Quote of the day—Kamala Harris

Because those weapons are available, and we have to stop allowing those weapons to be available to civilians living in communities of people who have a right to believe that they are not in a war zone.

Assault weapons were specifically and intentionally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly. It is a weapon of war. If you’ve ever looked at, if I may be so blunt, an autopsy photograph to see what it does to the human body. And the fact that we can’t get Congress to renew – it’s not like we’re pulling something out of our hat. We’ve done it before as a nation – to renew the assault weapons ban, is outrageous.

You can support the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment, but we should agree we should not have weapons of war on the streets of America.

Kamala Harris
July 10, 2022
VP Harris calls for ‘assault weapons ban’ on guns ‘intentionally designed to kill’ people
[“Assault weapons” use account for smaller percentage of the murders than those committed using bare hands and feet.

I see the greater wounding potential as a feature. That makes it a good defensive weapon.

The Second Amendment is about the protecting peoples right to defending themselves from a tyrannical government. Harris either doesn’t understand the Second Amendment, or more likely, understands and realizes the Second Amendment is an impediment to her goals.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns. Harris and Biden are both advocates for enabling tyranny. Don’t let them get their way.—Joe]

Unconstitutionally vague?

Why is this not considered unconstitutionally vague:

Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.

It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.

The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.

The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.

That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.

Or is it deliberately written this way so as to cast a chilling effect upon the specific enumerated right and cause us to spend money challenging them in court?

And what about retailers being sued for discrimination for failure to sell on the basis of race and/or sex? Or the woman visibility upset because of her stalker being denied and later injured when unable to defend herself?

These characters really need to be prosecuted.

This didn’t end well last time

Via an email from Rolf:

Left-Wing Minister Wants to Confiscate Guns Owned by Members of Right-Wing AfD

A left-wing interior minister in Germany has launched a plan to confiscate all firearms owned by members of the right-wing political party AfD.

Interior minister of the German state of Thuringia, Georg Maier, wants to withdraw gun licenses from Alternative for Germany members, a political party that holds 81 seats in the German parliament and 9 seats in the European parliament.

“Maier, who belongs to the Social Democrat Party (SPD), has tasked his employees with establishing a working group on “Weapons and Extremists” to move forward on the issue,” reports Remix News.

“They plan to create the “AG WaffEx,” which would be located at the state administration office and help local authorities “in the processing of relevant cases.”

The move would ostensibly target “right-wing extremists,” but that list includes AfD members, over 30,000 Germans, who would have “appropriate revocation procedures” initiated against them under the plan.

AfD members who are hunters or marksmen and legally own guns would have them confiscated by the state, with Maier citing the reason that the AfD in Thuringia is “proven to be right-wing extremist.”

See also pages 57 and 59 in  ”Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny:

§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:

3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and their offices as specified by the Fuhrer’s deputy;

§ 15

(1) Firearms acquisition permits or firearms carry permits are only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and only if a demonstration of need is set forth.

(2)  Issuance should not take place.

  1. to persons under 18 years of age;
  2. to persons under trusteeship and the mentally retarded;
  3. to Gypsies, or to persons who are itinerant like Gypsies;
  4. to persons under police supervision or known to have lost their civil rights, for the duration of police supervision or the loss of their civil rights
  5. to persons convicted of high treason, or against who facts are presented which give reason to suppose that they are actively subversive,
  6. to persons, who, on account of: deliberate attacks on life or health; public disorderly conduct or trespassing; resistance to government authority; an offense dangerous to the public or misdemeanors; for the punishable offense against property; a hunting or fishing offense legally punishable by more than two weeks imprisonment, if three years have not elapsed since the sentence was served. The punishment of imprisonment may stand as prescribed, be reduced, or commuted into a fine; in these case the three-year periods begins with the day on which imprisonment ends, or is reduced, or is converted into a fine. If this punishment is wholly or partly imposed after probation, the probation period should be added to the time period.

That was March 18, 1938. As an exercise for the reader, I’ll leave the determination of the details of what happened in the next few years to the Gypsies and others not favored by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Quote of the day—John Cardillo @johncardillo

The left pushed deviance and their hatred of America way too hard.

Normal Americans are finally pushing back much harder.

The tide is turning so the left is going to become even more demonic and vicious.

Take nothing for granted. Do not let your guard down. Buy guns and ammo.

John Cardillo @johncardillo
Tweeted on July 1, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kathy Hochul

We’re not going backwards. They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens, too.

The founding of a great country that cherished the rights of individuals, freedoms and liberty for all.

I am standing here to protect freedom and liberty here in the state of New York.

Kathy Hochul
New York State Governor
July 2, 2022
N.Y. Lawmakers Respond on Guns and Abortion After Supreme Court Rulings
[This was shortly before signing a gun owner control bill:

The state’s new gun law bars the carrying of handguns in many public settings such as subways and buses, parks, hospitals, stadiums and day cares. Guns will be off-limits on private property unless the property owner indicates that he or she expressly allows them. At the last minute, lawmakers added Times Square to the list of restricted sites.

