“The Wall Street Journal has been writing stories about various regulatory proposals and is preparing a story about a rule pending at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at the U.S. Justice Department.
We are working with a national public research firm to help us collect information using an online survey format that should take you less than 5 minutes to complete.
Your identity, including your name and email address, will be kept confidential unless you indicate otherwise. Your answers will only be used in potential news stories when combined with other participants. At the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked if you are willing to be contacted by a reporter for The Wall Street Journal to discuss your answers further or use your name with a story.
To help us, click here [https://grimaldisurveys.cmail20.com/t/d-l-nqlha-jlidthdyud-t/], which will take you to the survey, being conducted for The Wall Street Journal by Mercury Analytics, a national public opinion research firm. Alternatively, you can go to this web address,
James V. Grimaldi
Senior Writer
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
O: +1 202 862-6665
E: james.grimaldi@wsj.com“
I also got this tip from another reader. This is odd. I didn’t get such an email and I made a comments.
But there is the contact information if you wish to contribute to it. It won’t do any good. The collectivists have made their mind up, and the constitution stop mattering a long time ago.
A Delaware judge has once again found that parts of the state’s latest attempt to regulate firearms on public lands are unconstitutional.
In a years-long legal battle, two Delaware sports groups and individual gun owners have repeatedly challenged the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Department of Agriculture’s regulations limiting weapons in state parks, forests and wildlife areas.
“We saw an agency … doing things we felt were not constitutional, and we called them on it,” said Jeffrey Hague, president of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association. “We were vindicated in a couple of court decisions … that what the agencies were doing was overreach.”
For decades, firearms — as well as slingshots and archery equipment — were banned in a slew of public places such as campgrounds, with the exception of areas used for hunting.
Gun advocates like Hague argued that meant people who wanted to camp in Delaware’s parks or visit the beach would have to give up their right to bear arms or find themselves breaking the law.
Shortly after that ruling, the state adopted revised versions of those emergency rules to prohibit the open carry of firearms in certain public places such as lodges and gathering spots within state parks or forests.
Gun advocates again turned to the courts to challenge the state’s authority and rulemaking, which had established “designated areas” within public lands where firearms were prohibited.
The agencies published maps of these areas, and included the caveat that people licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon and former or current police officers were exempt from the rule as long as they could prove their gun-bearing rights.
The lawsuit was filed by the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the local affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, and club member John Sylvester against the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the state Department of Agriculture and those agencies’ secretaries in late May. It also sought clarity on the new rules.
The plaintiffs contended in the lawsuit that the revised ban, which essentially sets designated gun-free zones in state parks, forests and wildlife areas, is at odds with both the Delaware and United States constitutions.
Clark invalidated the inclusion of camping areas and lodges within the designated areas that prohibit firearms, the requirement that former or current law enforcement and concealed carry permit holders show documented proof of their right, and the requirement to show proof of identification.
The remainder of the revised regulations on firearms and weapons in state parks, forests and wildlife areas will remain in effect.
Francis Pileggi, a Wilmington attorney who has been working this case since the first lawsuit was filed in 2015, said it was only challenging parts of the new rules, but they largely won their case.
He said the biggest issue was to ensure peoples’ right to bear arms in their dwelling — whether that be a home, vacation rental or, in this case, a campsite — is upheld.
He said this case also was helpful in providing the court’s interpretation of the rules, which he said were not easily understood in some cases. For instance, it seemed that the designated areas were full gun-free zones; the court interpreted them to mean open carry is not permitted in those areas.
Recall I said that “they will never upbraid another branch of government, law or regulation in front of the peasants?” I guess I was wrong. The judge could have gone further, but this is a big win for gun rights in Delaware.
Statist get slammed, statist find another way to control, statist gets slammed again. But if history is any indication, they’ll have to go back to court again, or simply ignore the regulations. Maybe it’s time for an open carry event in Delaware state parks, yes?
Cox and Kettler argue that the NFA exceeds Congress’s power. We agree with the government, though: the NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, as well as its authority to enact any laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 18.
Among other enumerated powers, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” id. cl. 1, and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power[],” id. cl. 18.
And on its face, the NFA is a taxing scheme. The statute collects occupational and excise taxes from businesses and transactions involving listed firearms—which include short-barreled rifles, silencers, and destructive devices. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) (defining “firearm”). Importers, manufacturers, and dealers of these firearms must pay a yearly tax of $500 to $1,000. Id. § 5801. And each time one of these firearms is made or transferred, the statute levies a $200 tax. Id. § 5811 (“Transfer tax”); id. § 5821 (“Making tax”).
