challenge,” said Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson. “And if they are adjudicated as being mentally incompetent, then they shouldn’t have access to firearms. That needs to be put in the system. And so, a lot of it is making sure our databases that do the check before a sale of a firearm have accurate information in there.”

Yale Law School holds panel on upcoming Second Amendment SCOTUS case

The Yale Law School community convened on Tuesday evening to discuss upcoming Supreme Court case United States v. Rahimi, which could clarify the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms in the face of complicating factors.

The event, titled “Gun Violence, Domestic Violence, and the Supreme Court: Twin Threats before the Court in United States v. Rahimi,” was hosted by the Law School’s Solomon Center for Health and Policy. The talk was co-sponsored by several progressive and reproductive justice-oriented Law School organizations; it featured panelists who are legal and public health experts from institutions across the country, including Megan Ranney, Jesenia Pizarro, Eric Tirschwell and Michael Ulrich.

“We were so honored to host this event and bring together leading litigators and public health scholars to consider the potentially devastating impact of a Supreme Court decision that could nullify dozens of state laws that temporarily prevent domestic abusers from holding firearms,” Abbe Gluck ’96 LAW ’00, faculty director of the Solomon Center, wrote to the News. “Not only is gun violence one of the nation’s most serious public health problems, public health also offers some solutions.”

The case is expected to define parameters around the government’s constitutional authority to restrict the right to own a personal firearm for individuals under domestic violence-related restraining orders. The Supreme Court decided to take up the case at the conclusion of its 2022-2023 term, with oral arguments scheduled for Nov. 7.

Tirschwell, who is the executive director and chief litigation counsel of an organization that seeks to advance gun safety in the courts — Everytown Law — opened the talk by providing an overview of the case.

Tirschwell explained that the case began in a Texas parking lot in 2019 when Zackey Rahimi engaged in a heated argument with his then-girlfriend, who has chosen to remain anonymous in court filings. Rahimi violently assaulted his girlfriend before she was able to escape.

Rahimi persistently threatened to shoot his former girlfriend if she told anyone, prompting her to seek a domestic restraining order, according to court documents. In court, a judge concluded that Rahimi posed a significant threat to both his girlfriend and their shared child. Consequently, the judge ruled that Rahimi should not possess a firearm while the restraining order was in effect.

The court’s decision was later deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the court found that the original ruling violated Rahimi’s Constitutional rights in the Second Amendment. The case could have far-reaching effects on the safety of domestic violence victims across the nation, and it has raised questions surrounding the strength of the Second Amendment.

“Forty-eight states across the country have similar laws that either require or allow judges to order domestic abusers to be disarmed in the context of civil protective order cases,” Tirschwell said, highlighting the significance of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision.

Tirschwell also claimed that the Fifth Circuit’s argument against the ban was originalist in nature. One of the Fifth Circuit’s key reasons for overturning the lower court’s decision was its belief that domestic violence did not exist as a concept when the Constitution was initially drafted.

Consequently, the ruling argued that the law in question did not align with the Framers’ original intent regarding the Second Amendment.

“We think that the Fifth Circuit got this dead wrong,” Tirschwell said.

Tirschwell said that he remains optimistic the Supreme Court will focus their decision on if there is any historical precedent on disarming people who are deemed to be dangerous to society.

On the panel, Megan Ranney, the newly appointed dean of the School of Public Health, addressed the public safety concerns arising from the case, emphasizing that while gun violence affects everyone, it disproportionately affects children, pregnant women and women of color.

“It is very much an epidemic,” she said. “We are seeing an increasing number of both firearm deaths and firearm injuries across the United States. Firearm injury has now become the leading cause of death for children in the United States.”

Jesenia Pizarro, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, highlighted the criminal justice perspective surrounding the case. Pizarro specifically mentioned that allowing firearms to remain in the hands of abusers puts law enforcement and public servants in “great danger.”

Michael Ulrich, an assistant professor of Health Law, Ethics and Human Rights at Boston University, discussed the limitations of the Second Amendment during his portion of the talk.

“There is a bigger question,” he said. “To what extent is the Supreme Court willing to continue to factor in not only the constitutional right [to bear arms] but the government’s justification for limiting that right?”

Yale Law School is located at 127 Wall St.

SAF SUES CALIFORNIA OVER ‘SENSITIVE PLACES’ LEGISLATION

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the freshly inked Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which makes nearly every public place in the state a “sensitive place” and forbids the carrying of firearms even by citizens who have gone through the lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SAF is joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and eleven private citizens. Named as Defendant is California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Sean A. Brady and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, and Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.

“SB 2 is designed to frustrate and ultimately discourage individuals from exercising their right to bear arms by creating a patchwork of locations where Second Amendment rights may, or may not, be exercised,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That is not how constitutional rights work. SAF is happy to add California to the list of states that we have sued for adopting so-called ‘Bruen Response Bills’ that make it impractical, if not impossible for people to exercise their rights by essentially making carry permits useless.”

“Under SB 2,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “legally armed California citizens might be able to carry on some streets and sidewalks, and in a few private businesses that post signs allowing legal carry on their premises. Overall, however, SB 2 is a massive prohibition on legal carry throughout the Golden State, which runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in its Bruen ruling last year, and which Gov. Gavin Newsom and anti-gun-rights state lawmakers are desperately trying to get around.”

“The right to keep and especially bear arms is under direct attack via SB 2,” Kraut observed. “California continues its trend of ignoring rights safeguarded by the Constitution. Such disregard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.”

 

 

The Bill of Rights own preamble clearly states what ‘threat’ some of the Constitution’s Framers has in mind:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.