Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Getting Around The Second Amendment

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about a bill recently introduced in the California Assembly.

The article reports:

A bill introduced Friday by California Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D) would force insurance companies to provide lawmakers with an annual report highlighting homeowners with guns in their residence.

The bill, AB 3067, says: “This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy.”

It continues: “The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature beginning on January 1, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report.”

Does anyone really believe that at some point a list will not be generated showing who owns guns and where they live? This is a violation of American’s right to own guns and our right to unlawful search. The insurance companies have no right to information on gun ownership.

The article concludes:

In addition to existing regulations, an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following:
(1) Whether there are firearms kept in the household, including in any accessory structures, and if so, how many.
(2) Whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home, including any accessory structures, while not in use.
(3) The number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property subject to the applicable insurance policy, and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.

AB 3067 is now pending referral to a committee for continuance.

This is something to watch–if California passes this and it survives the ensuing court challengers, other liberal states will follow suit.

 

What An Open Border Means To America

On Sunday,  American Greatness posted an article about the consequences of America’s open southern border.

The article reports:

The Biden administration has opened the United States’ border, and this has fundamentally threatened America’s national security in ways not felt since the early days of WWII.  The implications of this open border are numerous and multifaceted.  As should be expected, when a state does not enforce its sovereignty at its border, anyone can enter and do so anonymously.  In this population of the many, many millions of people who have illegally crossed the border, there are—with certainty—criminals, agents of foreign powers, which undoubtedly include intelligence agents, potential saboteurs, soldiers, special operators, terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers.  Also entering the U.S. are human traffickers and narcotics of every type, including fentanyl and other even more potent synthetic opioids and other drugs.  In an era of COVID-19, the mass migration of people inevitably includes diseases, parasites, and potentially the next pandemic that will further stress the hospitals and health systems of the country.

America’s enemies must be thanking their lucky stars that Biden has essentially invited and welcomed into the U.S. anyone who can make it.  The Biden administration has given America’s enemies the very tools they need to undermine the U.S. from within.  Throughout history, America has fought its major wars with a secure homefront.  Even with a population of immigrants, it was difficult for our enemies in Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union to infiltrate American society for two reasons: first, because America policed its borders and protected its citizens; and second, because of the inherent patriotism that Americans, even from these very same nations, felt towards their new adopted home.  The same cannot be said for today, as we do not know who is in the U.S., nor do we have the same sense of patriotic responsibility as we did a half a century ago.  Now, it is reasonable to believe that some of these unvetted aliens may be here to serve as a fifth column.

I don’t like the conclusions drawn in this article, but I really can’t refute them.

The article concludes:

Biden’s open border policy is an existential national security threat because now tyranny knows that the door is open.  Tyranny, even if it has an American face, will follow a sadly familiar trajectory.  What will happen in the United States is what has occurred on the path to every tyranny: once the tyrant knows that there is no effective opposition, he will keep pushing until he has absolute control.  Today’s open border will segue soon into other issues, compelling the American people to yield.  Permanent one-party control will be the result, which will soon elide into tyrannical rule.  The American Republic will be lost.  What the Biden administration has done is appalling and in hostile opposition to America’s history and American political ideology, culture, values, principles, and traditions.  The new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and state officials, as in Texas, have to employ every measure they can to stop this lawlessness—everything is at stake.

How many military-aged men have crossed our border in recent years? How many of those men had addresses in their pockets telling them where to report? Are militias being formed right under our noses? Thank God for the Second Amendment. It may be our only hope.

This Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

Channel 19 in Cleveland, Ohio, posted an article on January 3rd about the impact of the state’s new  “constitutional carry” law.

The article reports:

Contrary to concerns from some local leaders, a new study shows a decrease in gun crimes across six of Ohio’s eight largest cities following the implementation of the state’s “constitutional carry” law.

The research, conducted by the Center for Justice Research (CJR) in partnership with Bowling Green State University, analyzed data from June 2021 to June 2023, covering a year before and after the law went into effect in June 2022.

It focused on crimes involving firearms, verified gunshot-detection alerts, and the number of officers struck by gunfire.

The article notes:

The findings revealed:

  • Overall Decline: Across all eight cities, the rate of gun crimes decreased.
  • Significant Drops: Parma experienced the most significant decline (22%), followed by Akron and Toledo (both 18%).
  • Mixed Trends: Dayton and Cincinnati saw increases in gun crime rates (6% and 5%, respectively).

“This is not to downplay the very real problem of gun violence in our cities,” noted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who commissioned the study. “But the key takeaway here is that we need to focus on criminals, not responsible gun owners.”

He acknowledged concerns expressed by several mayors before the study, stating, “I genuinely did not know what the study would find. I thought it would be useful either way.”

CJR Director Melissa Burek, a Doctor of Criminal Justice, led the research.

She emphasized the importance of examining the impact of policy changes: “This study helps us understand the complex picture of crime rates and policy implementation. It’s valuable data for informing future decisions.”

The findings add to the ongoing debate surrounding permitless carry laws, challenging concerns that such laws would lead to a surge in gun violence.

While proponents highlight responsible gun ownership and increased self-defense, critics argue it removes valuable safety measures like background checks and training.

Responsible gun-ownership discourages crime. Criminals are less likely to attack a person if he/she might be armed. Citizens have the right to defend themselves from criminals. Our Founding Fathers passed the Second Amendment to make sure that citizens had the power to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

The Cost Of Unarmed Citizens

On Saturday, The American Thinker posted an article about some of the events in Israel on October 7.

