Quote of the day—Todd Herman

Senate Bill 6146 and its House companion, HB 2666, would allow local governments — cities and counties — to determine their own gun regulation laws. With this passed, Seattle will sprint toward a massive and expensive over-reach for gun control in Washington state by attempting to ban all guns.

This will accomplish several things. The Seattle City Council will enjoy virtue signaling again; they will please their base of genital-hat wearing, business-hating, permanent adolescents. They will spend massive amounts of taxpayer money and they will create record spikes in gun purchases and massive donations to pro self-defense groups. Lastly, City Attorney Pete Holmes, who loves heroin use in Seattle, may get a free trip to Washington D.C. to lose in front of the Supreme Court.

Todd Herman
January 15, 2018
Washington gun control: Dems and Inslee play games
[You might think “ban all guns” is an exaggeration. But remember, Seattle already bans the carrying of slingshots and Airsoft guns. Do you think they will find real guns any more palatable?

Even if they don’t ban the possession of everything except the home possession of the exact model of gun Heller took home in Washington D.C. you can safely bet the result will be an extreme chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. See also this blog post comparing gun ownership in the U.S. to the plight of Jews in 1931 Germany.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Todd Herman

  1. If all that the leftists accomplish is to make us angry, harass us, and cause us to enter into expensive lobbying and expensive litigation for a few years, it will have been worth their while if they “lose” in the end. If they can financially ruin, or kill, a few honest gun owners along way, then so much the better.

    In this fashion, they can “lose” and “lose” and “lose” and never stop “losing” and still win. They know this even if we refuse to know it. Creating upset as a way of life is standard practice for the authoritarian mind.

    The Republicans love this process because it lends them some sense of legitimacy as they pretend to fight against it.

    And there’s no law against any of it! Or rather none that matters in any practical sense.

    The constitution is thus being proven invalid against the Herodians. It is no protection if we have to go through all of this, over and over and over, when the constitution clearly says we won’t need to. That, and there are never any real consequences for the perpetrators.

    Shitbag leftist proposes an anti constitutional law, it gets passed, we fight it for years at great expense, the law gets nullified, and shitbag leftist gets paid the whole time, with benefits and title. He does it again, same result, for decades, he still gets paid and never goes to prison.

    That’s the typical BEST case scenario. Short of that the anti constitutional law stands, or is only partially rescinded, and then of course the leftists proceed with the next assault, which they’ve already worked up and have it in cue, all at our expense. Meanwhile we can never live our lives in peace, unmolested.

    America’s Promise has never been fulfilled. So here’s a novel question; What would it look like if it had? Who even talks about that anymore? Hello?

    • I would if this wasn’t the best job I have ever had and Barb wasn’t extremely happy with her job here and all her siblings which are within a few miles of home. I have some other options which aren’t as good, but good enough to get by until I retire.

  2. Any suggestions for breaking out of the death spiral?

    Yes, but our side has only limited control over it and it requires the planets and stars align perfectly:

    That fabulous, absolutely perfect (and mythical) case to present to SCOTUS that results in a 9-0 decision confirming the Second Amendment means exactly, precisely what it says, and if you make someone bring this back to us again it’s firing squad time.

    Which is, unfortunately, only half the battle. Such a verdict from SCOTUS would not prevent asshats in Washington state, Seattle, Podunk, or anywhere else, from a repeat performance. At its best, that would still require a trip to some court where, in a perfect world, within 60 seconds Judge Judy would point to the SCOTUS decision, assess crippling and life-ending damages against the perps, and dismiss with prejudice.

    Which will work until the next group of asshats pops up and does it again with slightly different wording and/or conditions. It’s playing Wack-A-Mole with $400/hr lawyers and multi-year court calendars.

    This is the problem with the Constitution; there is no reliable and consistent enforcement mechanism to prevent serial abuses against it.

    • Get a bill passed that would fine/fire any congress-critter personally for voting for and passing a law that is later found to be unconstitutional.

      Not gonna happen, but I can dream.

    • That mythical SCOTUS decision would make no difference, because the bad guys don’t care at all what the Constitution says.

      Rolf is right, what’s needed is for Congresscritters who pass unconstitutional laws to be sent off to jail (felony conviction for perjury, of their oath of office). Or hanged, for treason (if deliberately violating the supreme law of the land isn’t war against the USA, what is?).

      As for the lack of an enforcement mechanism, you’re absolutely right. Jefferson pointed this out a while back:

      “And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them.”– Thomas Jefferson, in “On state rights”, letter to William B. Giles, December 26, 1825.

  3. You are much too optimistic about the Supremes. We need two more appointments to counteract Kennedy and Roberts.

    • With any luck, Ginsburg (old, repeat cancer), Kennedy (old), Sotomayor (diabetic), Bryer (old), Thomas (old, replaced with similar originalist), Roberts (replaced with someone not wholly owned), and Kagen (suicide or steps down knowing she’s facing two decades of totally being irrelevant).

      • I would be more optimistic if I could think of a single supreme court justice in its entire history who had a consistent track record of obeying the plain English letter of the Constitution. Certainly none of the recent “conservatives” or “originalists” or “textualists”, call them what you may, come even close. Not Scalia, not anyone else who gets mentioned in that category.

        It’s certainly valid to argue that those justices aren’t as bad as the rest. But observant Constitutionalists? Not within a 100 miles.

        If I ever get to see an opinion that says “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did you not understand?” then I will change my tune. Not until.

Comments are closed.