But the NFA does more than lay taxes. To carry out the taxing scheme, it also mandates the registration of every importer, manufacturer, and dealer, see id. § 5802, and of every firearm made, see id. § 5822, or transferred, see id. § 5812. And to ensure compliance, the statute has teeth: the failure to abide by any of its rules is a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison (or a fine, or both). Id. §§ 5861 (“Prohibited acts”), 5871 (“Penalties”).
The Supreme Court addressed Congress’s taxing-clause authority to enact the NFA eighty-one years ago, when a firearms dealer indicted for failing to pay the (then $200) annual dealer tax challenged the statute’s constitutional basis with an argument similar to Cox and Kettler’s. See United States v. Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. 506, 511 (1937). The dealer conceded that the taxing power allowed Congress to tax firearms dealers, yet he “insist[ed]” that the tax at issue was “not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms.” Id. at 512. But the Constitution, according to the dealer, had reserved regulation of these firearms to the states, not to the federal government. Id. He concluded that the NFA revealed its “penal and prohibitive character” by cumulatively taxing importers, manufacturers, dealers, and transferors. Id.
The Supreme Court rejected the dealer’s challenge, refusing to conclude that the NFA—on its face a taxing measure—exceeded congressional power “by virtue of its deterrent effect on the activities taxed.” Id. at 513–14. “Every tax is in some measure regulatory,” explained the Court, and “a tax is not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect.” Id. at 513. Unlike the child-labor tax struck down in the Child Labor Tax Case, the NFA tax wasn’t “a penalty resorted to as a means of enforcing [other] regulations.”
Read the whole thing. The black robed tyrants conclude that merely taxing something means that Congress has the right to regulate something as long as the regulation comes with an attendant tax.
Given this, all the FedGov has to do is place a federal tax – direct or excise – on ammunition of $1000 per round, and to the tenth circuit this would be within the bounds of the constitution, even though the constitution explicitly says that “Congress shall make no law …”
As I’ve said, don’t look to the tyrants to protect your rights. They are all in bed together, even if there is internecine warfare within the government to see who comes out on top of the totem pole. When threatened, they band together like the communists they are.
They may renew their struggle later, but they will never upbraid another branch of government, law or regulation in front of the peasants. That might lead to revolt.
These are non-negotiable terms of surrender, dictated by a “pro-gun” president, a “pro-gun” attorney general, and enabled by our “gun rights leaders.” Obey or be destroyed. Or as men standing on a green were reportedly ordered: “Throw down your arms, ye villains, ye Rebels, Disperse!”
If Trump and Sessions can get away with this naked, weasel-worded usurpation, guess what the Democrats will be able to pull, especially if enough feckless Republicans take the fire out of core supporter’s bellies and majorities flip.
Yea, I recall initially supporting someone else for President (before it came down to just two). What a shame we had the choice of bad and worse
Officers have observed people possessing hard-knuckled gloves, firearms, knives and batons at today’s demonstration. For the safety of the community and participants and based on behavior observed, weapons may be confiscated.
But unconstitutional, yes? Where in the bill of rights does it give anyone the authority to confiscate weapons if they deem that possessing them may be unsafe? And unsafe for whom?
But don’t look for any DA to take the police to court over this, or any judge to side with gun owners. The DAs, judges and cops are all on the same side.
In addition to conditions like narcissim, psychopathy, delusional disorder and sadism, the killers share “a burning need for recognition in the form of fame or infamy, and anger that this recognition, this entitlement has been denied to him.”
[ … ]
“Armed individuals and out-of uniform LEOs have a reasonably good track record for stopping mass shooting attempts …”
Very well. But I’m of the school of thought that says these “conditions” are spiritual ailments, and that they are a function of the spiritual condition of America.
And I’m of the school of thought that says the it’s not only a reasonably good track record, but the only such remedy that can be applied quickly.
I also second the comment by one reader who says he’s glad Hardy is on our side. Me too.
This is a pregnant bit of video and requires some unpacking to do it justice. Many things were said, and left unsaid.
I will not ally myself with Antifa, for they run contrary to everything I believe, want to change America for the worse, and want to use firearms to thwart my liberties. I will not arm my enemy or teach him to fight.
