Quote of the day—Heather Martens

We need to make sure every gun sale includes a background check, and we need to make sure weapons of war are not available in the civilian market.

Heather Martens
Executive Director Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence
January 20, 2013
Minnesotans rally at State Capitol against stricter controls on guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

We can conclude that she has no regard for settled Constitutional law. This is because of United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939) specifically said that military equipment is protected by the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Ms. Martens should also research Constitutional law regarding the “chilling effect” of regulations, such as background checks, on specific enumerated rights.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Heather Martens

  1. Heather Martens is the face of the anti-gun movement in Minnesota. She spends her life at the legislature lobbying against any pro-gun rights legislation and provides endless blog fodder for Mitch Berg.

  2. I’d venture a guess that Heather is a believer in the “Living” Constitution as that would make it faster and easier for the Progressives to finish the job.

  3. Not an area she really wishes to go.The military precedent opens the door too all kinds of weapons and devices, I’ll trade you the 14 inch 12 gauge for the M777 howitzer and mini-guns. I personally hope this dopey b!tch gets whats she wishes for.

    • What she wishes for is a completely disarmed populace. Little details like the Constitution are irrelevant minutiae to her.

      Remember: the Left despises the Constitution and only brings it up when they can use it as a rhetorical cudgel against the Right. If they had their way there would be no Constitution at all, no limits on the power of the State. This 18th Century idea of a State with limited, enumerated powers is anathema to them, and they wish to rid society of both the document and the concept. That is their goal and they are working towards it–and how we get from Point A to Point B is, again, irrelevant minutiae in their eyes, because the winners write history and they intend to win.

    • Well, I hope SHE gets to be the example of the disarmed populace she wishes on everyone else. Unchristian, I know, but sometimes in order to be Christian one must have tough love rather than be a mere milksop.

      I was originally going to say that I’d bet she would not accept similar restrictions on her right to speech and the use of the press, but I would probably lose that bet if she thought the “correct” answer would result from her muzzling (disregarding for now how Leftists consider the First Amendment to be infinitely expandable to accommodate the most up-to-date versions of the hand-operated printing press and the town crier yet the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, the Second Amendment was from the beginning, and always, intended to apply only to the weapons in use in 1789)

      • I think their love for the First Amendment over on the Left has limits. They only want freedom of speech for things they approve of, like crucifixes in urine and public displays of homosexual men with bullwhips stuck up their arses.

        Read Marcuse. Read Lenin. The Party Vanguard regards the concept of free speech as a bourgeois affectation–one that is tremendously useful in the short term as an weapon of cultural Bolshevism wielded to destroy “cultural hegemony,” but not as any kind of ideal that will be part of the new Scientific Marxist-Leninist society they seek to build once they finish tearing down our culture. They have been changing direction on this for more than 25 years now, with pious lip service paid to free speech replaced with greater and greater enthusiasm for “hate speech” codes on college campuses, “hate crime” laws intended to punish thoughtcrime, thousands of new regulations in the EU and Canada forbidding public political dissent on certain topics (which they wish desperately to impose on us here in America), or public mention of certain facts about Islam and homosexuality. They desperately want “Net Neutrality” laws intended to give them the tools to seek out and and silence conservative voices on the Internet. They want to pack the Supreme Court with political extremists so that they can reinstate the old “Equal Time” regulations for broadcasters, in order to do away with conservative talk radio.

        The Left only loves freedom of speech when for it’s X-rated movies, “gangsta rap,” Pedophile Pride Parades, open calls to assassinate Republican politicians, and crucifixes in urine. If you question the Official Truth about so-called “global warming,” they want to send you to a “reeducation camp.” No, really:


        Note that the article was written by someone who was at the time running for the Oregon House of Representatives.

        If you mention that the Bible explicitly forbids homosexuality and calls it an abomination, they want to put you in prison:


        If you mention in public that “Global Warming” is a big lie, they want to put you in prison:


        If you mention in public that Islam is a religion of terrorism that has been at war with the rest of humanity for 1300 years, they want to put you in prison:


        The Left seeks a monopoly on speech, not “freedom.” They want to be the only voice out there to be heard, and as the Overton Window moves left, left, left, left, left, they are starting to admit what they’ve always really thought.

Comments are closed.