The article notes:

On October 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, Inbal Rabin-Lieberman, a 25-year-old security coordinator at the Kibbutz Nir Am settlement located near the Gaza Strip, saved lives because she had a gun.  After the kibbutz came under attack, Inbal hurriedly opened the armory and distributed guns to the twelve-member security team.

She caught the Hamas murderers unawares because they were not expecting to meet armed resistance.  Lieberman killed five terrorists while the others gunned down twenty-five before the Israeli Defense Force arrived.  Because of her actions, Nir-Am was the only settlement bordering the Gaza Strip that did not suffer Israeli casualties during Hama’s attack.

The number of Israelis killed in the terrorist attack is over 1,400.  How many of those deaths could have been averted had more Israelis owned guns? Israel has draconian gun-control laws, worse than those in New York City.  Only three percent (3%) of Israeli citizens own guns (compared to about thirty-two percent (32%) of U.S. citizens). 

The NY Daily News reports that less than one percent (about 0.5%) of New York City residents have legal handguns.  Jews comprise approximately nine percent (9%) of New York City’s population, the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Israel. 

An attack on America similar to what happened in Israel should be unthinkable, but is it? We have no idea how many terrorists have come through our porous border and what their intentions are. It would be a good idea at this point to have all Americans trained in how to use weapons and having weapons in their homes. Obviously there are some restrictions on that–mentally ill, people convicted of violent offenses, etc., but we need to have an instant, well-trained militia that can be called into action in case of an armed terrorist attack.

Why More Gun Laws Are Not The Answer

ConstitutionUS.com notes that the Declaration of Independence states the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

One of those unalienable rights is the right to self-defense. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are based on the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God. That law includes the right of self-defense.  Currently, we are seeing a move by many in Congress to change the Second Amendment and to infringe on the rights of Americans to bear arms. There have been a number of incidents recently where someone who should not have had a gun murdered innocent people. That is unacceptable, but the problem is not the gun, and the solution lies in the area of mental health–not in the area of disarming legal gun-owners.

In its magazine  (America’s 1st Freedom) and on its website, The National Rifle Association (NRA) has a page of testimonies where a good guy with a gun prevented a bad guy with a gun from harming innocent people. These incidents are often (purposely) overlooked in the media and need to be acknowledged.

Volume 24, No. 4 of that magazine includes several examples:

In Des Moines, Iowa, on January 5, a man and woman repeatedly walked in front of the doors of a tower apartment building. The apartment manager, who had her young son at her side, finally opened the door to ask if there was a problem, whereupon the two strangers allegedly grabbed the child. The woman claimed she was the child’s real mother and tried to run away with him. A struggle ensued until the manager drew her firearm and said “let go of my kid.” The man and woman walked off and were trailed by security personnel until police officers could arrive. Police told reporters, “It certainly looks like the big turning point here, the pivotal piece to keeping her child safe was the fact that she was lawfully armed with a handgun.” The man and woman were charged with felony child stealing.

…At around 5 a.m. on January 18, a man came into a gas station in Avondale, Arizona, with his face covered, mumbled something about “rob” and “money,” and then pointed a gun at the clerk and at a customer. However, when the suspect became distracted by another customer, the clerk reportedly drew his own firearm and shot the assailant. The would-be robber was taken to a hospital in critical condition, and neither the clerk nor any customers were hurt in the incident. While mainstream-media accounts often quoted an employment attorney advising clerks against arming themselves, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that about two-thirds of workplace homicides involved robbers. “I’m not happy I had to shoot him,” the clerk told reporters, “But I’m not stressing. The moment he pulled the gun on me, he set the situation and I just followed it. He made the situation what it was.” Police indicated the clerk would not be charged.

How long does it take for the police to arrive? In both of these cases, would it have been too late? I don’t want America to become the wild, wild west, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that good guys with guns save lives.  We need more good guys with guns and less bad guys with guns. That will not be accomplished by laws that restrict gun ownership–bad guys don’t pay attention to laws. These two stories are only a fraction of the recorded incidents where lives were saved because someone legally carried a gun and spent enough time at the gun range to shoot accurately. Let’s encourage that behavior–not legislate against it.

This appeared in my email today–it’s long, but worth reading. I suspect there are many senior citizens who feel this way:

A SHRINKING AARP IS LOSING PLENTY OF SENIORS.  THE LADY WHO WROTE THE LETTER BELOW NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF THE SITUATION, BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE !
Her letter was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.  It only takes a few days on the Internet, and this will hopefully reach a large portion of the public in the U.S.A.   Pass it on if you agree with her below analysis and sentiments, which go well beyond just AARP, and to the very core principles and existence of American Freedom. Dear Mr. Rand, Recently, you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date.  This isn’t what you were looking for, but it is the most honest response I can give you.  Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.  While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values.  Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours.
Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace.  We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary.  But, when the opinions and long-term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent.  This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic.  We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own.  AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy.  The Socialist politics practiced by the BIDEN Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain.  Clearly a conflict of interest there!  We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret.  We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership.  There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.
This BIDEN Regime scares the living daylights out of us.  Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage.  But more importantly for our children and grandchildren.  Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic.  I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them.  I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence.  Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power.  Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood, I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.
Your web site generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish.  ARE YOU KIDDING???  The illegal perpetrators have broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without invitation or consent.  The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator’s language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.  I DON’T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing.  American home invaders get arrested.  Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?  Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?
We travel for a living.  Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there.  He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose.  Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime.  One of us is out of touch with mainstream America.  Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the governments free handouts).  This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government’s free handouts.  It is a “slippery slope” we must not embark on!
As Margaret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said, “Socialism is GREAT – UNTIL you run out of other people’s money”. We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list and will encourage them to do the same.  With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.  I am disappointed as all get out!  I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life!  I am ANGRY!  I am MAD as heck, and I’m NOT going to take it anymore! Walt & Cyndy Miller, Miller Farms Equine Transport Please KEEP THIS MOVING!!!
Furthermore, if you do a little checking on AARP’s website, you will find their anti- Second Amendment position to disarm us.  When the government takes the Senior Citizens’ guns away, we, especially will be at the short end of the stick, when the time comes for us to defend ourselves from the drug addicts and other bottom-feeders who know us to be soft targets. “In God We Trust”

