When government is unable to provide protection to the people, some arm and take action. An example of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms at work in another country (Mexico). The term "vigilante" has negative connotations, and abuses are inevitable, but they are also inevitable when government is in charge.
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
"The NRA is the new KKK."
More anti-Second Amendment, left-wing, propaganda (Fecal matter?) The speaker obviously lacks a historical understanding of the KKK, one of whose aims was to disarm blacks.
Second Amendment takes another Hit
U.S. Court of Appeals upholds NY law requiring a showing of "need" for concealed carry permit. IMHO, this law is unconsitutional. The Founding Fathers and Supreme Court giveth and the lower courts taketh away.
Mayor Bloomberg Unhappy
NannyYork City Mayor Bloomberg is unhappy about the Presidential debaters not repudiating the Second Amendment. Welcome to the "City of the free, and the home of the brave."
Supreme Court preview
The U.S. Supreme Court started its new term a few days ago. Here's a preview of some of the big cases they have decided to hear. The affirmative action and gay rights case are sure to cause controversy no matter how they are decided. I certainly hope they will add a Second Amendment case. A more complete list of cases accepted for review so far is here.
Today in History
1971 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of involuntary busing to achieve racial desegregation in schools Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971). Resistance to desegregating public schools reminds me of resistance by Chicago and D.C., and some federal courts to Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment in Heller and McDonald
Many Americans don't trust Obama when it comes to guns & Second Amendment
Gun sales have gone bonkers since Obama took over the White House. Another vote of confidence for the Pres.
Obama Crony calls for statewide gun registration
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff, has proposed state-wide gun registration for Illinois. Second Amendment values are obviously not high priorities for Obama's in-crowd. From other recent developments, one gets the impression that First Amendment freedom of religion is also not a high priority with this crowd.
Super Bowl ad for gun control
Did you catch this? I missed it. I bet this is the first time the Super Bowl ran a political ad encouraging people and officials to disregard a constitutional right. If you are gun owner, don't get too comfortable.
U.S. Supreme Court turns down more 2nd Amend. cases
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to turn down Second Amendment cases for review. The Court has a responsibility to provide guidance for citizens, police, legislators, judges, etc. yet is failing miserably. In the meantime, many lower courts have turned out opinions which are inconsistent with the rationale of Heller and McDonald (e.g., Second Amendment protects those who "bear" arms--i.e, carry arms, but many Courts say the Amendment doesn't apply outside the home). Nero fiddles while Rome burns!
Show your support for 2nd Amend rights. Support Starbuck!
Pass this on to all. We need to flood them with pro-carry customers.
Just when you thought that the anti-gun zealots had gone into hibernation. Now they want to boycott Starbucks for (horrors) allowing YOU to legally carry a gun in their stores.
We strongly urge you to support Starbucks by stopping by on Valentines Day - and make sure to tell them that you came in to support their pro-self-defense policy. And pass this on.
John Caile
redstate.com
Starbucks' "Pro-Gun" Policy Prompts Gun Victims' Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine's Day 2012
Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2012
CHICAGO, Jan. 23, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine's Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.
WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). Starbucks' compliance with the National Rifle Association's Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles.
To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores. [But NOT in Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, Wells Fargo, US Bank, and hundreds of other large retailers and service providers as well as millions of smaller businesses.]
"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England's gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England's gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry."
Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, "Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA's lethal pro-gun agenda damages its 'socially conscious company' brand. Further," adds Fineman, "Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow."
According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.
Just when you thought that the anti-gun zealots had gone into hibernation. Now they want to boycott Starbucks for (horrors) allowing YOU to legally carry a gun in their stores.
We strongly urge you to support Starbucks by stopping by on Valentines Day - and make sure to tell them that you came in to support their pro-self-defense policy. And pass this on.
John Caile
redstate.com
Starbucks' "Pro-Gun" Policy Prompts Gun Victims' Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine's Day 2012
Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2012
CHICAGO, Jan. 23, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine's Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.
WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). Starbucks' compliance with the National Rifle Association's Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles.
To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores. [But NOT in Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, Wells Fargo, US Bank, and hundreds of other large retailers and service providers as well as millions of smaller businesses.]
"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England's gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England's gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry."
Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, "Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA's lethal pro-gun agenda damages its 'socially conscious company' brand. Further," adds Fineman, "Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow."
According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.
Second Amendment Takes Another Hit!
