Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Losing Due Process And The Second Amendment

Posted on by

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Someone needs to explain this to the people writing laws in California. Yesterday Breitbart.com reported:

According to KPCC (Member of National Public Radio, operated by Pasadena City College), GVROs (gun violence restraining orders) “could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.” And since the order can be issued without the gun owner even being present to defend him or herself, confiscation can commence without any notice to the gun owner once the order is issued.

To be fair, Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore does not use the word “confiscate” when talking about confiscating firearms. Rather, Moore says, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”

California laws already ban people from owning guns if they have committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. It seems odd than an additional law would be required. The potential for mischief under this new law is endless–a neighborhood spat, a divorce, a lover’s quarrel could all result in someone losing their guns without due process and also without any real reason. Hopefully, the first time anyone attempts to take away a legally owned gun without due process, there will be a massive lawsuit filed that will result in the law being declared unconstitutional, which I believe it is.

Quietly Infringing On The Second Amendment

Posted on by

Historically, one of the first steps in gun confiscation is the registration of all privately-owned firearms. That step makes it very simple for authorities to quickly go to the homes where firearms are owned and take them away. Gun registration in America has not met with a lot of success, so those who would like to ignore the Second Amendment are looking for alternative ways to determine which households own guns.

ObamaCare included a section that stated:

(2) Limitation on data collection

None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to-

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

On November 4, 2015, U. S. House of Representatives Representative Michael M. Honda, a Democrat from California, introduced H.R. 3926 To amend the Public Service Act to provide for better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for other purposes.

The bill includes the following section:

SEC. 4. Protecting confidential doctor-patient relationship.

Section 2717(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–17(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Notwithstanding the previous provisions of this subsection, none of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an amendment made by that Act, or this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a physician or other health care provider from—

“(A) asking a patient about the ownership, possession, use, or storage of a firearm or ammunition in the home of such patient;

“(B) speaking to a patient about gun safety; or

“(C) reporting to the authorities a patient’s threat of violence.”.

As of the writing of this article, the bill has 36 co-sponsors–all Democrats.

On Friday, a website called guns.com reported:

Federal research of gun violence as a health care issue had been largely defunded for 17 years until President Obama’s January 2013 executive order partially restored it. This order lead to the National Institutes of Health publicly requesting research projects on the topic for funding consideration.

The CDC peeked into gun violence as part of a White House by executive order following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, but its results were surprising to gun control advocates. The final study found that defensive gun use was common, while mass shootings were not. It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

Taking guns away from innocent people does not make anyone safer. It amazes me that this seemingly rather obvious concept seems to be beyond the reach of many of our leaders.

Why We Need New Media

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting today that The New York Daily News has called for the U. S. State Department to designate the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a terrorist organization.

The article reports:

They based this request on their belief that national security faces a greater threat from armed citizens than from “foreign terrorists,” and they singled out the NRA as the bulwark preserving citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. They suggested, “The NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, because its influence is more of an immediate threat to the lives of our citizens than foreign terrorists.”

To be on the State Department’s list of designated terror organizations a group has to be state-sponsored for terrorism–which the NRA is not. Moreover, they do not exist for terrorist reasons. Rather, they exist to defend the civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment. Undaunted by these things, the NYDN simply declares the NRA a “terrorist group” and suggests it falls under the State Department’s purview by being “nearly-state sponsored.”

The NYDN added, “Although the NRA is not an officially state-sponsored organization it is the supporter of the state with its massive member and lobbyist donations to our elected officials.”

I am not personally a member of the NRA, but I appreciate the fact that they are trying to protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. This statement by The Daily News is truly an example of a small group of people attempting to deny the rights of free speech and political activism of a group they not not agree with. That in itself is un-American.

The problem with school shootings is not guns–the problem is that all of the gun-free zone signs are not heeded by criminals. Why do politicians believe that laws that take guns away from law-abiding Americans will be followed by criminals?

Sometimes I Am Simply Amazed

Posted on by

Vice-President Biden has done it again. Breitbart is reporting a comment made by Vice-President Biden at a memorial for the late Jim Brady, President Reagan‘s Press Secretary who was shot during an attempt to assassinate President Reagan.

The article reports:

According to The Washington Times, Biden stressed that the push for more gun control is not over and said he prays a new voice for the gun control movement emerges soon:

What we need is another Jim Brady, who has the skill and the ability to convince those who are afraid, who walks the halls of Congress, to step up and do what they know is right. One will come along. It will happen. I pray God it is sooner rather than later.

