Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Mark is looking for data. You may have some you want to provide him.  Be specific with dates and sources. Or provide it here and I’ll contact Mark for you with a list.

Tim Thurley.

Gun control groups had gotten most of what they’d wanted. That wasn’t surprising. They had actively participated in drafting legislation and worked directly with senior bureaucrats. Allan Rock’s policy advisor called their contributions “very instrumental.” In 1995 Heidi Rathjen of gun control group PolySeSouvient said, in response to Pierrette Venne’s question about what the group would do if Bill C-68 came into effect, that “…if [Bill C-68] is passed as it was tabled, without major amendment, then, as far as we are concerned, after what we’ve presented today, we will no longer fight for a federal legislation.” No major amendments were made. In 2015 she essentially re-endorsed their 1995 position, and blamed their continued activism on Harper-era tweaks and the post-1995 invention of “new” “assault weapons” — though many of the “assault weapons” her group wanted banned were on the market decades prior to C-68, were not prohibited by it, and remained legal until 2020.

C-68 was touted as the “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.” While some advocates pledged to continue a push for a total ban on the remaining murkily-defined “military assault weapons,” the compromise was set. Subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments accepted the core philosophy and most core elements. The 2004 Conservative manifesto retained all of the central components except for the controversial, expensive, and ineffective  registration of hunting guns, a position eventually supported by Trudeau the Younger.

Gun-control groups used to be realistic about the scope of their goals and the Canadian way of life. They acknowledged hunting and sporting use, the importance of having “a supply of ammunition in the home” for predator defence in rural areas, and maintained that the Chief Firearms Officers should have discretion over license issuances or revocations when a person has been rehabilitated, a policy which C-21 would abolish. They didn’t even push for a total ban on handguns. In turn many gun owners came to see licensing as a point of pride. They saw it as a badge of honour indicating they belonged to the safest and most trusted citizens, clearly set apart from the criminal class and even safer than the general public.

[ … ]

These groups consider removing firearms from society an unalloyed good, yet consumer demand shows plenty see it differently. There are 2,300,000 licensed gun owners in Canada who rely on firearms for needs as diverse as agriculture, sport, wilderness protection, trapping, investment, heritage and hunting. Fifty thousand jobs and billions in GDP rely on them. Loss of livelihood is bad enough, but we also cannot ignore the loss of life that economic harm entails or that every dollar we spend or lose here could be spent on a nurse we do not employ, a soldier without proper equipment, or a diversion program for an at-risk youth.

For fun, I once roughly estimated the building costs for central storage units using comparable public contracts. It came to just over $600 million, before any operational costs. Six hundred million bucks is a lot of money in any scenario, but here’s the kicker: that’s for only 20,000 guns, in just the Northwest Territories. Where guns are critical to food security. Canada has about 12.5 million firearms. There’s a reason almost no serious comparator uses central storage, even in far smaller countries.

No one, especially the central government, is going to foot the bill for central storage of firearms, and especially not locked down and manning those storage locations with guards and stewards.

Rather, the goal is just to make all firearms illegal.  His work to compute the cost was a waste of time.

Notice how proud gun owners were of their licensure – and notice how earnestly and honestly gun owners negotiated the new laws.  But there will never be “end of the struggle to strengthen gun control in Canada.”  Governments don’t care one whit about “sporting” applications of firearms. They are trying to protect and ensure the survival of government, of the elitists, of the rulers, not a way of life or the ability to defend home and hearth. That’s why self defense with a firearm in Canada is illegal.

Negotiation and compromise is the road to hell.  Just don’t do it.  Ever.

Americans as so stupid, ignorant, stolid and uneducated. How could this ever have been in question? Most of the men who fought the loyalists at King’s Mountain were of average age of 14 – 15, and were men enough to travel there from “over-mountain.”

The founders knew what they were doing. All rights in the bill of rights are individual, including the second amendment. In order to make sure everyone knew why they were writing the 2A, they explicitly stated it. Every individual must be able to muster, so they have the right to keep and bear arms. Stay way from our ability to call an army of our own if we want to. For no other reason than we want to, but there’s good enough reason given the nature of man to rule badly over others.

Source.

Florida House Speaker Paul Renner is shooting down any hopes of Florida becoming an open-carry state, at least for now.

During last Thursday’s remarks to reporters, Renner said while he supports the idea of open carry, it would be unlikely to see a law get passed this year.

“I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment across the board in many aspects,” said Renner. “There’s not an appetite in both chambers to get that done.”

Renner’s comments come after Rep. Mike Beltran, R-Riverview, filed legislation to make changes to the state’s current gun laws, including allowing people to openly carry firearms on college campuses.