18-20 year-olds lost a challenge to Texas' concealed carry law which requires reaching age 21. The judge concluded that the right doesn't extend beyond the home by conveniently ignoring the word "bear" in the Second Amendment (which means "carry"). It's obvious that the colonists at the battle of Lexington and Concord felt their rights were a little broader. Texas does not allow open-carry of handguns (except in very limited circumstances, such hunting, one's own home, etc.) The way I see it, the right to "keep" requires that a state allow some form or carrying, even if requiring a license and at least some minimum background check. I have mixed feelings on the age issues. If these young folks can enlist in the military and make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it seems hypocritical to say that we can't trust them to get a license to carry (which requires a lot of other conditions, e.g, no felonies.) It seems like we're saying that your good enough to be cannon fodder but not good enough to exercise Second Amendment rights. Any African-American who foolshly thought the battle was over when they won in Brown v. Bd. of Education (1954) will understand what Second Amendment advocates are going through now. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not any group's authoritarian bigotry.
One examination of the anti-Second Amendment mentality
There is plenty of authoritarianism on both the Left and Right to go around in this country. This article is a good examination of the Left's opposition to the Second Amendment and gun ownership.
An equal protection/due process victory for gun rights.
Excerpts from State of Washington v. Ibrahim.
"Sweeney, J. — This appeal follows the conviction of a legal alien for violating a
former statute that required aliens to register all firearms. Citizens are not required to register their firearms. The defendant here was a permanent legal alien when he was arrested for possession of a firearm. We conclude that the statute violates the defendant’s right to equal protection of laws and we therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution." . . .
The United States Supreme Court has held that rights guaranteed by the United
States Constitution extend “to a class of persons who are part of a national community orwho have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990). That includes those who are legally in the country and excludes those who are illegally in the country. United States ex rel. Turner v.Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S. Ct. 719, 48 L. Ed. 979 (1904).
Mr. Ibrahim falls within that class of people who have developed a sufficient
connection with this country to be considered part of that community. He is a legal alien and before now had no convictions. The State argues that the former statute’s
requirement that any alien “obtain an alien firearm license” eliminates any constitutional infirmity. The problem with the State’s argument is that it ignores the absence of any such requirement for a citizen. And again it makes no compelling case based on anything in this record why an alien legally in this country should be treated any differently than a citizen. And more importantly, as we have already concluded, it denies due process of law by discriminating between legal aliens and citizens."
For more on this and the current, now presumptively unconstitutional statute, see this post. Note there is also a similar federal statute that may also be unconstitutional. Here is the full opinion.
"Sweeney, J. — This appeal follows the conviction of a legal alien for violating a
former statute that required aliens to register all firearms. Citizens are not required to register their firearms. The defendant here was a permanent legal alien when he was arrested for possession of a firearm. We conclude that the statute violates the defendant’s right to equal protection of laws and we therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution." . . .
The United States Supreme Court has held that rights guaranteed by the United
States Constitution extend “to a class of persons who are part of a national community orwho have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990). That includes those who are legally in the country and excludes those who are illegally in the country. United States ex rel. Turner v.Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S. Ct. 719, 48 L. Ed. 979 (1904).
Mr. Ibrahim falls within that class of people who have developed a sufficient
connection with this country to be considered part of that community. He is a legal alien and before now had no convictions. The State argues that the former statute’s
requirement that any alien “obtain an alien firearm license” eliminates any constitutional infirmity. The problem with the State’s argument is that it ignores the absence of any such requirement for a citizen. And again it makes no compelling case based on anything in this record why an alien legally in this country should be treated any differently than a citizen. And more importantly, as we have already concluded, it denies due process of law by discriminating between legal aliens and citizens."
For more on this and the current, now presumptively unconstitutional statute, see this post. Note there is also a similar federal statute that may also be unconstitutional. Here is the full opinion.
Book recommendation: Gun Fight by Prof. Adam Winkler
For a relatively balanced treatment of gun control and Second Amendment issues I recommend Prof. Adam Winkler's Gun Fight. I have read the book and will be using it in both my graduate and undergraduate classes on guns. It has gotten good reviews for its lack of polemics that usually go along with the topic. It is suitable for the average college-educated reader. You don't have to be a legal eagle to appreciate it.
Victory for Second Amendment and Due Process
I agree with this ruling on both the Second Amendment and due process issues.However, this was just a trial court ruling. The state will undoubtedly appeal. See this post at the Volokh Conspiracy. I highly recommend this website.