The law also requires permit applicants to undergo 16 hours of training on the handling of guns and two hours of firing range training, as well as an in-person interview and a written exam. Applicants will also be subject to the scrutiny of local officials, who will retain some discretion in the permitting process.

As Lyle has frequently said (paraphrasing), they demand the freedom to do evil.

They won’t stop until they are prosecuted or die off.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Editorial Board @ WSJ

When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that segregated schools were illegal, many politicians in the South refused to obey. In Virginia opponents of the Court’s decision proudly called this “massive resistance,” and a decade of social strife followed. These days the massive resistance is on the political left, as exemplified by New York state’s new gun law that defies the Supreme Court’s late June ruling solidifying individual gun rights.

The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
New York’s ‘Massive Resistance’ to the Supreme Court on Guns
Albany passes a law that willfully defies the ruling that the right to bear arms extends beyond the home.

[I find it very telling that in both cases it is the Democrats who are opposed to the exercise of civil rights to the point of defying the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope they Enjoy Their Trial.—Joe]

Long live Clarence Thomas

I found this interesting:

Clarence Thomas is at the peak of his power

Clarence Thomas is suddenly, for the first time since his confirmation, the main character at the Supreme Court.

Why it matters: Thomas is more powerful than he’s ever been inside the court, and ideas that the legal establishment once treated as his quirky hobbyhorses now carry increasing weight.

The big picture: Thomas has spent years essentially laying out a whole parallel understanding of the law. He’s one of the court’s most prolific authors of solo dissents, according to Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS, and has also written a slew of solo concurrences similar to last week’s.

  • Thomas doesn’t just write a dissent here and an additional point about a majority holding there, but rather has created a whole ecosystem of opinions that build on and reference each other almost in the same way as the court’s actual precedents, except for the fact that they are all one man speaking only for himself.
  • Thomas’ solo opinion in last week’s abortion case cited 11 of his past opinions, 10 of which were solo opinions. It drew more heavily from the Clarence Thomas Cinematic Universe than from the rest of the court’s historical precedents, dissents and non-Thomas concurrences.

But as the makeup of the court has shifted around him, Thomas’ views have gotten more influential. And that influence will only grow.

Thomas is a huge influence for good. Not just in the gun rights arena, but in rolling back the power of big government.

Quote of the day—John @6102cd

A self-centered political philosophy.

“This thing scares me, so ban it” (guns)

“This thing is difficult for me to get, so provide it.” (Healthcare)

“I want to break this law, so don’t enforce it” (drugs)

John @6102cd
Tweeted on June 13, 2022
[In response to the question:

Ultra progressives seem to want both more laws (e.g., gun control) but also less punishment for breaking laws (e.g., criminal justice reform).

How can we interpret this seeming contradiction?

It appears to be a very strong hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brad Polumbo

While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.

In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.

Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.

Brad Polumbo
June 24, 2022
What Democrats get wrong about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

This is incredibly good news. The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.

It is also important that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.

Alan Gottlieb
Executive Vice President
Second Amendment Foundation
SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
[See also SUPREME COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT RULINGS ON MAG BAN, “ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN, CARRY BAN

The lower courts will, of course, drag their feet. My guess is that it will be months, at best, before we see real change in things like “assault weapon” bans and restrictions, and magazine bans.

But this does make for a very happy 4th of July.

And be sure to make your lists and document all the anti-gun politicians infringements of our rights. A right delayed is a right denied. Perhaps sometime in 2025 we will have a glimmer of hope that these criminals will be prosecuted.—Joe]

She probably doesn’t trust numbers

This is very telling:

She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.

FPC mission

From Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation:

Our Mission

  1. Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:

    • Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:

      including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;

      firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.

    • Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;

    • Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,

    • Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.

  2. Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.

  3. Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.

  4. Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.

  5. Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.

I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.

And from the Firearms Policy Coalition

OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION

CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:

  1. Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
  2. Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
  3. Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).

I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.

Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation

Quote of the day—Chet

The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.

Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.

So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.

Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?

Chet
June 12, 2022
Comment to Insightful observation
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

World class trolling

I suspect Justice Thomas has had this teed up for many years and got a great deal of pleasure whacking the opposition in the face with it today:

Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America. After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this fundamental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 771 (noting the “systematic efforts”

Thomas goes on at length with sections such as:

The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he superintendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Orleans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).:

Via LongWay001.

In other news, Mike B. and I exchanged some text messages this afternoon:

Mike: We need to start renaming streets, “Clarence Thomas Blvd.”.
QOTD candidate by Mike’s wife.

Joe: Smile
Hmmmmm… How about renaming NYC “Clarence Thomas City”?

Mike: Honoring the black man

Leftists opposed to freedom… again

Constitutional law is something to be disposed of and/or ignored ::

It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the “court” has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?

Olbermann probably doesn’t know this, leftists seem to be ignorant or in denial of history, but other people once had a similar attitude about SCOTUS. The National Guard convinced them to change their behavior. There is another parallel which should also be pointed out to Olbermann. And that is, in that previous encounter it was also Democrats obstructing freedom.