I also will not, for example, support unlimited immigration since I know that in the main, Latinos and Hispanics vote progressive and favor draconian gun controls. I will not change my mind because of “the sky is falling” panic attacks about possibly losing my rights if I don’t make friends with those who would oppose me. Peace at any cost isn’t peace, it’s just temporary cessation of conflict, and the necessity of compromise means you lost.
As for the LGBT community, if I meet a member of that community who persuades me that she or he will never vote or work in any way, shape or form, to thwart my rights – and that includes the right not to bake them a cake – I won’t oppose their RKBA. But I don’t join clubs. I’m not entirely sure what Larry means when he implies that I should welcome someone into my community. My community is where I live, and those with whom I run.
I am not fearful over my potential loss of rights. My rights come from God, and God alone. The Almighty has issued the decrees from which flow the right and duty of self defense, defense of home and hearth, and the amelioration of tyranny. Loss of recognition of the second amendment, to which I’ve repeatedly referred as a covenant with blessings for obedience and curses for breakage, doesn’t mean I lose a right. It means war has been declared and sides are forming.
I will always attempt to persuade those who do not see things my way to change their minds. There is one of the reasons I write. In that persuasion, I will include the RKBA, personal morality, philosophy, and theology. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I will not compromise the very elements of my world and life view which I believe undergird and give foundation to the RKBA. In other words, siding with an ostensibly opposing community because they might be able to be persuaded on one element, only to jettison that agreement when times get tough because it fundamentally differs from the balance of their world view, isn’t wise or effective. I see all of life as connected, a function of our noetic structure that includes judgments on the truth value of propositions, theories of knowledge, beliefs in the foundations of social order, how we determine right and wrong, and ultimacy.
Only the Christian world and life view can birth, support and sustain liberty on a long term basis. American is where it is now, collapsing under the weight of the trivial, obscene and ridiculous, because of this truth. Trying to agree on the RKBA when the foundation is falling is like throwing a cup of water on a structure that has almost burned to the ground.
Finally, Larry’s analogy is utter nonsense. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the old guard NRA believed that civilians shouldn’t be unholstering pistols under any condition. That Ken Hackathorn tried to introduce the NRA to IPSC and the NRA refused only demonstrates my points. The NRA refused to acknowledge God-given rights. God will not bless them long term. They will eventually go down in history as brief a footnote. Mr. Vickers has his analogy exactly backwards.
I shouldn’t change my world and life view or compromise with people who would eventually undermine my liberties. We’re not like the NRA in his analogy, we’re like Hackathorn. The IPSC won, as will we. God is on our side, and I’m not worried. I will not be found among the hand-wringers, clinging to whatever little morsel of agreement I can get wherever I can find it.
The Ohio Supreme Court has proposed rule changes that would disarm and force those subject to a civil protection order to surrender firearms, ammunition, and concealed handgun license to law enforcement. This seizure would take place even if there is no “sufficient nexus,” specifically evidence that a firearm was threatened to be used, used, or brandished.
The Supreme Court drafts proposed rule changes. The proposed rule changes are put out for public comment.
To comment and demand that these proposed changes not be enacted, email objections to: diana.ramos-reardon@sc.ohio.gov Include your full name and mailing address in any comments submitted by e-mail.
The legislature wasn’t doing what the court wanted them to do, so they stepped in and make themselves the only sovereign potentate, the most high god. Able to calm the seas and change the winds.
Of course, there is always an answer for tyrants like this, and it involves oak trees and hemp rope.
Curiously, the go-to guy AP went to for ATF input was retired agent Bernard Zapor, who made the profitability of smuggling guns south of the border sound lucrative enough to make AP’s case for them. The guy knows something about gun smuggling—he was in charge of the St. Paul Field Division when “Operation Fearless” resulted in an agent’s guns and a machine gun being stolen.
I highly doubt that this would have been their only choice. I suspect that there are current ATF agents who want to see this as a pretext for the disarming of Americans. After all, most of the AT F employees who were with that abominable organization during the Holder years are still there.
The spirits of Obama and Holder speak from the grave through the current statists among the FedGov.
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.
Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
I collect, cull and communicate the data. You’re smart enough to decide. On a positive note, it’s nice to hear that mankind is no longer affected by his sinful nature and his only intentions are good, all of the time.
7 years, 5 months ago