“We always have to measure whether it’s worth the committee [and] House floor time to pass a bill that would be controversial that would take a lot of time, that we know is dead on arrival.”

The bill(HB 1619), would also allow guns to be carried in certain government buildings and at voting polls. The proposal comes just a year after the state made it legal for most Floridians to carry guns without a permit, as long as it’s concealed.

It was the first bill submitted when they came back into session. They had plenty of time to work on it.  What a bunch of pusillanimous cowards and spiritless, lying scoundrels.

Cops are against it, and that would be enough for the bootlickers to stop the bill, but they enacted gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting and they won’t reverse course now. They would be seen as the duplicitous punks they are. So along with NY, Hawaii, California and Illinois, the communists in Florida (you know, the “law and order conservatives”) have left it all in place and don’t even mind telling you they don’t care about it immediately after the bill was filed.

Here is more perspective.

MASSIVE 2A VICTORY JUST NOW: CALIFORNIA'S "SENSITIVE PLACE" LAWS KNOCKED OUT BY NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed the preliminary injunction entered by US District Court Judge Cormac Carney to go into effect. Thus, a long list of…

— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) January 7, 2024

🚨 FPC WIN 🚨

The 9th Circuit has dissolved the administrative stay in our Carralero v. Bonta California Public Carry Bans Lawsuit and DENIED CA’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal.

This means all public carry bans blocked by our District Court injunction are blocked again. pic.twitter.com/NJDokAdPmP

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) January 6, 2024

Source.

(FOX40.COM) — A new California law that would restrict licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms in many public places will not go into full effect on Jan. 1 as scheduled, after a federal judge deemed it unconstitutional.

The law, Senate Bill 2, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 26 and included an array of gun control measures. On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an order to stop one of SB 2’s regulations, the ban on licensed gun carrying in a public place. According to SB 2, it would have been illegal in California for licensed gun carriers to have their firearms at bars, churches, parks, public events, stadiums, casinos, financial institutions, medical facilities, on public transportation, and other places.

“The Second Amendment preserves a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” Carney said in his ruling. “Increasingly in modern times, with ‘the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence,’ ordinary law-abiding people feel a need to carry handguns in public to protect themselves and their families against violence.”

Carney mentioned that people who legally carry guns are “among the most responsible, reliable law-abiding citizens” and have been through a “vigorous vetting and training process” to carry a handgun. According to Carney, CCW permitholders are not the gun wielders legislators should fear.

“CCW permitholders are not responsible for any of the mass shootings or horrific gun violence that has occurred in California,” Carney said. “SB2 requires that law-abiding citizens open themselves up for slaughter at the hands of people flaunting the law and creates numerous areas ripe for mass murder by ensuring there is no one there to protect people.”

He added that some people who have a concealed weapons permit (CCW) live in high-crime neighborhoods where they reasonably fear being robbed, murdered, and raped. Carney said CCW holders should be able to carry a weapon to protect themselves in those situations.

“SB2 provisions unconstitutionally deprive this group of their constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense,” Carney said. “Therefore, those provisions must be preliminarily enjoined.”

Well, that’s part of the purpose of the second amendment, but not even nearly all of it, the major part having to do with tyranny. It’s the last part that scares the powerful, rich and famous.

But it’s nice to see the occasional win. But it will probably be stayed by the communists on the Ninth Circuit.

Source.

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT) -A proposal to remove guns from people in certain high-risk or crisis situations was heard in a state legislative committee Friday.

The CARR (Crisis Aversion and Rights Retention) Act is similar to many red flag laws that allow for the confiscation or temporary removal of firearms from a person who is in crisis mode or is determined to be at risk.

People flocked to Frankfort to hear about the proposal, and it was so crowded in the legislative committee room they spilled out into the hallways and filled up two “overflow” rooms to watch on video screens.

“On that day, I faced something that I can only describe as hell on earth,” said Whitney Austin, who survived being shot 12 times while being trapped in a revolving door during a shooting in Cincinnati. She supports the CARR Act, which backers say protects the Second Amendment while temporarily transferring guns from those determined to be at risk.

“In researching mass shooters over the last three decades, we know 80% of the time they signal their intentions,” said Austin.

The debate drew an emotional response from Senator Karen Berg of Louisville. She said her son killed himself a year ago Friday.

“And if we could do one thing in this state to prevent one parent from having to go through that, it is worth it,” said Berg.

The debate drew a lot of emotion and opinions on both sides of the political aisle. Republican Whitney Westerfield supports the CARR Act, but others in the GOP have a lot of questions.

“I am still trying to figure out how we can stop someone from hurting themself or others in real-time,” said Rep. Patrick Flannery, R-Olive Hill.

“To me, our common ground is the constitution. We have all sworn to uphold it,” said Rep. Savannah Maddox, R-Dry Ridge.

