Category Archives: Gun Rights

First, Second, Fifth, and now Sixth Amendment

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Call it the long game. ‘gun control’ isn’t satisfied with attacking Second Amendment rights, or even First Amendment rights. Now, they’re targeting Sixth Amendment rights too. That’s the amendment that guarantees the right to be represented by legal counsel.

Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and March for Our Lives, ‘gun control’ groups headed by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, respectively, are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights. The ‘gun control’ groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry is responsible for violent crime in America.

Larry Keane
May 23, 2023
GUN CONTROL LOOKS TO DRY UP LEGAL TALENT FOR GUN INDUSTRY

The First, Second, Fifth (lack of due process with “red flag” laws, and now Sixth Amendment. Why not just openly declare they are opposed to all human rights and want us in chains, in jail, or dead? We all know it is true.

A Simple Dichotomy

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

To me, the debate comes down to a simple dichotomy:

With an armed population, we run the risk of tragedies. With a disarmed population, we run the risk of genocide.

It staggers my imagination that, so very soon after the mass killings of the 20th century, so many people have lost sight of this.

Daniel Schwartz
May 28, 2023
Comment to Gun Control is About the Oppression of Minorities

I have nothing to add.

Secession, Not if, But What Now?

Posted on by

Interesting point:

In many ways, America is already broken apart. When secession is portrayed in its strictest sense, as a group of people declaring independence and taking a portion of a nation as they depart, the discussion is myopic, and current acts of exit hide in plain sight. When it comes to secession, the question is not just “What if?” but “What now?”

I’m not sure I even have a reasonable guess to answers for the questions posed.

I could possibly see the Federal government collapsing due to the debt crisis and no individual states claiming responsibility. But that is about it. And then what happens? Do the Federal Assets get auctioned off to the highest bidders to pay off some fraction of the national debt?

It’s a big mess.

Gun Control is About the Oppression of Minorities

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

This history of gun control is exceptionally ugly. Dating back to the colonial times in the 1600s in the New World, and before that in Europe and elsewhere, gun control was used to disarm various minority groups to leave them open to terror, oppression, and exploitation. Slaves, freed slaves, Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples as well as Catholics and others were targeted by colonial authorities and the early states with explicit gun control measures to keep them obedient and in line. These SAME laws are NOW being used to by gun control advocates to advocate for gun control TODAY. Gun control advocates are using the very existence of these laws as a legal basis to show that there is a “historical tradition” within the United States and preceding colonies as a claim to bolster the constitutionality of gun control today.

Keith Preston
May 27, 2023
(PROOF) RACIST History Of Gun Control Colonies + Early States [Part 1]

It should not surprise anyone that the gun control advocates of today are using the racist laws of yesterday. All gun control laws are ultimately about the oppression of a disfavored minority.

To successfully overcome these evil forces requires, among other things, a change in the state of mind. Make the debate about the evil of what these people are enabling and the implicit alignment with the racists who inflicted their evil upon others for hundreds of years.

They are Making it Easy for Our Lawyers

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

For ANY firearm to be legal in New Jersey, it must now meet two criteria established by this law:

1) the firearm must be imprinted with a serial number; and

2) the serial number must be registered with a federally licensed manufacturer.

Under these requirements, the following types of firearms are now banned in New Jersey with no grandfathering or exceptions:

1) All pre-1968 rifles, shotguns, and handguns without serial numbers. Warning: Prior to 1968, there was no federal law requiring guns to have serial numbers.

2) All modern rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers with serial numbers, but are not registered with a federally licensed manufacturer. This would include most modern imported rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers, plus foreign firearms, and military surplus firearms from countries around the world, if these companies were not federally licensed manufacturers (e.g., Lugers, P-38s, Mausers, Arisakas, Enfields, SKSs, Carcanos, Webleys, Norincos, Mosins, etc.).

3) All BB guns without serial numbers. New Jersey includes BB Guns/Air Guns in its legal definition of a “firearm.”