Gun ownership, oppositon to more gun control and support for 2nd Amend. on the rise in the U.S.
In recent years, the poll data on a "gun in the home," has shown a decline. Many consider this an artifact of polling because of the "socially desirable response" bias and distrust of government and pollsters. Recent polls show that the percentage of households showing a gun in the home has gone up. Support for more gun control is down. If the federal interstate reciprocity for concealed carry bill makes it through Congress, will Obama veto it? Tough call for him as not vetoing it will alienate the ideologues in his own party. On the other hand, vetoing it will cost him mainstream votes and votes in the South, Midwest and parts of the West. (A strong majority of the population agrees that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.) It will also mean more money for the NRA's political coffers. Tough call for Barak! A veto will show his true, far-left, authoritarian, ideological colors. Recall Candidate Obama's bigoted remarks in his 2008 campaign about "bitter" small-town and rural yokels who cling to their guns and religion. Looks like it not just the bitter yokels who have guns.
Potential Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court went back into session today. (See post below) Many are hoping the Court will select a Second Amendment case for decision (grant a writ of certiorari).
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald left many unanswered questions. One of these is whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Both Heller and McDonald involved handgun bans applying to the home. In spite of the fact that the Second Amendment states “bear” arms, most Courts have refused to provide protection outside the home. Thus far, the Court has NOT agreed to hear any Second Amendment cases. The Court recently decided not to hear Williams v. Maryland (10-1207), involving a person who was carrying a gun at a bus stop while on his way home from picking up the weapon at his girlfriend’s home . Currently, the only other two potential cases are Masciandaro v. U.S. (10-11212) and Chein v. California (10-1474). The Court has not yet decided whether to hear these cases. Other potential cases may still be in the pipeline. There is still time for the Court to accept a Second Amendment cases. Stay tuned.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald left many unanswered questions. One of these is whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Both Heller and McDonald involved handgun bans applying to the home. In spite of the fact that the Second Amendment states “bear” arms, most Courts have refused to provide protection outside the home. Thus far, the Court has NOT agreed to hear any Second Amendment cases. The Court recently decided not to hear Williams v. Maryland (10-1207), involving a person who was carrying a gun at a bus stop while on his way home from picking up the weapon at his girlfriend’s home . Currently, the only other two potential cases are Masciandaro v. U.S. (10-11212) and Chein v. California (10-1474). The Court has not yet decided whether to hear these cases. Other potential cases may still be in the pipeline. There is still time for the Court to accept a Second Amendment cases. Stay tuned.
New Second Amendment decision
9th Circuit concludes that,despite Second Amendment, habitual drug users cannot traffic in firearms. Sensible decision to me. No constitutional right is absolute. "Because Defendant also had a business of dealing in firearms, a jury convicted him of, among other things, shipping and receiving firearms through interstate commerce while using a controlled substance, in violation of § 922(g)(3")
I could be wrong, but it does not appear that he was convicted of mere possession in his home. The case might be different if defendant was charged with mere possession of weapon in his home.
I could be wrong, but it does not appear that he was convicted of mere possession in his home. The case might be different if defendant was charged with mere possession of weapon in his home.
Gun Control in Public Housing.
One of the most pernicious forms of gun control are bans on residents of public housing possessing guns IN THEIR HOMES. These are obvious violations of the Second Amendment, yet they persist. San Francisco and some other cites dropped these bans after being sued, but they still persist. The latest suit was filed against Wilmington, Del. See this piece by the Cesar Rodney Foundation. By the way, this is not a gun-group. It is an improve Delaware government group. The public ends up paying litigation expenses and the attorneys' fees of challengers. The taxpayer foots the bill for politicians who want to ride their ideological hobby horses.
These types of bans are amongst the worse. Public housing projects tend to have extremely high crime rates. Criminals living there will have guns no matter what the law or lease says. The disarmed law-abiding residents will be at the mercy of armed criminals. Arguably, the people who need the Second Amendment most are deprived of its protection. Of course, we all know the general demographics of public housing residents. Does that play a role? We all know that politicians and media types don't live in public housing.
These types of bans are amongst the worse. Public housing projects tend to have extremely high crime rates. Criminals living there will have guns no matter what the law or lease says. The disarmed law-abiding residents will be at the mercy of armed criminals. Arguably, the people who need the Second Amendment most are deprived of its protection. Of course, we all know the general demographics of public housing residents. Does that play a role? We all know that politicians and media types don't live in public housing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)