The Second Amendment Goes To The Supreme Court (Again)

There have been a number of Second Amendment cases that have made their way to the Supreme Court in recent years. That alone should make all of us carefully examine the nominees for the court. Some of the decisions in the past have been five-four, meaning that placing one of two liberal justices on the Court could easily end the Second Amendment. There is no higher court than the Supreme Court–if the Court begins to undo the Second Amendment, there will be no place to appeal.

On Monday, The Epoch Times posted an article about another Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court recently heard and ruled on.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.

The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.

The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.

The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.

In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.

The person in the Massachusetts case was Alfred Morin, a resident of Massachusetts. Mr. Morin, who has a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts, traveled to Washington, D.C., and was visiting the American Museum of Modern History, when he saw a sign saying that guns were not permitted. He approached a guard to ask where he could check his gun. Mr. Morin possessed a valid Massachusetts License to Carry Firearms but was unaware that District of Columbia laws prohibited him from carrying his gun, despite having the Massachusetts license.

The article continues the story:

Police arrested Morin and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

On Nov. 8, 2004, Morin pleaded guilty to attempting to carry a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm, both misdemeanors.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia sentenced Morin to 60 days imprisonment on each count, three months of supervised probation, and 20 hours of community service. The court suspended the imprisonment portion of the sentence.

Morin later applied to police in his home state for a Firearms Identification Card and a permit to buy a firearm in February 2018. Respondent William Lyver, chief of the Northborough, Massachusetts, police department, denied Morin’s application for a permit to purchase on April 4, 2018.

The Supreme Court summarily disposed of the pending case, simultaneously granting the petitioner’s request seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase at which the merits of the case would have been considered. Some lawyers call this process GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.

Mr. Morin should have checked the laws of Washington, D.C., before bringing his gun there. However, he did the right thing in approaching the guard in the museum. There was absolutely no reason to arrest him–they should have simply told him to leave Washington, D.C., and come back without his gun. This entire case was totally unnecessary.

Coming After America’s Freedom

I don’t believe that President Biden always thinks before he speaks, but I have learned that what he says off the cuff is a preview of what he would like to do. Therefore, I am very concerned about some of his recent remarks.

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

President Joe Biden said Tuesday while in Pennsylvania that “brave right wing Americans” who claim the Second Amendment is meant to fight back against a tyrannical government would be obliterated by the military.

Biden was speaking in Wilkes-Barre while promoting gun control and bolstering police forces across the nation. Biden pushed for a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” and took aim at Republicans during his speech, invoking the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“As one of the most – one of the most conservative justices in history, Justice Scalia, once wrote like, quote, ‘like most rights, the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited’,” Biden said. “They’re not unlimited right now.”

“You can’t go out and buy an automatic weapon, you can’t go out and buy a cannon, and for those brave right wing Americans who say its all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun.”

The implication here is that the military could be used to fight against Americans. That is not only unconstitutional, it is scary.

The article concludes:

Biden has called on Congress to pass a ban on “assault weapons and high capacity magazines” shortly after a mass shooter killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas. Biden tried to assure Americans that “this is not about taking away anyone’s guns” or “vilifying gun owners.”

“The Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute,” Biden had said.

Actually, all the President has done is vilify gun owners and threaten to take away their guns. We need to pay attention to this and make sure we elect people who will protect our rights.

Rewriting The Constitution

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article citing a recent quote by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden opened his remarks announcing a police reform executive order by remembering the victims of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting and calling on the Senate to confirm his nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

“To state the obvious: I’m sick and tired of what’s going on,” Biden said. He said the Senate could help ensure existing federal gun laws are enforced by confirming Steve Dettelbach as ATF director. Biden’s previous nominee, David Chipman, was withdrawn last year amid Senate opposition.

…But the president also argued the Second Amendment had limits, saying “you couldn’t own a cannon” when it was ratified and that there were gun control measures that could be passed that would address the violence without infringing on constitutional rights.

“The Second Amendment’s not absolute,” he said.

Well, not so fast. The Second Amendment is part of The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because some of the original thirteen colonies refused to sign on to the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added (North Carolina was one of those colonies). The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of government and protect the rights of Americans. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms to Americans–it prevents the government from taking away that right. Any executive order or law that limits the rights of Americans to bear arms or that creates a gun registry is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment does absolutely affirm the rights of Americans to bear arms.

Has it occurred to President Biden that the gun wasn’t the problem–a very disturbed young man who wanted to kill children was the problem. If he had not had a gun, he would have found another way. The Boston Marathon bombers used a pressure cooker. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. The weapon is not the problem–the person holding it is.

This Is Not Surprising

Yesterday Just the News reported that Smith & Wesson has announced record gun sales for this fiscal year.

The article reports:

Storied U.S. gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson this week announced a record-setting fiscal year amid an ongoing gun-and-ammunition frenzy in the United States that has persisted since last year.

Company CEO Mark Smith said in a company earnings call on Thursday that the gun manufacturer in the past fiscal year “surpass[ed] $1 billion in sales for the first time in our 169-year history.”

Smith said the company also posted “fourth quarter revenue of nearly $323 million,” which he said was “the highest quarter ever on record and marks the fourth consecutive record-breaking quarter for the company.”