4) All BB guns with serial numbers but are not registered with a federally licensed manufacturer. This would include most BB guns made, because there is no federal firearms manufacturing license required to make BB guns (e.g., Daisy, Crossman, Gamo, etc.).

5) All muzzleloading/black powder firearms without serial numbers. New Jersey includes black powder guns in its legal definition of “firearm.”

6) All muzzleloading/black powder firearms with serial numbers but are not registered with a federally licensed manufacturer. This would include most muzzleloading/black powder firearms made and/or imported because there is no federal firearms manufacturing license required to make or import muzzleloading/black powder firearms.
5) All antique firearms without serial numbers. Antique firearms are “firearms” under New Jersey law.

6) All antique firearms with serial numbers but are not registered with a federally licensed manufacturer. This would include most antique firearms because a federal firearms manufacturing license did not even exist at the time the antique firearms were manufactured.

Evan Nappen
May 26, 2023
New Jersey Politicians Enact Largest Gun Ban in U.S. History

Emphasis in the original.

What these ignorant and/or evil people don’t know is that when they make the law so egregious it becomes a cakewalk for our lawyers to take a healthy bite out of the law. That bite creates a precedent which makes the next bite easier than it would have without the first bit.

As irritating the stupid unconstitutional law is, it creates a slippery legal slope we can take advantage of.

Via email from Rolf.

No Concept of Rights

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Why is the lack of use of assault-style weapons in Washington state a point of argument against the ban?

It is just a matter of time when it happens. Better safe than sorry.

Gayle Sørlien
May 25, 2023
Comment to Group of local residents take legal action to stop Grant County sheriff from enforcing assault weapons ban

With logic like that:

  • All men should be imprisoned so they don’t rape women
  • All women should be put in chastity belts and the key held by their father until they are married and the key is given to their husband.
  • All high capacity fire starting devices should be banned to prevent arson.
  • Only the police should have vehicles which are capable of going over 40 MPH or traveling more than 10 miles without refueling.

Sørlien obviously doesn’t know and/or doesn’t care about rights. They only think in terms of government granted privileges.

Pistol Brace Rule Partially Blocked

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning. We intend to ask the court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is. The fight is far from over, but this is a huge victory in the battle against the ATF’s unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule!

Cody J. Wisniewski
Senior attorney for constitutional litigation at FPC Action Foundation.
May 24, 2023
Federal court deals blow to ATF pistol brace rule ahead of gun accessory registration deadline

The courts are slow moving but they are moving in the correct direction.

I’m rather exited about some of the polling numbers I’m seeing. For example:

image

It’s a biased sample, but the numbers are good enough that it at least partially makes up for the bias.

Other numbers I look at that are encouraging are the comments to news articles about gun laws. The progun side just absolutely dominates the online discussions.

The Hazards of Conversion Kit Prosecutions

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Switches are illegal and highly dangerous devices that convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. These devices threaten public safety and make the gun violence problem even worse.

Kevin Ritz
U.S. attorney for the federal district in West Tennessee.
May 22, 2023
Federal agents, prosecutors going after machine-gun conversion devices in Tennessee

I would bet Ritz cannot answer Just One Question, yet he is prosecuting people doing things which will soon become legal via the Bruen decision.

Ritz should be charged, arrested, prosecuted, and given a fair trial.

In the mean time he should worry about some of those cheap and easy to make machine-gun conversion devices showing up in boxes on his door step, in his vehicles, and in his brief case, followed by anonymous tips.

Dark Garland™ Official @DarkGarland

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We don’t think you are going to give them up.

We are going to take them by force.

Confidential informant -> No Knock Warrant->Swat Team -> Trial > Prison.

Dark Garland™ Official @DarkGarland
Tweeted on March 6, 2023

Who is this “we”? And I see the process a little differently after a few raids.

