Articles by Herschel Smith

Jeff Knox writing at Liberty News Now has a good article on armed worship. well worth your time.  Anything Jeff Knox writes is well worth your time.  Jeff advocates going armed for self defense and defense of others, but then there is this.

There is also the issue of interfering with the worship of others. Right or wrong, justified or not, many people are simply uncomfortable around guns. If they become aware that someone in the worship service is armed, it could distract them from their worship. Not being sensitive to these folks’ feelings would be inconsiderate and could be a violation of scriptural guidance. The apostle Paul exhorts Christians to avoid things which might cause a brother to stumble, but of course, that can be a difficult proposition when dealing with people with irrational fears

Jeff’s closing paragraph is nice, but the one above bothers me.  Jeff is referring to 1 Corinthians 8:9, and this verse has been take to mean virtually anything.  Take for instance the consumption of alcohol.  If it causes you brother to stumble, the saying goes, you must give it up.

But what about that big house some folks have?  Is that a stumbling block for some?  Very well, sell it.  How about the lack of having a large home, since we are to work in order to have something to those who are in need (Ephesians 4:28), and those we entertain might even be angels (Hebrews 13:2)?  You see, what may be a stumbling block for someone may in fact be the opposite for someone else.

The point is that this isn’t logically sustainable.  Men aren’t required to give up what the Scriptures allow.  Putting a stumbling block in another man’s path might be something like inviting an alcoholic into your home and offering up corn liquor to him.

We needn’t interpret the passage the way Jeff seems to be doing here, and I won’t ever give up carrying a weapon to worship just because it makes somebody uncomfortable to know that I’m doing it.  As I’ve said far too many times to count, carry a gun to worship.  You might just save someone’s life.  In either case, you are obeying the Biblical command to be prepared to defend a life which is made in God’s image.

David Codrea:

Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.

“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains.

“Congress was not worried about a husband dropping a plate on his wife’s foot or a parent injuring her child by texting while driving,” Justice Clarence Thomas protested in his dissent.

Yea, we’ve discussed that case before.  And I agree with David that the defendants were not the outstanding citizens you want for such cases, but of course that’s irrelevant.  It often takes defendants that who are otherwise less than outstanding citizens to prove the larger point being made, i.e., rights applies to all men, not just the pretty people.

But it gets even worse than that.  As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”

Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness.  The point is that this list of potential infractions that would prohibit firearms ownership can be construed to be virtually anything concocted by the mind of the executive.  Stay away from law enforcement.  Don’t ever involve them in anything.  Give them wide berth.

As for Hillary, did you really think the administration would hold her accountable?  I didn’t and said so to those around me.  Laws apply to little people.  If you’re reading this, you are a little person.  Act and plan accordingly.

Boise Weekly:

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed SB 1389 into law in March, and on July 1, it officially became legal to carry concealed firearms without a permit in Idaho—but during at a July 1 rally on the Capitol Mall, Idaho Second Amendment Alliance President Greg Pruett said there’s more work to be done.

Pruett told the crowd of 75-100 people the next step is lobbying lawmakers to remove the residency requirement from the permitless—or constitutional—carry law and strengthen Idaho’s “castle doctrine,” the law which defines homicide as justifiable if it is, among other things, “committed in defense of habitation or property.”

“When someone breaks into your house, that should be the end of it for them,” Pruett said. He went on to express disappointment at the years of work it took to enact the law and at the lack of credit given to ISAA for the rise of strong Second Amendment advocate candidates in the Republican Primary.

In his remarks to the crowd, U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) praised the group for securing legislation in four years and suggested not to turn against lawmakers for a single vote.

“I don’t want you to leave disappointed because it took four years,” Labrador said. “You need to judge politicians based on their body of work.”

Pruett wasn’t having it.

“For us, you’re either all in or you’re not,” he said.

This is a strange article and I don’t understand it.  Perhaps an Idahoan can help interpret what we’re reading here.  First of all, it takes a very long time to work the collectivist system down to something more tolerable.  If the man named Labrador was saying that the entire system should be exonerated because they finally did something good, then I have to disagree.

But on the other hand, if Pruett is disparaging the very one who helped to secure that bit of legislation that makes the system more tolerable, then I have to wonder if the collectivists are our betters when it comes to strategy.  I’ve pointed out before that they are very good incrementalists and we’re not.  They will accept something that isn’t to their liking in order to work towards the end result that is to their liking.

Are we as strategically savvy as that?  I doubt it.