He said the record year allowed the company to “completely pay off our $160 million debt, return over $8 million to shareholders through dividends and reduce our outstanding shares by over 14%.”

So what are the record gun sales about? It’s political and societal. As America watched lawlessness in our major cities escalate during last summer, many people felt the need to be able to protect themselves. As some people began to push for decreasing the police presence and activities in major cities, many people felt the need to be able to protect themselves. After President Biden was elected, many Democrats indicated that they were planning to limit the gun rights of Americans. Many people decided that now might be a really good time to buy a gun.

There is nothing wrong with having an armed citizenry. It actually is a deterrent to criminal activity when criminals know that their victims might be armed. Also, the idea of taking guns from law-abiding citizens does not make sense–unless you begin by taking guns away from criminals, you are going to create more crime–not less crime. It’s time for individual states to stand up to any possibility of limiting the Second Amendment. Many states already have. It needs to be all states.

The Media Is Telling You What To Believe

On Monday, Newsbusters posted an article about the media reporting after a tragedy involving a gun.

The article reports:

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Boulder, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows sinisterly depicted Republicans, conservatives and gun owners as a “wall of opposition” and “resistance” to “common sense” gun control measures that would save lives. 

In just four days (March 23 through March 26) of coverage, the networks filled their morning show and evening programs with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of roughly 14 to 1.

It’s become commonplace for the networks to quickly seize on a mass shooting to champion the Left’s longstanding anti-gun agenda. After the December 2012 killings in a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school, NewsBusters found the networks slanted their coverage 8-to-1 in favor of the gun control agenda.

In the wake of the 2016 mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub, the spin was an equally-lopsided 8-to-1. TV coverage of the killings in Las Vegas in 2017 was slanted five-to-one against gun rights, while in the wake of the February 2018 shootings at Parkland High School the networks tilted 11-to-1 in favor of anti-gun activists.

And after the 2019 shootings in El Paso, Texas, the networks tilted an even more lopsided 17-to-1 to the Left.

The article summarizes the numbers:

MRC analysts reviewed all statements that took a position on overall gun policy by anchors, reporters, guests and soundbites, beginning with the morning of March 23 (the morning after the Boulder shooting) through the morning of March 26, and found time spent arguing in favor of more gun control (36 minutes, 11 seconds) overwhelmed time devoted to supporting gun rights (2 minutes and 31 seconds.)  

How are Americans supposed to get a fair picture of any issue when our media is so lopsided? This is ridiculous.

None of the laws currently proposed by Democrats in Congress to ‘save lives’ would have been relevant in most of the shootings that have occurred in America in recent years. Limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and using them. Has it occurred to anyone in Congress that criminals do not follow laws?

Bad Ideas On Gun Control

On March 1st, The Heritage Foundation posted an article about the debate on gun control. The article lists four faulty ideas currently being discussed. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The four ideas:

1) Banning ‘Assault Weapons’

2) Banning ‘High-Capacity Magazines’

3) Background Checks On All Gun Sales

4) Eliminating Immunity for Gun Manufacturers

Even if they were to pass constitutional muster, none of these are good ideas.

In 2004, the Updated Assessment of the Federal AssaultWeapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 was released. The purpose of this report was to study the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress had passed in 1994.

The article at Heritage notes the conclusions of that study:

Even assuming that every criminal turned in his or her “assault weapon” and never obtained a different type of firearm to commit the same crimes in the future, there would be likely be no noticeable drop in gun-related crime as a result of this policy.

That is, in fact, exactly what the official study of the original federal assault-weapons ban found in 2004.

The article notes the current liability laws regarding gun manufacturers:

It’s important first to understand what the law currently is with respect to gun manufacturers and immunity.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers (as well as sellers and distributors) are still liable for selling defective products, for failing to abide by numerous federal regulations regarding safety, sales, and records, for false advertising, and for a wide array of other widely recognized tort claims.

The law only protects them from lawsuits claiming that they are liable whenever a third party criminally misuses a firearm that the company manufactured and sold in compliance with the law.

To hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of their product is ridiculous. Are the manufacturers protected if they put a warning label on their guns that says “Not intended to be used to shoot people”?

The Founding Fathers put The Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights for a reason. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of government. The Second Amendment is part of that limitation–it is intended to limit the power of government–not the power of the people. Losing our Second Amendment rights would be a huge step toward government tyranny.

.

When Judges Don’t Read The U.S. Constitution

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about a recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The article reports:

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that there is no right to carry a gun in public.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s requirement that residents must pass an application to have weapons outside the home.

Hawaii’s law requires residents to show an urgency or need to carry a firearm, the applicant must have good character, and he or she must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.”

The Second Amendment 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 article continues:

George Young applied twice for a firearm carry license, but was denied. He unsuccessfully sued Hawaii officials over the restrictions.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” the court ruled in an “en banc” decision that involved 11 of the panel’s judges.

The article concludes:

Four of the panel’s judges disagreed with the ruling, arguing the state regulations destroyed the right to carry a gun for self-defense outside of the home. 

“This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme,” wrote Judge Diarmuid  O’Scannlain, a Reagan appointee.

The National Rifle Association said it would not allow the ruling to stand.

“The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the gun-rights group wrote on Twitter.

Blue states saw the ruling as a green light to implement strict firearm laws.

Gurbir Grewal, New Jersey’s attorney general, said he was proud to lead 10 states that filed a brief in the legal battle to support firearm safety laws.

“Today the Ninth Circuit agreed that laws that limit carrying guns in public are constitutional,” he wrote on Twitter.