Attack on innocent people –> SWAT communications jammed –> SWAT vehicles disabled with .30 and/or .50 caliber AP rounds –> SWAT team members go down –> survivors surrender –> Trial of survivors and those who sent them –> Prison and/or executions.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Universal symbols

Posted on by

Quote of the day:

It’s the intentional symbol for, “I have no penis”.

JustHereToGloat @ToGloat
Tweeted on February 3, 2023

It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

He was responding to this tweet:

I’m old enough to remember when members of Congress wore flag pins instead AR-15 pins on the House floor.

I presume he meant “international” instead of “intentional”. But attention to detail is not something you should expect anti-gun people to be good at.

Actually, (plagiarizing Greg Hamilton) it is the universal symbol for, “LEAVE ME ALONE!” Note, it is the precursor of the universal symbol for, “LIE DOWN!” People only need to be taught the latter symbol once and they remember it for the rest of their life.

Smart Federal Gun Control

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

By “ Wealthy Nations “ you mean France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Poland, Italy, and such?

The same nations the United States and others had to fight to liberate from fascist dictators? The same nations that saw extermination camps to remove people that were seen as undesirable? A genocide far outstrips any gun massacre?

Let’s not mention that these nations today don’t for fill their promised contributions to the defense of their nation, instead depending on the United States for protection?

I’m sure they feel so superior sitting on the sidelines telling us how to live.

Grant Sulham
April 28, 2023
In answer to the question:

Will Americans have to come to terms with their rights to own and bear arms to stem gun massacres over time and join other wealthy nations with smart federal gun control laws and regulations?

I strongly suspect many of the questions on Quora are trolls or people creating questions for something they want to write about. Still, I like the answer.

A more succinct answer would be:

We have smartest federal gun control law in the world. It is called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

How’s that Gun Control Working in England?

Posted on by

Where there is a market there will be a supplier:

Aman will appear in court after National Crime Agency officers uncovered what they believed to be a specialist factory in south London for converting blank-firing guns into lethal weapons using 3D printed parts.

Unfortunately the criminals will be far more likely to acquire the firearms than their intended victims. This is for two reasons:

  1. They are less inhibited by the law than the average person.
  2. They know the general population will be unarmed, and hence the armed criminal will gain a huge advantage over their victims.

MORE GUNS, Not Less.

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

A disarmed population is a population of sitting ducks just waiting for criminals to go duck hunting. And out of all the legislators and soccer moms and pastors and businesses that want to demonize and take the guns away, none of them are going to protect you and your family. It’s up to you. But if the criminal has a gun and you don’t, it’s up to them. And I don’t think they are going to do what is in your best interest.

Trevo Craw
May 18, 2023
Gun Control: MORE GUNS, Not Less.

The 2nd Amendment is the Balance

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Justice Antonin Scalia
U.S. Supreme Court
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia v. Heller

Emphasis added.

The essence of this quote was repeated in the Bruen decision. This is very important.

The gun grabbers get attention by claiming the sky is falling because “gun violence” is increasing and yet the states must “let” people get concealed carry licenses and carry guns in public. Never mind that the people with licenses to carry are not committing the violent crimes and the gun grabbers include the legal shootings of violence criminals in their statistics. They claim justification in banning the most common rifle in the country because, well, some sort of “reason”.

They claim there must be a balancing between the literal words of the Second Amendment and public safety hence they can impose whatever restriction eases the torment in their twisted and/or evil minds. But, as stated in Heller, and repeated in Bruen, the balancing was done at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. The highest court in the land has now repeatedly stated, in essence, “There will be no more means-end balancing act to make an end run around the literal words of the Second Amendment.”

Our opponents apparently cannot comprehend this and/or think if they keep repeating themselves and whining the court will change its mind. Surely, they claim, another school shooting (in a “gun free zone”) will be sufficient justification to ban more guns and from more locations.

No, the court has spoken, there is no crime which can justify an infringement. Scary black rifles will not be legally removed from public access to ease your troubled mind. All that balancing was over long before you were born.

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

A Revolt Over Gun Control

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.