Maddox has long stood her ground in support of firearms issues and vehemently opposes any laws that restrict them. She also said, “94% of mass casualties occur in so-called “gun-free zones,” and places where people are stripped of their constitutional rights.

That isn’t what this law would be used for – threats are already illegal. The law will be used by angry wives, pissed off neighbors, anti-gun nuts and all manner of others for the purposes of disarmament.

It’s all the rage now, apparently even in Kentucky.  Stop it before it grows into a cancer. Excise it.

You’ve heard the news.  Here and here (note that there were no dissents).  I guess the lack of dissents means that there weren’t enough votes and everyone knew it.

Listen to Washington Gun Law where he puts the best spin on bad news.

Then listen to Langley Outdoors Academy where I agree with him.

Here’s my problem with the SCOTUS. They’ll get involved at the flip of a hat to stay a Fifth Circuit knockdown of the ATF, but completely ignore infringement of rights.

Frankly, I just don’t buy the notion that they all want to see a complete record of the case.  It just doesn’t fit the facts.  They get involved all the time where constitutional rights are being infringed.  I guess the second amendment is still a second class right regardless of what the Bruen decision says.

Dave Kopel.

Two weeks ago, I filed an amicus brief in U.S. District Court in Colorado, in Gates v. Polis, a case challenging the Colorado legislature’s 2013 ban on magazines over 15 rounds. The brief was on behalf of Sheriffs and law enforcement training organizations: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, 10 elected Colorado County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute (where I work).

Some of the brief explains the practical mechanics of armed self-defense, and why bans on standard magazines do not impair mass shooters, but do endanger ordinary citizens, especially when attacked by multiple criminals. Another part of the brief shows that the key data created by some of the Colorado Attorney General’s expert witnesses is obviously false.

But in this post, I will focus on a more fundamental argument in the brief. The law enforcement amici reject the claim that arms universally recognized as appropriate for ordinary law enforcement officers should be banned for ordinary citizens. The claim is based on the pernicious idea that law enforcement officers are above the people, rather than part of the people. Here are some excerpts from the brief:

The magazine ban attempts to divorce today’s common arms of law-abiding citizens from today’s common arms of law enforcement officers, including sheriffs and their deputies. The divorce, contrary to the wishes of both parties, endangers citizens and officers alike.

The arms of ordinary law enforcement officers are carefully selected for only one purpose: lawful defense of innocents in civil society. Throughout American history, many citizens have looked to law enforcement for guidance in choosing arms for the same purpose. Denying those arms to citizens and to retired law enforcement officers  endangers them for the same reasons that denying these arms to active law enforcement officers would endanger them. The most important reason is the necessity of reserve capacity, as detailed in Part II.

More fundamentally, the magazine ban violates the principles of our Constitution and of American law enforcement. Policing by consent is the American value, not militarized occupation from above.

Well, that’s of course true (and you can read the rest of what he said at the link), but I think he gets the issue of people depending on LEOs for defense of society all wrong.  As he knows, based on:

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

There is no duty to defend the society or anyone in it, and no expectation for them to do so.  In fact, in society today the police are more likely to harm society than help it.  As I’ve said before, there is no situation so bad and dangerous that it cannot be made worse by the presence of the police.  Furthermore, the modern judicial (and wrong) notion of qualified immunity has made them reckless, and the supreme court telling them that they can lie has made matters even worse.

Folks, the supreme court may have said LEOs can lie with impunity, but it’s still a sin and anyone who willfully lies to someone they have brought in by the power of a badge and gun will face a mighty maker one day and answer for his sins – all of them, including lying to people.  I don’t care what the supreme court said.

But if it’s true that police are part of “the people,” then that goes more to my point that they shouldn’t have qualified immunity, they shouldn’t be allowed machine guns and other NFA items while we’re prohibited from ownership of them, they shouldn’t be allowed to knock down doors and invade homes if I can’t, and they shouldn’t be allowed to muzzle flag innocent people because of “officer safety” when I would be thrown in prison for assault with a deadly weapon for doing the same thing.

I’d like to see Kopel go there in his brief to other cases.

By the way, the comments at this Reason article are as awful and beggarly as they always are at Reason.  Consider this one.

Assuming, he says.  He purports to set up a syllogism, or an immediate inference, and then does nothing of the sort.  The whole thing is a non sequitur.  Stephen Lathop is an idiot, but he is also a communist.  He sees police as the “People’s Special Constraint.”

You need to be constrained, and Stephen says that’s what the police are for.

When you read articles at Reason, just ignore the comments.  You will be dumber for having read them if you take a deep dive into the minds of children who are throwing tantrums and pretending like it means anything.