Some of my concealed carry permit holder friends believe that the right to concealed carry is enshrined in the Second Amendment. It seems to me that you could make a better case for that interpretation of the Constitution than the interpretation by the 9th Circuit.

 

Part Of The Democrat Party Platform

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Kamala Harris’ views on guns.

The article reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has done something unprecedented with his pick of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) as his running mate: put a candidate on the presidential ticket who publicly supports gun confiscation.

During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.

“We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. “It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

First of all, those who call for the ban on assault weapons never quite define what an assault weapon is. In the past, some Congressmen have added guns to that list simply because they were ‘scary-looking.’ Second of all, there is a reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It seems to me that one of the indications of a tyrannical government might be that they want to take your guns away. The Second Amendment is there to secure the rights of the First Amendment.

The article reports:

“During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver,” Oliva (Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation) told the Free Beacon. “Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.”

Oliva called the pick a danger to gun owners.

“Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate makes this ticket the most serious threat to American Second Amendment rights ever faced in a presidential election,” he said.

Gun-control groups, on the other hand, cheered Biden’s decision to name Harris his vice-presidential nominee. Giffords, the gun-control group headed by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, emphasized Harris’s support for expanding background checks to private sales in a celebratory email to its donors and didn’t mention her support for confiscation.

“Joe Biden just announced his pick for Vice President and we are so thrilled to have Senator Kamala Harris join the fight to defeat Trump in November,” the group said in an email to supporters. “Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is a gun safety champion with a proven record of fighting the NRA and standing up for common sense. They will work tirelessly together to pass universal background checks and make every community safer from gun violence.”

Gun violence will not stop when you take guns away from law-abiding gun owners; it will only stop when you take guns away from criminals. We already have laws that do that. Those laws don’t work because criminals do not obey laws.Taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners will not cause criminals to give up their guns–it will simply result in more unarmed victims of those criminals (or a tyrannical government that cannot be stopped). Neither is a positive step forward.

When There Are No Police Available

Todd Starnes posted an article yesterday about a recent incident in Atlanta.

The article reports:

Two white motorists were stopped by a mob of armed black men and assaulted in Atlanta near the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks died.

“He straight up said, ‘No white people are allowed on this road,” one of the victims told television station WSB.

He said they tried to explain they were just trying to get to the Interstate, but that only made things worse.

The gang pelted their car with rocks, knocking out windows and injuring the motorists. One man was punched.

“They said you can’t go this way,” a female motorist told the television station. When she asked why, they replied, “You’re not African American. Only African Americans are allowed on this road. You’re white, you’re a cracker. You’re not allowed on this road. Turn around.”

The article concludes with the suggestion that every law-abiding America should be armed. I suspect that had the driver pulled out a gun, he would have been allowed to proceed to the interstate. That suggestion sounds like something out of the wild west, but if the city officials in some of our major cities don’t get a handle on the lawlessness in those cities, citizens who believe in the Second Amendment will take care of it for them.

Losing Our Constitutional Rights One At A Time

As we celebrate Resurrection Day tomorrow, most of us won’t be gathered in our churches to celebrate. In some places we won’t even be able to do celebrations reminiscent of drive-in movies where we gather in our cars and listen to the sermon on our car radios (with the windows up even). That is an unnecessary restriction that some states have imposed and that the citizens of those states are tolerating. We really need to rethink this.

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that Governor Northam of Virginia has signed several pieces of gun control legislation into law.

The article reports:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed several pieces of gun control legislation into law, including mandating background checks on every gun sale, ordering reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and reinstating the state’s former one-handgun-purchase-a-month policy.

…Following Virginia Democrats’ takeover of both chambers of the state legislature in the 2019 elections, the party put forth a slew of gun control measures to be considered in the 2020 legislative session.

The signing of the slate of bills comes nearly three months following the rally of over 20,000 gun rights activists in the Virginia Capitol to protest the legislation. The gun laws will go into effect on July 1.

The article mentions two of the laws that did not pass:

Two major gun control bills, the assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limits, were proposed and debated while Virginia lawmakers were in session but, ultimately, failed to pass both chambers of the state legislature. However, supporters of the bills have advocated to bring them back in the next session.

Northam also proposed amendments to legislation currently being debated in the Virginia state legislature’s upper and lower chambers.

Senate Bill 35 and House Bill 421 would enable municipalities to regulate firearms in public buildings, parks, recreation centers, and during permitted events. Senate Bill 479 and House Bill 1,004 would bar individuals subject to protective orders from possessing firearms, require them to turn over their firearms within 24 hours, and would require them to certify to the court that the weapons were turned in.

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.

That right was put in there to protect Americans from an overreaching government.–not to make sure they could go hunting. We are at the point where government overreach is here. Hopefully the laws signed by the Governor will be overturned by the Supreme Court, but the laws like this need to be stopped long before they get to the Supreme Court. I am hopeful that the people of Virginia will embrace their history and remove this Governor from office in the next election.

A Subtle Way To Infringe On A Constitutional Right

“America’s 1st Freedom” is a magazine distributed by the National Rifle Association. I am not including a link to the article I am posting about because I can’t find the article electronically although it is in the April 2020 issue of the magazine.

The title of the article is “The New Gun-Control Activism.” It deals with the strategy those who oppose the right of Americans to own guns are using to limit the availability of guns to Americans.

The article notes:

Last year, for example, Connecticut State Treasurer Shawn Wooden, who commands $37 billion in public pension funds, announced plans to pull $30 million worth of shares from civilian firearm manufacturer securities. Wooden also intends to prohibit similar investments in the future and to establish incentives for banks and financial institutions to adopt anti-gun protocols. The proposition was immediately praised by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and other Connecticut politicians who view the divestment from five companies–Clarus Corp., Daicel Corp., Vista Outdoor Inc., Olin Corp., and ammunition maker Northrop Grumman–as a step toward reducing gun violence.