SSI posted a very interesting guest article from a former AFT agent on why the “Us versus them‘ mentality?  I have to confess that I’m in the camp that doesn’t see the constitutionality of federal gun laws or the ATF to begin with, but the former agent has an answer for that.  The comments are also very interesting.  I commend this article to your reading.

On a somewhat unrelated topic, SSI has a piece up remembering Mike Vanderboegh’s participation in a “we will not comply” rally.  It’s touching and also worth your time.

Paul Ryan is no stranger to gun control.  It’s important to remember that, and what we’re going to discuss isn’t anything new for Ryan.  As an aside, it’s remarkable that the Congress, when they lost that horrible worm John Beohner, couldn’t even break from the establishment any more than to put in a man just as connected to the establishment.  Let’s be clear – Paul Ryan isn’t controlled by the establishment, he is the establishment.  At any rate, he’s promised to give gun control a hearing in Congress.

A week after Democrats staged a nearly 26-hour sit-in demanding a vote on gun control measures, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House will vote next week on legislation to block suspected terrorists from buying guns.

In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.

It’s unclear exactly which bill will be brought to the floor.

Democrats launched a daylong protest on the House floor last week demanding a vote on such legislation in the wake of the Orlando shooting rampage that killed 49.

Ryan on the call reiterated that it’s important to ensure suspected terrorists can’t obtain guns, calling it common sense. But the Speaker said he wanted to approach the issue deliberatively to protect due process and Second Amendment rights.

The House next week will also take up a bipartisan bill by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) that seeks to address gun violence by overhauling the mental health system. That bill recently cleared the Energy and Commerce Committee.

A Democratic source said the more controversial gun-purchase provision may be similar to a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that’s backed by the National Rifle Association.

Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.

David Codrea weighs in on this.

Define “due process.” Is it being charged, tried in accordance with laws respecting rights, and found guilty before being denied a fundamental right? Or is it some law enforcement careerist using a secret list of undetermined sources and reliability convincing a judge or panel of unknown political sympathies that some tenuous “probable cause” alibi exists?

The same concern applies to mental health-related gun prohibitions—has the “accused” been afforded the equivalent protections of a jury trial, or is someone who may be quite learned in the field of mental health and quite ignorant and opinionated about “gun control” all that’s needed to sign off on a “no guns” life sentence?

And I’ve argued the same, but quite frankly I’m becoming very disillusioned at the so-called “criminal justice system” in America, all of it, and I see no reason to believe that a trial by jury would yield anything better than an empowered federal executive.  Remember that half of America routinely votes for communists anyway, and most of the other half is often confused.

David issues this warning though.

The correct position for the Republicans to take on guns, since the only clear mandate is the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, is to reject all citizen disarmament attempts, and make the monopoly of violence cult fight for every inch. We know that’s the end game, so why cede any beachhead from which they WILL launch further attacks? Why make any concessions, even on a floor vote?  What, are we going to find out which politicians are anti-gun? We don’t already know?

Of course, there is no legitimate reason to pursue this any more in Congress.  As I’ve observed before, gun confiscation on a massive scale won’t happen in America.  The progressives will nickel and dime us to death, with everything from mental health checks to domestic abuse record keeping where the mere perceived threat of harm is enough to place a person on the no-gun list with all of the white patriots in flyover country who believe in the second amendment.

The thing progressives have going for them is that they aren’t purists.  They aren’t looking to get everything at once.  They are incrementalists, and will take less than perfect in their eyes in order to achieve the desired end state.  The grand progressive plan isn’t to go all in on collection of guns at once.  It’s to bleed the country dry, death by a thousand cuts.  Paul Ryan is currently negotiating what the next cut will look like.

Hickok45 is a lot more disciplined than I am, but he gives good (but simple) advice on how to keep care for your weapons when not in use, avoiding rust and scratches.

Y’all know what I think about anti-gun nut South Carolina state senator Larry Martin.  Well, good things do happen.

Former S.C. Rep. Rex Rice defeated powerful S.C. Senate judiciary committee chairman Larry Martin in a battle of dueling status quos in the Palmetto Upstate.

With all but three Pickens county precincts reporting, Rice won 6,010 votes (54 percent) compared to Martin’s 5,076 votes (46 percent) to claim the “Republican” nomination for S.C. Senate District 2 (map here).

Two weeks ago, Martin got 45 percent of the vote to Rice’s 33 percent in a four-way primary race.  Because no candidate received a majority of the ballots cast, the top two finishers advanced to a head-to-head runoff election.

Rice’s victory was a major defeat for S.C. governor Nikki Haley – who endorsed Martin and campaigned extensively on his behalf.

