A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’
— MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

A violent attack in Traverse City, Michigan, would not have been prevented by any of the myriad proposals for more intrusive “gun control” — the attack, in which 11 people were viciously stabbed, was carried out with a folding knife.

Instead the first gun at the scene of the attack, which authorities are seeking to define as terrorism, was carried by a law-abiding citizen, who helped defuse the situation and coax the alleged perpetrator into surrendering.

The citizen, a retired Marine bearing arms in concordance with the Second Amendment rights we frequently defend in our editorials, acknowledged in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the Second Amendment is as much a responsibility as a right.

“The only that separated me from the other gentlemen that had stepped in as well was what was I was carrying in my hands,” Derrick Perry said. “I think I would have ran out there or walked out there and helped either way. … It was just a moment of ‘I got a duty to protect.’”

We are not saying that everyone needs to bear this responsibility, or that everyone is well-suited to bear it. We recognize that a society that allows people to pursue their opportunities and exercise their liberties will depend on everybody taking on different responsibilities — the responsibilities they are best equipped to fulfill.

But we believe that the men, women and children of Traverse City should appreciate that Derrick Perry understands that he not only has a right to own and carry a firearm, but as someone willing to train and educate himself on the use of firearms, he has an opportunity to shoulder the responsibility of helping to keep his community safe.

While we are far from the scene of this crime in northern Michigan, we appreciate Perry’s willingness, as a retired Marine, to serve his country and his willingness, as displayed by his bravery that day, to continue to serve his fellow Americans by being prepared to defend their lives and liberties.

We hope people across our nation can learn both to respect the necessity of a sense of responsibility in each of us, and the necessity of respect for the freedoms and liberties that allow us to bear those responsibilities.

The right to defend against unjust force underpins virtually all other human endeavors, and a no statute, norm, paradigm, or custom can deprive a human being of this most basic of rights.
-Toshiro Grendel

Lord Rothschild: Trump Is Threatening To Destroy The New World Order

Lord Rothschild has warned that President Donald Trump threatens to destroy the New World Order and “must be stopped at all costs.”

Rothschild family-owned magazine, The Economist, branded Trump a “present danger” to the “New World Order” and admitted that the globalist elitists that formed it are “spinning in their graves.”

“Perhaps the greatest danger at present is the incumbency of an American president who despises international norms, who disparages free trade and who continually flirts with abandoning America’s essential role in maintaining the global legal order,” writes The Economist.

Infowars.com reports:  Despite listing off legitimate threats like jihadism and terrorism, Communist Chinese expansion, and North Korean hostility, an article published by The Economist names Trump as the biggest threat to the “liberal” New World Order.

Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care

The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.

Background: What This Means For You

If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.

Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.

Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.

Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.

Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.

A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.

Last Words

The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.

If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.

Even if it wasn’t, RKBA is American Law.

America’s 2nd Amendment Is Allowable under Jewish Law

Before getting into the reason, it is important to read the wording of the 2nd Amendment, since much is said without taking the time to read the words nor understand the importance of commas.

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.

The Amendment covers two distinct areas. First is defense of state through the use of militias. Second is defense of self and others through private ownership of arms. There is no comma between people and infringed, which makes it an individual right.

Every Amendment making up the Bill of Rights has direct reference to individual rights. There are seven that are specific to individuals, with the other three being in regard to individual rights and other groupings, such as state, militia, press, etc.

Is it permissible by God for Jews to own firearms for the purpose of defending themselves and others? Another way of asking is if God allows for American Jews to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of defense?

Defense of self and others is acceptable to God. Jews are supposed to minimize violence when possible, but not refrain. Shulchan Aruch, is the Codes of Jewish Law, which was written in 1563, is very clear about the subject. Defense of self and others is included within those Codes. Shulchan Aruch is not some ancient book that used to have importance, but the most widely consulted book on Jewish law to this day.

One Biblical example of God allowing defense of self and others can be found in the Book of Esther. Since many are familiar with the story, there is little need to go into great detail. King Xerxes had already ruled that the Jews were going to be slaughtered. Xerxes was unable to take a law back once written, so Esther came up with an idea, which he acted upon. The order was given that the Jews were required to fight back.

Continue reading “”