…Wooden also requested that financial bodies disclose their gun-related portfolios when endeavoring to wok with the treasurer’s office. Wooden subsequently selected tow firms, Citibank and Rick Financial Product (both had expressed the desire to be part of the “solution on gun violence”), to take on the roll of senior bankers in Connecticut’s then-forthcoming $890 million general obligation bond sale.

Technically I guess this is legal. It is a very subtle infringement on the Second Amendment and would be very difficult to prove in court. It is also not a new approach. During the Obama administration, the administration put in place guidelines that prevented gun dealers from getting business loans from banks.

On May 19, 2014, The New American reported:

Following the Obama administration’s “Operation Broken Trust,” an operation that began just months into his first term, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was created initially to “root out and expose” investment scams. After bringing 343 criminal and 189 civil cases, the task force began looking for other targets.

The task force is a gigantic interagency behemoth, involving not only the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, but also the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the U.S. Secret Service.

The next target for the task force was credit card payment processors, such as PayPal, along with porn shops and drug paraphernalia stores. In 2011, it expanded its list of “high risk” businesses to include gun shops. Peter Weinstock, an attorney with Hunton & Williams, explained:

This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent “reputational risk” to do business with….

Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.

In 2012, Bank of America terminated its 12-year relationship with McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, and American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale. Said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms:

At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out….

They need their cash [and credit lines] to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.

That’s the whole point, according to Kelly McMillan:

This is an attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns and a way for them to combat the Second Amendment rights we have. It’s a covert way for them to control our right to manufacture guns and individuals to buy guns.

With the Obama administration unable to foist its gun control agenda onto American citizens frontally, this is a backdoor approach that threatens the very oxygen these businesses need to breathe. Richard Riese, a senior VP at the American Bankers Association, expanded on the attack through the banks’ back doors:

We’re being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions.

All of this is predicated on the notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses.

How you vote matters.

I Think He Needs To Do Some Work On His People Skills

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about a recent Joe Biden event in Detroit.

The article reports:

Say what you want about the inevitable Joe Biden presidential nomination, but at least it will be entertaining. At least, it will be as entertaining as arrogant ignorance ever gets, a combination that Biden has mastered over long decades in the public eye. Biden went stumping for votes in a Detroit auto plant today, a natural venue for campaigning thanks to the Obama administration’s rescue of GM and Chrysler.

Instead, Biden got caught up in a gun-control argument with a worker who accused him of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right.” Biden offered a pungent reply — “You’re full of s**t!” — and then things got really testy:

…Biden denies in this clip that he wants to confiscate anyone’s guns. One week ago, though, Biden publicly proclaimed that he would put Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of his gun policy, a former presidential aspirant who explicitly called for gun confiscations by law enforcement following an assault rifle ban.

The Second Amendment may be a problem for Democrat candidates. Recent statements by all of the presidential candidates and many legislators have advocated gun buy-backs (a polite word for gun confiscation). There are a lot of people in America who value their Second Amendment rights either for hunting or for self-protection. I think most voters are smart enough to see the writing on the wall–that we will lose our Second Amendment rights under either a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress. And I do think Joe Biden needs to work on his people skills.

This Could Get Interesting

Hot Air is reporting today that Everytown for Gun Safety, a Mike Bloomberg-backed gun-grabbing group, is setting its sights on Texas.

The article reports:

Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-backed group that pushes for expanded background checks, red flag laws and other measures, is plotting what its political director calls an “unprecedented financial and grassroots effort” to flip the Texas House, defend vulnerable freshmen Democrats in Congress and help Democrats take congressional seats in the suburbs. A memo detailing the plan, the group’s biggest state investment to date, was shared exclusively with Hearst Newspapers.

“We believe that Texas, as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse, can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point,” Chris Carr, the group’s political director wrote in the memo. “We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide.”

I will admit that I don’t know a lot about Texas politics, but it seems to me that the basic culture of Texas might make this planned gun grab a little more difficult.

The article concludes:

While Shannon Watts (founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group of activists affiliated with Everytown) uses hyperbole in comparing Texas to Virginia, she should know that Texas is not like most other states. There are plenty of Democrats in elected office who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are gun owners themselves. This is not as partisan issue as it is in other states.

“I would say anyone running for office in Texas should look to Virginia,” Watts said. “Six months after a shooting in Virginia Beach, all of the elected officials who refused gun sense were voted out of office.”

Everytown is supporting freshmen Democrats like my own congresswoman – Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, who is vulnerable. The district was a strongly red district – the reddest in Houston – and fell into Democrat hands for the first time in 2018 when she was elected. She is facing a tough battle to retain her seat. I’m counting on my district moving back into the red column in November.

Everytown is also planning to go on the offensive against Republican U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter, and it’s planning to spend big in districts left open by retiring Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Will Hurd.

As is said in Texas, come and take it.

Let’s hope Texas voters are awake enough not to repeat what happened in Virginia. One thing to keep in mind when looking at Virginia is that a lot of the Democrat candidates ran unopposed. Hopefully that won’t happen in Texas.

Yesterday In Virginia

There was a Second Amendment rally in Richmond, Virginia, yesterday. 22,000 Second Amendment supporters showed up on Martin Luther King Day to support the Second Amendment. The media was predicting riots. On Sunday I posted an article based on a Canada Free Press story that predicted a ‘false flag’ operation by Antifa. That did not materialize.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted a few observations about the rally. The headline on his article was, “Pro-Gun Rally In Richmond Is Peaceful; Liberals Hardest Hit.”

