Quote of the Day
We don’t make this statement lightly, but the folks over at Giffords and Brady have filed an amicus brief in a matter, challenging all of Maryland’s new sensitive places, that actually argues that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment cannot coexist, and because of that, the 2A will always take a back seat to the 1A.
William Kirk
December 30, 2024
The Most Dangerous Gun Control Argument You Will Ever Read
What other rights must you only exercise one at a time? If you exercise your right to freedom of religion, do you forfeit your Third Amendment rights and you will be required to quarter troops in your house? Or how about, if you insist on a warrant before your house is searched, you then forfeit your “privilege” to a lawyer when being questioned by the police.
I don’t say “privilege” lightly, because this is what they are demanding. The government gets to decide when, where, how, and if you get to exercise a specific enumerated right. Their demands change the exercise of a right into a privilege.
I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. I would like to think the lawyers writing this brief know it too and are doing this just for the money.
I hope they get slapped down with extraordinary harshness.
Well, this shouldn’t be a surprise, some people just aren’t able to chew gum and carry a gallon of milk at the same time. Legally speaking.
Lawyers, politicians, suicide jadhis, communists, and the low impulse control crowd come to mind.
Truly, some people just need their own country to run amuck in. Someplace they couldn’t F-up any worse no matter what they do.
Haiti seems like a wonderful, new, and exciting place for them.
Or maybe we could rent a small section of Siberia from Putin? Sub-Saharan Sudan?
Just brainstorming here.
Maybe that’s why Trump wants Greenland? I hear it can be nice certain times of the year.
This argument only works with the Left’s painfully tortured — and deliberate — misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment.
The ignorant among them truly believe the right to keep and bear arms includes the “right” to threaten violence or to shoot anyone for any reason whatsoever, and their only solution is to severely limit or get rid of the right to arms. (The non-ignorant among them seek power, without the threat of We the People possessing the means to resist them.)
Thus, in their minds, 2A is a limit on 1A because they fear that by speaking their minds, some armed person will come shoot them for it. That this imagined scenario has never lawfully happened (other than by police, which is a whole ‘nother logical disconnect in their heads) doesn’t matter; it could happen so they need the prior restraint to prevent it.
They cannot comprehend that someone would want the means to use deadly force, but has no intention of using it except as a last resort in times of extreme danger. They lack that self-control; if they had the means, they’d be constantly looking for a time and place to use it. And because they themselves don’t have self-control, it doesn’t compute that we do.
Well, WA state is certainly planning on regulating “dealers” out of business.
Plain-language description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBEK7bkW3Go
Actual bill as filed:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=5099&Year=2025&Initiative=false
Hard to exercise your rights if you have no dealers capable of selling you the tools to practically exercise it.
Both of these – the Washington State restrictions and Giffords’ “sequential rights” theme – edge right against constituting “denial of rights under color of law.”
While John and Jane can visit however many dealers they wish and buy as much ammunition as they desire – and, if I’m reading it correctly, as many guns as they want, just no more than one per month per dealer – the state might skate (or try to) under USC 241 and 242 with that procedure.
Unless John and Jane live someplace where there are few, or only one, FFL. At which point the state will claim “you can get as much ammo/as many guns as you want, we’re not restricting that, you just have to travel (X hundred miles) to different dealers to do it.
“I hope they get slapped down with extraordinary harshness.”
“Slapped down with extraordinary harshness” is an inadequate solution; the full and complete weight of federal law and the U.S. Constitution must be brought to bear.
Which is the basic problem we face: Government can institute whatever illegal or unconstitutional restrictions it chooses and the citizens must suffer the burden of correcting it, which consumes time – which denies rights to some citizens if they die prior to correction through the courts – and the money necessary to mount a court challenge. And, winning Battle A in the courts just leads to government passing a new law, just as egregious, which will require citizens engage in Battle B, then Battle C, ad infinitum.
Until government employees suffer the full consequences of their extralegal activity – fines, prison time, loss of property, destruction of reputation, personal condemnation – this will continue.
“Slapped down with extraordinary harshness” my aching Aunt Sally. Long, hard prison terms. Very long, very hard, very public prison terms. Each and every time without exception.
The gun grabbing left NEVER quits, gives up or goes away. And NO argument is beyond them in their quest to disarm us so they can enslave…or kill us. The ONLY rational response to such evil is to exterminate it. And until it and it’s practitioners are eradicated their assaults on freedom will not end.