I am sure that the Vice-President made the comment without thinking through the implications of his statement, but can you imagine the uproar if a Republican had said something similar.

The gun control debate does not need any more victims–high profile or otherwise. What the gun control debate needs is a respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. In terms of crime rates, statistics show that since Detroit relaxed its gun laws, crime rates have gone done. Muggers are less likely to mug grandma if she might be packing. Criminals are not likely to obey restrictions on gun ownership.

Craven County Republican Party 2014 Convention

Posted on by

Today I had the privilege of attending the Craven County Republican Party 2014 Convention. As I have previously indicated, moving to North Carolina from Massachusetts has been a bit of a culture shock.

There were almost one hundred people at the Convention, and there was unity on the basic principles the Republican Party has traditionally stood for. Some of the candidates for federal, state and local offices spoke. Other candidates send representatives who explained their candidate’s platforms. There were some very basic themes in the goals listed by the candidates and their representatives–strong families, a government in Washington that adheres the the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and a strong American foreign policy.

There were two resolutions considered by the Convention. The first resolution opposed the implementation of the Common Core educational standards. The resolution detailed the problems with Common Core:

1. The program by-passes and overrides the local community’s control of education in the community.

2. Common Core involves the collection of data on our children that is an invasion of privacy. There is no promise in today’s world of that data being kept private.

3. The inflexibility of the Common Core program–it is a one size fits all approach that is copyrighted and cannot be altered.

4. Common Core increases the cost of education while providing no proven results.

The resolution passed.

The second resolution stated that the Craven County Republican Party supported the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s January 24, 2014 Resolution. The text of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s January 24, 2014 Resolution can be found here. The resolution simply reaffirms the rights of Americans under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights include the right to bear arms and, the right to due process, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures. That resolution also passed. Unfortunately, an affirmation of these rights is needed at this time–Connecticut recently passed a law that was in violation of the Second Amendment.

At this time, there are deep divisions in our country regarding culture and politics. It was encouraging to me to spend time with a group of people who understand the roots of our Republic and support our Constitution.

It was a very enjoyable convention.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Backdoor Approach To Gun Control

Posted on by

At some point you have to ask yourself why the Obama Administration and the political left are so desperate to separate Americans from their guns. Statistics show that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates, and criminals do not obey gun laws anyway. There is no logical reason to take guns away from Americans, yet the left seems convinced that the Second Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says and that Americans are not smart enough or stable enough to own guns. Well, the left is at it again.

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s two new executive actions that would expand the government’s access to mental health records when doing background checks on gun buyers. Now admittedly that sounds like a good idea, and if you looked into the backgrounds of some of the recent acts of gun violence and who committed them, it might make sense. But wait–there’s more. In every case of a shooter (from the Arizona shooter who shot Representative Giffords to the Colorado theater shooter to the Newtown Connecticut shooter), there was more than enough evidence that the shooter was mentally ill long before the shooting incident. The government would not have to have access to anyone’s mental health records–the people around the shooters could have easily alerted local police to the danger.

The problem was not the background check, the problem was a society not willing to put the mentally ill in mental institutions. In the case of Newtown Connecticut, the mother of the shooter was going through the process of having her son committed. The process took long enough for the son to find out and shoot his mother to prevent being committed.

The article at the Daily Caller describes the two Executive Orders:

It (the first order) modifies the HIPAA Privacy Rule to allow institutions “to disclose to the NICS the identities of persons prohibited by federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm for reasons related to mental health.”

The other executive action, issued by the Department of Justice, clarifies what exactly in someone’s mental health history would prohibit them from owning or purchasing a gun. Persons who fall under the category of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” include those who are “incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court,” as well as “a person committed to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment.”

There are some concerns with these Executive Orders. There is a basic danger in allowing the government to be involved in any way in determining a person’s mental health. Is the next step declaring members of the Tea Party mentally unstable?

In April 2009, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) detailing a government program targeting veterans as unstable. The article stated:

“The aim of the FBI’s effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to “share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat,” according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.”

Our returning veterans are not a threat. They do not represent a domestic terrorism threat. However, the government, at its whim, can declare them as such. At this point in history, I am opposed to anything that limits the rights of Americans to own guns–there are too many freedoms being infringed upon by our government right now, and I think the Second Amendment is more important than it has ever been.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It All Sounds So Sensible…

Posted on by

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation aimed at taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.

Now on the surface, that sounds like a really good idea, but let’s take it apart for a minute. Who determines the disqualification? Can one person determine the disqualification?