The article notes:

Today an estimated (by police) 22,000 people demonstrated at the Virginia capitol in Richmond in favor of Second Amendment rights, which are being threatened by the newly-elected Democratic majority in that state’s legislature. Liberal news outlets were hoping the rally would turn violent, and their disappointment when it didn’t was palpable.

The article includes this picture and comment from The Washington Post:

The Babylon Bee probably had the best headline and article:

The Babylon Bee headlines: “Media Offers Thoughts And Prayers That Someone Would Start Some Violence At Gun Rights Rally.”

Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone would start some violence at the gun rights rally in Virginia today.

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.

“Nobody has so much as fired a shot. This is an unbelievable tragedy,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter, clearly caught up in the anguish of the moment.

The article cited one possible reason Antifa decided to stay home:

Antifa threatened to show up at the rally, and likely would have created violence if it had done so. But for some reason, the group’s leaders changed their minds. Maybe they focused on the fact that the 2x4s, pipes and baseball bats with which they are used to beating up innocent bystanders might not fare so well in this crowd. One young guy who looked suspiciously like a leftist advocated jumping the fence and killing people. The genuine demonstrators denounced him as an “infiltrator”–which I suspect he was–and told him to “get the f*** out.”

The article concludes:

Virginia’s Democrats are unabashedly in favor of gun confiscation. Why is it that when Democrats take control of a legislative body, they instinctively move to confiscate legally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, in violation of the Second Amendment? It would take a psychiatrist to answer that question. Certainly a student of crime statistics wouldn’t be able to explain it. Whatever the cause, the Democrats’ move against the citizens’ constitutional rights is manna from Heaven for Republicans, many of whom mingled with the demonstrators and endorsed their cause.

I would also like to note that those who attended the rally cleaned up after themselves before they left. It is also interesting to me that when so many ‘good people with guns” are in one place, there is no violence.

Prepare For A False Flag Operation Tomorrow

My source for this article is the Canada Free Press, but I have come across this story elsewhere.

The article at the Canada Free Press reports:

The Internet is rife with rumors that antifa will march shoulder to shoulder with pro-gun protesters about to descend on Virginia’s capital tomorrow—including one claiming that it will be antifa activists wearing red MAGA caps and NRA garb this time.

If true, pro-gun protesters should take lots of pictures for uploading to the ‘Net during the event—because it will be the first time the anarchists appear anywhere without their signature masks:

…On Friday State Senator Amanda Chase issued a warning to those attending the Monday rally.

“We are being set up!” (Gateway Pundit, Jan. 18, 2020)

“Senator Chase wrote this on her Facebook page.

“I want you to be aware of how we are being set up.

“If people show up wearing any kind of uniform, patch or other symbol on their clothing signifying they belong to a militia and something goes wrong, you could/will be held as a domestic terrorist.

“If anyone steps out of line, all it takes is one person, it may even be a government plant….if that plant does anything to disrupt the rally, you could/will be arrested as a domestic terrorist.”

“They have labeled us as potential domestic terrorists for a long time now.

“…The groundwork has been laid to brand you as a domestic terrorist.

On January 16th, The Daily Caller reported:

“I think it’s been pretty important for us to focus on the fact that gun control in America has a legacy of racist enforcement,” an Antifa Seven Hills spokesperson called James, a self-identified anarchist who withheld his real name for fear of getting doxxed, told Vice. “Like taking guns away from black people, because black people were perceived as a threat to property and the sanctity of the state.”

“This is our fight as much as anyone else’s,” James continued. “It’s our state, and we are left largely out of the debate. The presence of an armed left is not discussed, it’s not understood.”

To the “armed left,” gun control represents the rise of a police state and the oppression of minorities made powerless by disarmament, but it’s a class issue as well.

When people fail to study the intention of the Founding Fathers in writing The Bill of Rights, they become very confused about what the Second Amendment represents. The Second Amendment was put in place to arm citizens against the type of tyrannical government they had just fought a revolution against. Every American is covered by the Second Amendment–there is no race involved. The charge of a legacy of racism needs to be looked at in context. America has made some mistakes in the area of race, but race does not define our country. America was one of the first countries to end slavery, and unfortunately slavery continues today in some of the countries that have oddly enough been named to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Be very careful about what news you believe about Virginia in the next week. The possibilities of media mischief and false flags abound.

The Battle For The Second Amendment

The Washington Examiner posted an article today with the following headline, “Sheriffs may go to jail to protect ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries,’ congressman says.”

Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam recently told WTKR that any law enforcement officer that did not carry out gun control laws enacted by the state would face “consequences,” but he did not give any specifics.

The Second Amendment 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 article notes:

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie thinks some local law enforcement leaders will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with state gun control laws they deem unconstitutional.

“Attended my first 2A sanctuary meeting today in Lewis County (where I live). Standing room only. Friends and neighbors spoke passionately and articulately. County officials unanimously passed a resolution,” Massie tweeted on Dec. 30. “This grassroots movement feels even stronger than the Tea Party in 2010.”

“Second Amendment sanctuary” municipalities last year sprouted up in Illinois, a state with some of the strictest gun control laws. They then spread to Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Washington state, and other states.

Massie cited Weld County, Colorado Sheriff Steve Reams, a critic of the state’s “red flag” law, who has offered to put himself in his own jail rather than enforce the state law.

“His county government has already voted to fund his legal fees should he end up in a protracted legal battle that might go all the way” to the Supreme Court, Massie told the Washington Examiner.

“And so that’s one of the things that when you boil it all down and say, ‘What does the sanctuary county movement mean?’” Massie said. “So, what it could mean is that county governments decide to use taxpayer dollars, with the blessing of the taxpayers in those counties, to support the sheriffs in their court battles.”