Chris Murphy
U.S. Senator (D-Connecticut)
May 14, 2023
Possibility of ‘popular revolt’ about gun control, Sen. Chris Murphy says

Perhaps it would not be quite a popular as the Senator claims to believe:

image

Compromise

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Yes. We can have both.

We can have sensible gun laws & a law enforcement that’s not corrupted with racist cops.

It takes COMPROMISE & legitimate debate … not one side screaming & crying because the good ol boy racist days are ending & their tiny little penises can’t take it.

Mike_32 @JojoPapa32
Tweeted on January 20, 2023

It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

Via Reticulating_Splines @ReticulatingSp1.

We only need one sensible gun law, and we already have it. It is known as the 2nd Amendment.

Get Rid of your Fire Extinguishers

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

If you have a fire extinguisher in your home get rid of it. You’re nothing but a firefighter larper. Go join the local fire brigade if you want to fight fires!

Lucas Botkin (@LucasBotkin)
Tweeted on May 12, 2023

In case you didn’t already guess, this is sarcasm in response to anti-gun assertions individuals should not own firearms.

“Infringe” Defined by a Federal Court

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.

The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way. Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
May 10, 2023
JOHN COREY FRASER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Defendants.

This is from the summary judgement saying that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer but the court finally defining “infringe” in such an inclusive manner seems like a big deal to me. I am all in for inclusive rights.

Machine gun sporting events in high schools by 2032 (a decade after Bruen)!

The Wrong Approach

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Going after the guns and the lawful owners is the wrong approach; it emboldens criminals, leading to an increase in violent crime. Repeal the gun laws, empower the lawful citizens, and go after criminals, and the problem goes back to reasonable levels. It will never get to zero no matter how many laws they pass or repeal, but if the goal is to reduce crime, empowering criminals and hamstringing peaceable citizens will NOT do it.

Archer
May 10, 2023
Comment to Lies and Deliberate Deception

But it is clear the goal is not to reduce crime. At least not crime as most people define it.

Lies and Deliberate Deception

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The far right’s response to the murders of children and law-abiding citizens is somewhere between sociopathy and psychopathy. Republicans in Washington are wearing miniature AR-15s on their lapels. This week, one day after a shooter used an AR-15 to kill five people, including a 9-year-old in Texas, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) posed smiling with a T-shirt showing an AR-15 and a caption that called it a “cordless hole puncher.”

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response to school shootings is to put more guns in schools, which is akin to believing the way to end fatal car crashes is to repeal all road rules and put more cars on the road. Instead, Congress’s next steps should be to renew the ban on assault weapons for anyone below age 21 and hold parents accountable for the misuse of firearms by their minor children.

William S. Becker
May 5, 2023
America the terrorized: The death grip of gun rights in the United States

Representative Boebert did not pose smiling with an AR-15 T-Shirt in response to the murder of the five people. But Becker wants you to believe that. This is deliberate deception.

He claims that if people are allowed to defend themselves and other innocent life it is

akin to believing the way to end fatal car crashes is to repeal all road rules and put more cars on the road.

Really? I don’t believe he really thinks that. I believe he is deliberately telling a huge lie in attempt to further his evil goals.

Those aren’t the only blatant lies and deliberate deceptions. Here is another from the same opinion piece:

A Gallup poll in February showed 63 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws, the highest in 23 years of tracking. Most Americans have favored stricter laws since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.

Yeah, I can believe 63 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws. I am EXTREMLY dissatisfied with them. Notice how he implies those 63 percent are in favor of stricter laws without saying it. He changes from 63 percent to “most Americans” when it comes to support for stricter laws. If you look at the actual data in 2019 it did hit a peak of 63 percent who support stricter gun laws. It is currently about 57 percent and was just 52 percent last year. And in 2011, it was 43 percent. And, what he hid by cherry picking the data is that in 1990 it was 78 percent that wanted stricter gun laws. In the big picture this guy is losing and he knows it.

These are deliberate lies and active deception. These are some of your best indicators of evil intent. Prepare and respond appropriately.