Meanwhile it was a major victory for the political empire of neo-Confederate “Republican” consultant Richard Quinn, which will see one of its clients – liberal S.C. Senator Luke Rankin of Horry County – elevated to Martins’ post as judiciary chairman.

Will it change the ideological direction of the uber-liberal State Senate?

No … not even a little bit.

Martin was a fiscal liberal during his two-and-a-half decades in the chamber, while Rice was a fiscal liberal during his sixteen years in the S.C. House from 1994-2010.

So this author doesn’t think it will make one iota of difference.  Perhaps not.  But let it be known that we’ll be all over the next state senator from Pickens just like we were with Larry Martin if he turns out to be an establishment tool.

And I want to see open carry within the first 20 days of the next legislative session.  If not, I’ll be all over all of the senators.

Congratulations to my South Carolina readers, Pat Hines, my son Joshua, and whomever else reading this in South Carolina.  I really don’t have any idea how many S.C. readers I’ve got.  Stay the course.

David Codrea:

… Posner is a demonstrable oath-breaker. He is unfit to pass judgment on any American, and certainly unfit to weigh in on what rights we have and how they are to be exercised.

A Congress with integrity and guts would impeach him.

Yes, perhaps so.  I would in fact be okay with a firing squad, or hanging.  No, I’m being serious.  This is as much treason as giving military secrets to the enemy.  When a man or woman who is in a position to adjudicate serious matters of freedom and punishment and rights for other men breaks the covenant s/he has made with the people, the people suffer.

Don’t be so surprised at the judge’s position.  He is following Stanley Fish, or the philosophy of deconstruction.  It’s being taught at Harvard, Yale, Emory, and virtually every law school.  The fact that so many judges break their covenant with the people doesn’t make it any less treasonous.

See also NRO.  And you can lump this hag in with Posner when you ready the firing squad as far as I’m concerned.

WISTV:

LYMAN, SC (FOX Carolina) – Deputies with Spartanburg County said a man faces multiple attempted murder charges after opening fire outside a nightclub early Sunday morning.

The shooting happened around 3:30 a.m. at Playoffz nightclub on Inman Road in Lyman.

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges.

“Thompson was still on the scene when deputies arrived, but the initial scene was chaotic,” Bobo said. “It wasn’t until victims and witnesses were interviewed, and video from the scene was  reviewed that Thompson was identified as the suspect.”

Thompson was charged four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a weapon.

Bobo said none of the victims’ injuries were life threatening.

Thompson is being held at the Spartanburg County Detention Center.

Wait!  What?  This is unpossible.  Concealed carriers are supposed to go all Rambo and shoot everyone up!  We’re supposed to wait for the cops to show up because of all of that super-cool tactical training and uncanny ability to wax perfect in tense situations.

Or not.  See, anti-gun nuts, this is how it happens in thousands of cases.  In the absence of a concealed carrier, dozens might have perished or been injured.  The concealed carrier is free to go.  Spartanburg police are generally fairly good to gun owners and concealed carriers.  The next step in the honoring of rights in South Carolina is legal open carry.

Let’s press for that during the next legislative session.

Jurist:

The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-2 in Voisine v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials] that a state law conviction on reckless domestic assault is sufficient to bar possession of a firearm under federal law. Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong had pleaded guilty to violating a Maine statute [text] that makes it a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.” When later investigations revealed that both men were in possession of firearms, they were charged and convicted under a federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922 text] that prohibits any person convicted of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms and ammunition. On appeal, the petitioners argued that, because their domestic violence convictions were based on recklessness, and not intentional or knowing conduct, they were insufficient to support the federal charge. Focusing on the meaning of “use … physical force,” the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the convictions. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan found that

… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.

So it isn’t really just physical force that’s included under the rubric of domestic violence, but it expands to “intent” and a substantial likelihood.  You don’t reckon that this will be abused by angry spouses looking to get even or inflict emotional injury do you?  You don’t reckon that “domestic abuse” will become the new crime applied to virtually every gun owner who has a domestic squabble, do you?

And as for prohibiting gun ownership for such things as the perceived “intent” to do harm, any present or future spouse is affected in a similar way as the “criminal.”  Remember that a felon or person found guilty of domestic “abuse” cannot just not own guns, he cannot even be around others with guns.  That means that homes are left unprotected, including spouses who never had anything to do with this whole mess to begin with.  It’s called the law of unintended consequences.  Or perhaps the Supreme Court intends this outcome, and if so, isn’t that a pretty picture, ladies?

Dear reader, as you know from previous posts, do not ever talk to the police.  And make sure that you and your family are on good terms, know and understand each other, and know and understand the threat that the state poses.  Do not ever turn to the state for protection, guidance or justification.