Red flag laws are unconstitutional–they violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and they take property from citizens without the necessary legal procedures. Those laws seem like a good idea on the surface until you realize that people could use those laws to take guns away from people they simply don’t like. Unfortunately, red flag laws in action could very easily mirror what happened during the Salem Witch Trials where a person was accused of being a witch because someone wanted their farm. This is a glaring example of what happens when the legal rights of the accused are not respected.

Respecting The Constitutional Rights Of Americans

Yesterday John HInderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article with the following headline, “Schiff Obtained Phone Records of Nunes, Journalist, Others.”

How in the world did Adam Schiff get access to those phone records?

The article notes:

The mainstream media is abuzz with stories about Nunes communication with “Rudy Giuliani during key aspects of his Ukraine pressure campaign.” Nunes was in touch with John Solomon around the times he published major articles. And on and on. The telephone records don’t include the actual conversations. They identify who was calling whom and how long they spoke.

Schiff has crossed the line of decency with this move. Once again, he has abused his power. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton tweeted that obtaining these records is a remarkable abuse of President Trump’s constitutional rights. I would argue that it’s an abuse of the constitutional rights of all of the above. These are KGB tactics.

Well, fair is fair. Republicans should obtain Schiff’s phone records, those of the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, and the colleague with whom he had a “bro-like” relationship, you know, Sean Misko, the one Schiff hired as an aide the day after the whistleblower’s complaint was submitted.

The repellent Adam Schiff has managed to reach a new level of depravity.

This is not something that should be happening in America. It is a total disregard for the constitutional rights of the people involved. However, this is not a new tactic by the political left.

In October 2014, I posted an article about Sharyl Attkisson. She was fired from CBS for her reporting on Operation Fast and Furious. As you remember, that was President Obama’s gun-running operation that was supposed to bring Americans to the point where they overturned the Second Amendment.

The article from rightwinggranny noted:

Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

The spyware included programs that Attkisson says monitored her every keystroke and gave the snoops access to all her e-mails and the passwords to her financial accounts.

“The intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool,” she wrote in “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

But the most shocking finding, she says, was the discovery of three classified documents that Number One told her were “buried deep in your operating system. In a place that, unless you’re a some kind of computer whiz specialist, you wouldn’t even know exists.”

“They probably planted them to be able to accuse you of having classified documents if they ever needed to do that at some point,” Number One added.

It’s time to charge people with a crime when they violate the civil rights of an American citizen. I hope this will happen (but I am not optimistic).

Really Bad Advice

I don’t watch The View. I watched a few minutes once and realized instantly that it was simply not something I wanted to spend time watching. However, occasionally the ignorance of our Constitution illustrated on that television show is simply astounding.

Fox News posted an article today that illustrates that ignorance.

The article reports:

Politicians seeking to confiscate guns from Americans shouldn’t share their plans with the public beforehand and should seek to maintain an element of surprise, Joy Behar said on “The View” Monday.

Behar was discussing former 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat from Texas, and said it was foolish of him to announce his plans for gun confiscation before he was elected. She advised all politicians to go after the country’s guns after they’ve assumed office.

Co-host Meghan McCain also weighed in on the issue and said O’Rourke has poisoned the well and scared off independent voters from the Democratic party.

“They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected — then take the guns away,” she said. “Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

“I will also say that his stance on gun buybacks — Mayor Pete said it was a shiny object that distracts from achievable gun reform,” she said earlier in the interview. “That clip will be played for years… with organizations that try and scare people by saying that Democrats are coming for your guns.

“[Beto] also made some statements about religious institutions getting their tax-exempt status removed from them because they didn’t support same-sex marriage,” McCain continued. “He did a lot of, like, battleground culture war, and he ran as the most left, most woke candidate and look where he ended.”

The Second Amendment is not a cultural issue–it is an integral part of the Bill of Rights, a document written to limit the power of government–not the power of citizens. The ladies on The View need to take a basic civics course.

Hasn’t He Read The U.S. Constitution?

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about some recent remarks by presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.

The article reports:

Beto O’Rourke said he would use the criminal code to back up his proposal to confiscate AR-15s and other “weapons of war” from Americans.

“If we’re able to pass mandatory buybacks and I’m able to sign that into law, then I fully expect our fellow Americans to turn in their AR-15s and their AK-47s,” the former Texas congressman said in a Thursday CBS News interview when asked if his policy was “too retroactive.”

O’Rourke continued his answer by saying there would be criminal consequences if people were to “persist” in holding onto their weapons.

“For anyone who does not and is caught in possession or seen in possession of one of these weapons of war — one of these instruments of terror, that weapon will be taken from them, and they will be fined. And if they should persist in continuing to use and to buy these weapons, then there will be other consequences in the criminal code.”

The Democratic presidential contender said earlier this month that under his administration, police would “visit” AR-15 owners who did not cooperate in turning their guns in voluntarily.

“I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else,” O’Rourke said about the possibility that gun owners might not submit to voluntary buybacks.

It’s interesting that the candidates seem to be focused on AR-15’s. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that fires one bullet at a time. The AR stands for ArmaLite, the original manufacturer of the weapon. It is a scary looking gun, but even if you support taking guns away from Americans, there is no reason to focus on that particular gun. It is legal to own an AK-47 as long as it was manufactured before 1986. There are also paperwork requirements involved with owning this particular gun.

However, all of the above is simply irrelevant. The Second Amendment 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from a tyrannical government–like one that wanted to forcefully take away their guns. What Beto O’Roarke is proposing is exactly what the Second Amendment was written to prevent.