The article reports:

“This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

This law allows for confiscation of guns from ‘potentially dangerous individuals.’ Gun confiscation is definitely not part of America‘s tradition. I have recently posted a few articles that really make me wonder about what this law would be like down the road.

On April 6, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a U.S. Army training instructor listing Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Would Christians have their guns confiscated under the California law because they were seen as ‘potentially dangerous?’

On April 12, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a New York man who had his guns confiscated because his 10-year-old son talked to some his classmates about bringing a water gun, paintball gun, and BB gun with them to the house of a schoolyard bully. He was told he could get his guns back when his son is eighteen and moves out of his house. Needless to say, there is a lawsuit making its way through the courts.

On March 28, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about attempts to take Second Amendment rights away from America’s veterans.

There is a pattern here. The guns are being confiscated not only from criminals, but from law-abiding citizens deemed dangerous. The thing the lawmakers have forgotten here is that the guns most criminals have are not registered and they are not likely to be confiscated. Therefore, all you have done is to disarm law-abiding citizens because some authority considers them a threat. That is not a really good idea in a free society.Enhanced by Zemanta

The Temper Tantrum In The Rose Garden

Posted on by

Sometimes it is more difficult than others to be kind to people when they act like spoiled brats. President Obama lined up all the people he could find to use as props as he blamed the gun lobby for the fact that Congress upheld the Second Amendment. Thank God for the gun lobby. At some point, the President and all his allies in this need to realize that the problem is not guns–it’s the people who illegally use them. There was not one thing in the legislation that was proposed that would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately, criminals and mentally disturbed people do not tend to obey gun laws.

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday reminding us where the anti-gun legislation failed–in the Democrat Senate–not the Republican House of Representatives.  The article also mentions the four Democrat Senators who voted against expanded background checks–Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).

The article concludes:

The rout also vindicates Republicans who wanted the Senate to vote on the gun bill as opposed to the Rand Paul–Ted Cruz faction who sought a filibuster. For once Democrats had to declare themselves in public and couldn’t hide behind shouts of “Republican obstructionism.”

So much for the first big liberal hope of Mr. Obama’s second term. Maybe he should consider a centrist strategy from now on.

Don’t hold your breath.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exploiting Children For Political Points

Posted on by

It has already been announced that President Obama will have children present when he announces his program of gun control today. It’s always good to have props to distract from the fact that you are about to violate the Second Amendment. But it’s worse than that…

The Weekly Standard posted a story stating that today, just hours before the President’s press conference, the White House has released letters from little kids pleading for gun control. There were no little kid letters released by the White House asking for policemen in the schools or guns for the teachers–just little kids pleading for gun control. Wow! Eight year old Constitutional Scholars.

Meanwhile, back in New York State, a gun control bill was passed that conceivably could limit the number of bullets a policeman could have in his gun. That wasn’t the intent of the bill, so amendments are being looked at, but evidently the law was not thought through before it was passed. We know that if policemen are only allowed seven bullets in their guns that criminals will also follow that law. Right?

The violence in our society has to do much more with the culture of our society than it does with guns. Part of the problem is not effectively keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and part of the problem is the devaluing of life. It is a tragedy that 26 people were killed in an elementary school in December and that many of those people were children, but it is also a tragedy that over 1 million babies a year are aborted. Where is the outcry over those innocent lives that were violently ended. Until the lives of the unborn are valued, we cannot realistically expect the lives of the living to be valued.Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Are We A Week After The Newtown Killings ?

Posted on by

It’s been a week since the horrible tragedy in Connecticut. There are screams for gun control, assault weapons bans, police at the schools, and all sorts of things. But an article in yesterday’s Washington Post sheds some light and common sense on the subject.

Charles Krauthammer was a psychiatrist in Massachusetts during the 1970’s. He has an interesting perspective on what happened last week.

Mr. Krauthammer states that there are three parts to every mass shooting–the killer, the weapon, and the cultural climate.

The article points out:

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

Regarding the weapon, Mr. Krauthammer states:

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

The article points out that over the past 30 years, the homicide rate in the United States has dropped 50 percent.

The article reminds us that gun violence is on the decline:

Except for these unfathomable mass murders. But these are infinitely more difficult to prevent. While law deters the rational, it has far less effect on the psychotic. The best we can do is to try to detain them, disarm them and discourage “entertainment” that can intensify already murderous impulses.

But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

I tend to think that the fact that the murder rates are lower in states with strong civil commitment laws is significant. An article posted at The Blue Review on December 15th provides insight into what it is like to get appropriate treatment and possible restraint for a troubled child.

