Thursday, June 30, 2022

Thank you President Trump

 In 2016 I opined* that the presidential election really wasn't about the next four years, but court appointments would have a lasting effect for decades to come.

Donald Trump won that election and appointed three justices to the Supreme Court.

Last week we got better than I had hoped in the New York gun case. The court recognized an amendment that is actually in the Bill of Rights.

Then the next day Roe v Wade was overturned. 

These would not have been possible if HRC had been elected.

I just wish Mr. Trump had not 

a) been such a lightning rod

b) given the ATF the go-ahead to ban bump stocks.

Even so, thank you President Trump for those court appointments.

*see also this.

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Two steps forward, one step back

There were three significant steps taken this past week dealing with life and liberty- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

First, in the New York gun case,* the Supremes declared Thursday,  "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public." 

One Unconstitutional Law Implicates Many Gun-Control Regulations

 Laws can be interpreted many ways. We seek guidance from the court to know what is legal and what is not. The US Supreme Court has largely ignored the right to bear arms compared to the number of decisions the court has rendered in other areas. We don’t have enough decisions to draw a clear map of where our rights begin and end. The court recently issued an opinion on the right to bear arms in public. This case redefined the legal landscape and gave us a few rules to go by. Let’s look at the unanswered questions to see if we may draw further conclusions. (Read the rest of this insightful post by friend Rob Morse at Slow Facts.)

Tuesday, June 21, 2022

Let's apply the spirit of the militia clause . . .

 . . . to the reading of the Second Amendment . . . 

The headline in the Bucks County (PA) Courier Times says that we should apply the spirit of the militia clause to the Second Amendment. I see nothing wrong with the headline, but take issue with the writer's assertions. 

He claims, "In all the years I have been debating and discussing gun control, I have never heard the gun rights advocates refer to the first clause." That sort of statement is akin to my saying, "I have never heard it thunder in Montana." Well, I haven't, but that doesn't mean it hasn't.

 Then he goes on to state the logical fallacies that 

"we can't exclude children from bearing arms" and

Friday, June 10, 2022

CEO's calling for gun bans

 Here is a list of CEO's who are gun banners. Not surprisingly, it includes the CEO's of Dick's Sporting Goods and Levi's. Most of these I am unfamiliar with. 

Why is it that people can't understand that we have a criminal violence problem? IF they were able to ban production from today forward, there is something on the order of half a billion firearms extant in the United States. Those won't go away. 

And, btw, how well has their drug ban worked?

And, btw, how well did their alcohol ban work?

2022 Letter

Dear Members of the Senate:

We, the undersigned CEOs, represent American companies from across the country. Like you, we continue to bear witness to the toll of America’s gun violence epidemic and its impact on our communities.

Monday, June 6, 2022

Another reason Red Flag laws make no sense


As I mentioned in a previous post, Red Flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protective Orders, (often involving an ex-parte hearing), deprive a person of their legally owned firearms through governmental confiscation. 

This is followed by an expensive uphill battle to regain possession of the firearms.

There are several constitutional reasons that these are bad laws, but some practical reasons, too. When the G-men take a person's firearms, they have no reason or obligation to take his matches, charcoal lighter fluid, or gasoline.

They also do not take vehicles. We learned recently of a vicious multiple victim attack with a vehicle, and a vehicular attack on a woman and child in California, as reported by Fox News.

Screen Grab from Fox News report

What's to keep someone under a Red Flag ban from using a vehicle to do the same? Their good will?