It’s time to look at all the elements of the tragedy at Newtown–not just the ones that are politically expedient.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Story Ended Well Because We Have The Second Amendment

Posted on by

A website called Newsok.com posted the following story on Friday. Kendra St. Clair, a twelve-year old, was home alone on Wednesday. Her mother is a single parent who works two jobs and had to work that day. Kendra’s brother attends a different school and did not have the day off.

This is the story:

Kendra, a sixth-grader at Calera Elementary, called her mother about 9:30 a.m. Wednesday to say a man was ringing the doorbell and banging on the door, St. Clair said.

“She said he was continuously ringing the doorbell and when no one answered he opened the screen door and started banging on the door,” St. Clair said. “She told me she didn’t know where he had gone after that.”

St. Clair told her daughter to get her .40-caliber Glock pistol and go into the bathroom closet, which has reinforced locks on the door.

“She heard him break into the back door,” St. Clair said. “He knew someone was in there because she was watching TV and had paused it.”

According to the 911 recording, the intruder was inside the house for about six minutes while Kendra was told by the dispatcher to stay on the phone and keep it on speaker.

“The bathroom light switch makes a noise when you turn it on and Kendra heard it,” St. Clair said.

As Kendra saw the door knob turn slowly, she fired the gun, her mother said.

Jones was hit in the chest, Undersheriff Ken Golden said.

Jones ran out of the house and was chased down by Bryan County officers, he said.

Without the Second Amendment, this story might have had a very different ending.Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need The Second Amendment

Posted on by

 This is a video taken from an article posted at Hot Air yesterday:

 

It is a security surveillance video of an incident in an Internet cafe in Florida. Two armed men entered the cafe with nefarious purposes–guns drawn. The video shows an elderly gentlemen with a gun (he has a concealed carry permit) causing them to have second thoughts about their intentions and causing them to rapidly exit the Internet cafe. The suspects survived the shots and were arrested.

Not everyone has to be armed, but there have to be enough armed civilians walking around to give criminals second thoughts about doing what these two men attempted. We don’t know how many lives were actually saved by the seventy-one year old man with the concealed carry permit!

The article at Hot Air reports:

“Based on what I have seen and what I know at this time, I don’t anticipate filing any charges,” said Bill Gladson of the State Attorney’s Office for 5th Judicial Circuit.

Gladson said he has reviewed the security surveillance video from the cafe. While he still awaits final reports from the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, he said the shooting appeared justified.

Samuel Williams, 71, who fired the shots, has a concealed weapons permit, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Under Florida law, a person is allowed to use deadly force if he or she fears death or serious injury to themselves or others. …

…At least one of his 30 fellow patrons at the cafe wants to thank him.

“I think he is wonderful. If he wouldn’t have been there, there could have been some innocent people shot,” said Mary Beach.

Cheers For The Second Amendment

Posted on by
First Model M&P shipped 1900

Image via Wikipedia

The Daytona Beach News-Journal posted a story today about a 64-year-old grandmother who stopped a car thief in his tracks. Karen Granville stated that she was up late because her cat woke her up. She was watching the Bravo channel when she heard a police helicopter hovering over her house. She saw the suspect, Roderick Willis, run into her backyard and attempt to climb over her fence. The quick-thinking lady grabbed her .38 Special revolver and followed him.

The article quotes her statement:

“My adrenaline was just flowing at 100 mph,” she said. “I just said, ‘Stop right there (expletive), or you’re going to be dead where you stand.”

Granville held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.

This is my kind of grandmother!

The article further reports:

This is the second time in less than two weeks older city residents have armed themselves to stop would-be criminals.

Charles Robbins, 82, shot and killed 24-year-old Tyler Orshoski after the man apparently tried to break into his home Jan. 11.

Police Chief Mike Chitwood said he doesn’t encourage vigilante justice but said people have the right to protect themselves or their property.

Part of the problem might be found in another part of the article:

Willis was charged with fleeing and eluding law enforcement, driving with a suspended license, use of a vehicle to commit a felony, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He was booked into the Volusia County Branch Jail on Tuesday and released after posting $7,500 bail.

Willis, who could not reached by phone Tuesday night, spent time in jail last year for fleeing officers, court records show.

Volusia County sheriff’s officials say the Dodge Charger belonged to Hertz Rental Car Co. and was turned over to the company. Willis was not charged with vehicle theft.

One does wonder why he was not charged with vehicle theft and why the bail was so low. No wonder the citizens are arming themselves.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta