I recently wrote elsewhere about the odd way Dims like to interpret rights, specifically abortion. Regardless of whether you’re pro-abortion of pro-life, you should find ROE v. WADE to be really bad pseudo-constitutional law.
Somehow, the 1973 Supreme Court waded through the Fourteenth Amendment — written to ensure equal rights for freed Blacks post-Civil War — and found a right to abortion. Rationally, you might have expected them to look to the Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Right there; an acknowledgement of rights not otherwise mentioned.
The SCOTUS leak strongly suggests that SCOTUS may be about ready to toss ROE v. WADE, and the Left is panicking. They’re screaming that ROE v. WADE is “settled law” and may not reviewed by SCOTUS again.
Either way, gun owners should rejoice… and consider this in terms of the Second Amendment.
It’s common for the Left to now grudgingly admit the existence of the right to keep and bears arms, But that’s just muskets, not “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, or [insert Lefty bugaboo of the moment].
Scenario 1: ROE v. WADE stands.
My right to “high capacity” (i.e.- normal) magazines is protected by the 14A, just like it protects abortion.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection. If any person can have standard capacity mags, so can I. Or are they going to says police and military aren’t people?
This has the added benefit of imploding lefty heads when you invoke the infamous Dred Scott decision; all free men have a right to be armed. But being terrified of armed, freed Blacks (who might hold a bit of a grudge over past slavery), they ruled against Scott’s free status.
If SCOTUS can’t revisit ROE v. WADE and toss it, Then Dred Scott — with all the nasty implications for Blacks today — should still be “settled law.”
Somehow, I doubt that will endear Dims to Black voters this Fall.
Scenario 2: ROE v. WADE overturned.
This could go two ways (or a bit of both). Pro-abortion advocates could simply turn to the states, or they could suddenly take cognizance of the Ninth Amendment and start arguing for that abortion protection. They’ll still be whining about “settled law.”
So. Do. We. My right to that pile of 30-rounders is protected by the Ninth Amendment; it’s an unenumerated right.
And hey; we can still make heads implode with the all-free-citizens-may be armed 14A/Dred Scott argument. We will be the sane people saying Blacks are free and due all the same rights, while the Left will be in the position of pissing off their voters by claiming the opposite.
The Second Amendment rights movement has suffered what I consider to be some grievous losses the last few years. We lost Brad Alpert in 2019 who’s Second Amendment activity went way back to 1966. We lost his beloved wife Jo Ann just a few weeks ago. She was a Southern Second Amendment powerhouse in her own right. They were some of the smartest people I ever met, and many a time a visit to see them would sooth my troubled heart, soul or both. Not to mention they were a great source of inspiration.
I’m not on FakeBook much at all anymore, but a quick check in showed me we lost a another stalwart on the 15th of April.
And then last night I got a phone call from an old friend, going way back to 2004. January 22nd of 2004 to be precise. I was a young(er) country gal who had traveled to the state capitol to attend a hearing for a court case against Missouri’s concealed carry law. I was going to write my first column for a grassroots Missouri Second Amendment rights group. I didn’t know anyone. I was going because I didn’t have to work that day, and I wanted to see it, and write about it. And it became what I consider to be a life shaping event. I met some amazing people that day, people I had only heard of in Second Amendment rights group meetings. People that had been instrumental in getting concealed carry passed in the state of Missouri. One of those people was John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences. It is a big book, it combines history with his modern day story line and while I haven’t read it for a few years, in some ways I think it’s prophetic. As I recall it’s towards the beginning there is a part that takes place in the Warsaw ghetto. I was hooked. Part of it does have some pretty graphic scenes, just a warning up front. But it’s a once you read it, you’ll never forget it. I remember when it came out he, and his ex-wife were harassed by alphabet soup agencies, but the book still went on sale.
My phone call last night was from my friend Michael Meyer (who despite never getting me a Clydesdale, I still adore) telling me John had passed on. I didn’t even know he had been working on his next book. Who knows what that might have been like. Michael said everyone was in shock. I get it, I am as well. I told Michael it’s because we never expect our legends to die. I guess some people have been looking on the net for that original column I did, about meeting them all. So I’m sharing some pictures with you from that day, the lunch at Madison’s and Michael generously shared some really good pictures of John with me.
I was in the presence of Warrior Angels that day, I still aspire to become one, and to inspire others to become one as well. Because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
In the Presence of Warrior Angels
I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Missouri Supreme Court (MOSC) hearing on the 22nd of January. It was an amazing experience for us. We found out by attending the WMSA meeting the night before that we needed to be there around 10 AM, rather than the 2 PM we had planned on. There would be tickets given out to enter the hearing. So I got up bright and early so I could leave on time. If you have never had to wake up chickens to feed them, it is pretty funny.
After an uneventful journey, I arrived around 9:40 AM found a parking spot in a 2 hour parking meter lot and got all set. I knew what the building looked like from internet hunting. I had ever been to the MOSC. I went in and passed through the metal detectors. Seemed an unnecessary step to me, as there was a big sign on the door to the effect of no weapons beyond this point. All criminals will certainly obey that sign, so why both with the metal detector? Then the intrepid Marshal went through my purse, more or less. Now that is bravery! We all left our cell phones on a table along with everyone else’s. I was told we couldn’t take our camera upstairs, so I asked the Marshal if I could take a photo by the beautiful marble stairway. He said sure. I started to take the photo, and a very nice gentleman, who turned out to be John Gordon, came up and offered to take a photo. Then tongue in cheek (at least I think it was) he asked which side we were on. I told him, VERY pro. He smiled and said as long as I was on the right side and laughed. John took the photo. Afterwards we met Tom Mendenhall, both were from Columbia. There were another group of men standing around, mostly in suits, I wondered which side they were on. While we were waiting for the tickets to be given out I amused myself by trying to figure out which side folks were on according to how they dressed and acted. After a while a line formed, we asked Carl, the guard behind the desk, by this time we were on a first name basis with Carl, if we should get in line. He softly laughed and said he didn’t know why folks were forming the line, that the tickets would be given out in order of arrival, and the Marshal knew the order of the arrival. Shortly after 10 AM, out he came and proceeded to pass out tickets. As we walked outside Dennis told me he had traded tickets with the gentleman that was walking out with us, so he could sit with his friends. I asked if we were still sitting together, he said we were. The gentleman then introduced himself. Tim Oliver. I lunged across Dennis and yelped TIM OLIVER?? THE Tim Oliver? He laughed and said yes. He told us he had a table reserved at Madison’s for lunch, we should come. Now we are in a strange city, we don’t know anyone, and this nice man invites us to join his group. We asked if he was sure there would be enough room for us. He said sure. He told us where it was, so we set out to move our car and find the place. We found it. It turned out, it was across from the parking garage. We went in and began our meeting of Warrior Angels. It was the most amazing thing, we ended up having lunch with Tim Oliver, Greg Jeffery, Tom Mendenhall and John Gordon on one side of the table. On the other was Dennis, Mike Meyer, John Ross (Author of Unintended Consequences, which if you haven’t read it, wow, you should!) and C. Michael Gamble. These are men who have labored long and hard in the fight for our Second Amendment Rights. They are intelligent, informed and generous of nature. They allowed two folks from the country who were pretty much alone in the city to be a part of their group and within 5 minutes we felt at home, we were among our own kind. Then it was back to the MOSC. We were front row center, I sat next to John Gordon, who secured press packets for us. When the lawyers filed in, Tim, who sat on the other side of Dennis, told us who the players were. Bert Newman opened for the bad guys (no bias in reporting here folks!). His argument hinged on the statement in the Missouri constitution that Article 1 section 23 which stated “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” meant that it couldn’t be done. One of the justices pointed out then it would apply to law officers, process servers and the like. Mr. Newman felt this applied only to citizens, not to law enforcement or the like which he said are “the state”. That law officers, process servers and the like have much more extensive training, regulation & requirements. There was a long discussion about rights under the first clause of Article 1 section 23, rights to promote personal security-guaranteed by the first clause, the right to defend their person or property. Mr. Newman feels that our law enforcement officials are promoting personal security by protecting the citizens of the state in a manner that is consistent with the first clause of Article 1 section 23. So as I understand that, Mr. Newman feels that our right to defend ourselves is taken care of by law enforcement officers. While I listen to this, I am remembering the part in Missouri Weapons and Self-Defense Law by K. Jamison, that the police do NOT have a duty to protect the individual, just society as a whole, and am thinking, oh, this isn’t good. Then came one of the most entertaining portions of the show. I believe it was Judge Benton, that ask Mr. Newman, so your definition of the word justify is sanction? What definition do you give us of the word justify? Faster than a speeding bullet, Mr. Newman whipped a pair of black patent tap shoes out of his briefcase and tied them on. He began to dance at a rapid speed. He started with the last phrase means accept, then went into the intent of the founders is so clear, looking back to the mischief to be remedied, spirit of the times, 1875 havoc, civil war…. The Justice re-asked the question of what justify meant, and where did he get the definition. With his feet furiously flying, Mr. Newman launched into another diatribe, included in his points, meaning of “does not justify” is a ban on concealed weapons, means can’t have. In the back of my head I am hearing this raspy voice saying “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is”…Finally after another Justice asked a time or two, Mr. Newman finally stated that the word justify meant “allow”. Mr. Newman then took off his tap shoes and Mr. Miller, the other bad guy (for simplicity in reporting) got up to present the Hancock portion of the argument. Judge Benton pointed out that the Sheriff may charge up to $100, or may not charge anything. That there may be a Sheriff that has said he will do it for free, as part of his running platform. Mr. Miller kept insisting that for judicial economy, that instead of having 114 counties come before the Supreme Court asking for relief from this unfunded mandate, it should just be ruled on now. One Justice pointed out that some counties have said they will not need any additional personnel, they already have the process in place for fingerprints, and basically, it won’t be any big deal. Obviously, this was not the Jackson County Sheriff. Mr. Miller’s point is that although the Sheriffs may charge up to $100, that the way the law is written prohibits the Sheriffs from using the money to pay for cost of processing the applications. Huh, where do these people get this stuff?
Then the mighty Paul Wilson from the Attorney General’s office (One of the good guys) came up to bat. Justice Wolf wanted to know if the money goes to the Sheriff’s fund for training, would the County be compensated for other expenses. Mr. Wilson replied that there was no way to know what other expenses there might be. He said that there is no way the legislature would draft the law, allow the Sheriffs to charge up to $100 and then say they could not use it to pay the expenses. One of the Justices asked “what if we struck the restriction to training and equipment? Then they could use the money as they see fit.” Mr. Wilson replied they could, or they could acknowledge the next section in the law which requires a sheriff to reimburse a local police chief any reasonable expenses meant that these categories were not to be exclusive to other expenses. He stated that the legislature had acted rationally in providing funds. When asked how could he say that in a county like St. Louis that it will not result in increase work load, Mr. Wilson replied they can’t, they have no way of knowing if 1 person, or 100,001 people will apply. He pointed out that the legislature will likely give a law against cross burning this year, and that will result in increased work for detectives. He asked if it was to be suggested that the law would violate the Hancock Amendment. He stated that is work they do, they capture criminals and bring them to the prosecutors. That these duties are part and parcel of what they do. Mr. Wilson stated that if a county doesn’t want to oblige someone who wants a concealed carry license, the county would raise the Hancock issue, they would have to prove, which they have not, that it is an unfunded mandate. That county would then need to come before the MOSC to be excused from complying. BUT if the court did choose to do that, it would not be preventing any other county from complying with the law.
Then it was back to Dancin’ Bert Newman for his final argument which is banning concealed carry promotes personal safety.
Mr. Miller’s final say was if they didn’t decide now on the Hancock issue (before there is any data to base a decision on mind you) that they would have to decide the issue 114 times. Just then a little Red chicken ran across the court room, something about the sky falling….I think. And with that the arguments closed.
What can I say, Mr. Brooks didn’t look too happy. It was the most amazing day, meeting these wonderful men, they truly are Warrior Angels, and to be present when history is being made!
Lunch at Madison’s
A gathering of Warrior Angels at the Missouri Supreme CourtThe late, very great John Ross
Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally “logical” step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.
The weirdly disjointed sentence structure, and the peculiar “logical” leap from “one state passed Constitutional Carry” to “totally unregulated firearm ownership for absolutely everyone in America” was an instant warning that I was reading the ravings of a not-entirely sane person. I scrolled down to see who this Paul Shriver is.
Paul Shriver, EdD, is a forensic and clinical psychologist.
Sad to say, but in my experience (and others*) psychologists have a strong tendency to be b–f— nuts. As you’ll see, this appears to be the case with Shriver. Couple that with a pointless EdD, and we have a perfect storm of irrationality. He doesn’t have both oars in the water. The elevator doesn’t go to the top. Pick a metaphor.
Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society.
He seems to be unaware of target practice; which would explain another statement he makes later. He also seems to think that humans invariably, without exception die when shot. Chicago says otherwise.
No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to “free speech” or even exist as a “right” on the same piece of paper.
Projecting much, Shriver? Offhand, I don’t recall ever firing a round to express an opinion.
But let’s get to the meat.
The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means.
Never mind that the Supreme Court has already found that it is a right, not a privilege; and that it pre-dates the Amendment he finds so bothersome. And he seems to be ignoring Indiana’s own pesky constitution.
Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
He’ll be needing to convince his neighbors to repeal that one, too. Based on my time living in Indiana, I’d say not damned likely.
In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not “re-legalized,” eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.
Repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating all firearms in the country is anti-gun. And it sounds pretty damned extreme. And about as “anti-gun” as one could get.
Hmm. No exception there for police. Universal disarmament. hat should be interesting.
Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.
I imagine the “not very accurate” issue lays mainly in his lack of practice, since he wouldn’t want to violently attack a peice of paper. But if all firearm use is violence, why does he have one? Perhaps Paul Shriver should be red flagged, starting his “universal disarmament” with himself.
* I knew a woman with a doctorate in psychology. She once told me she left the field — research psychology — when she realized that most of her peers were nuts. She also told me that clinical psychologists are worse.
Who’s the dumbest one of all? I never expect much sense from victim-disarmers, but the CT Mirror’s Mark Robinson may have set a new low bar.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that
Let’s not buy into misconceptions about the 2nd Amendment when advancing Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals.
What might those misconceptions be?
Public perception and debate only changed a little more than a generation ago. Until recently, this has been the overwhelming consensus among Americans and in the courts. Ever since the aftermath of the War of 1812 (when veterans returned home from war with their firearms) the federal government has regulated and restricted the right to bear arms, and did so without political controversy.
According to “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” by Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, during the decades after the Revolutionary War, the sale of firearms was forbidden to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans.
He went there: Gun control is good because there is no individual right to arms, and we used to disarm Catholics, slave, and Indians.
Holy s[…].
Say… since slavery was legal then, does he want to re-institute that as well?
Moving on.
In U.S. v Miller in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the National Firearms Act, (which was passed after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre). In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that the 2nd Amendment pertains to militias and not to individual rights.
Aside from the chronological error (MILLER was 1939, which gives you an idea of how well Robinson studied this issue), MILLER was about the status of the defendant’s sawed-off shotgun, not individual RKBA. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear militarily useful arms, and that no evidence was presented showing that the military used short-barreled shotguns; thus, registration of a non-militarily useful arm could be required. No such evidence was presented because the defendant had died, and with no one to pay their bills, his attorneys didn’t show up to argue the case. (And keep that “militarily useful part in mind.)
But in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, ruling that the 2nd Amendment did create an individual right to bear arms. That is – literally – the first time the high court took this position.
No. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.
Nor was this the first time that SCOTUS had found the Second to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled that way since at least 1857 (hint: SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott because if he was a free man, he would have a right to bear arms just like anyone else). If Robinson had bother reading the HELLER decision, he might have noticed that Scalia cited numerous prior precedents for an individual right.
Robinson has a little list of further infringements that he wants CT Governor Lamont to impose.
Close the loopholes in assault weapons laws
Remember that “militarily useful” part of MILLER? If “assault weapons” are nasty, military-style arms, then MILLER (and HELLER) already found that we have an individual right to them. Shall we go there; in court, I mean?
Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit
Well, that seems a little redundant, since a domestic violence conviction already makes possession of a firearm a crime. Doubly redundant since CGS § 29-28(b) also mentions that no permit may be issued to anyone prohibited under 18 USC 922.
I haven’t done a deep dive on legislation lately, so let’s take a look at HR 6225 Federal Firearm Licensee Act, sponsored by Illinois DIMwit Robin Kelly.
First, get past the bill’s name. It is not just Federal Firearms Licensee regulation. So what is it? Everything. The kitchen sink might even be in there.
Section “(36) The term ‘facilitator’ means any person engaged in the business of hosting a commercial marketplace in which offers for firearm sales, purchases, or other transfers are allowed to be made,
This is new. Landlords would have to have a federal license to lease to FFLs. A thousand bucks. Per year.
We can’t have those nasty “ghost guns” out there.
Sec. 3 “(40) (A) The term ‘frame or receiver’—
“(i) means a part of a weapon that provides or is intended to provide the housing or structure to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure; and
“(ii) includes a blank, casting, or machined body, that requires modification (including machining, drilling, or molding) to be used as part of a functional firearm, and that is designed and intended to be used in the assembly of a functional firearm, unless the blank, casting, or machined body has had—
So much for 80% — or 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10% — unfinished blanks. If it’s vaguely receiver-shaped, and could be worked into a firearm, it would be a firearm. For that matter, the definition is so vague that plumbing suppliers may need an FFL, and to serialize all their pipes.
Next up is the upper/lower receiver problem, where AR-pattern lowers do not meet the definition of receiver in current law.
“(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), in the case of a weapon with more than 1 part that provides the housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control components, each such part shall be considered a frame or receiver, unless the Attorney General has provided otherwise by regulation with respect to the specific make and model of weapon on or before January 1, 2022.
Both upper and lower are each a receiver. Brilliant! Coupled with one-gun-a-month limits, this would prevent you buying a complete AR.
This next bit confuses me. Or maybe it’s Kelly who is confused. Or she’s simply doing a litte housekeeping on US Code.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF TEMPORARY BRADY PROVISION.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (s).
18 U.S. Code § 922(s) is a bit convoluted, but basically it’s the old 5 day handgun waiting period provision; a provision that expired many years ago.
Moving on…
SEC. 5. PHYSICAL SECURITY OF DEALER PREMISES.
This is a collection of physical (safes, bars, reinforced wall, vehicle barricades) and surveillance (lots of cameras, semi-permanent video storage) intended to make running a gun store financially prohibitive. Again.
And because no FFL would ever consider keeping track of his inventory…
SEC. 6. BUSINESS INVENTORY FIREARMS.
Now they would. Apparently Kelly believes in her tiny, shriveled, black heart that dealers have no idea what they’ve got, and don’t care if guns get stolen.
Section 7 gets really nasty.
(b) Records Databases.—Section 923(g) of such title is further amended by adding at the end the following:
“(9) (A) Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall establish and maintain electronic, searchable databases of all records regarding the importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms required to be submitted by licensees to the Attorney General under this chapter.
You read that correctly. That mandates a searchable database of all firearm transfers. And yes, that includes individual 4473s.
Full gun and gun owner registration.
In Section 9, we have a new requirement for multiple firearm sales; expanded from handguns to… basically eveything. And she slipped in another “high capacity” magazine definition: more than tens rounds, or theoretically modifiable to hold more than tens rounds. There are no exceptions for .22s or fixed internal magazines like tubes.
Here’s another FFL harassment measure.
Sec. 10 “(4) WARNINGS TO PURCHASERS.—All licensed dealers operating a physical retail location shall post conspicuously within the licensed premises all warnings required to be provided to firearms purchasers under applicable State and local law. The Attorney General shall develop materials regarding suicide prevention, securing firearms from loss, theft, or access by a minor or prohibited person, and straw purchasing, and provide the materials to licensed dealers who shall disseminate the materials on transfer of a firearm to a person not licensed under this chapter.”.
By the time they prominently post all that, there’ll be no room for commercial displays.
SEC. 11. INSPECTIONS is a mess. Essentially — and piecemeal — it mandates FFL inspections at least annually. It could be more often, with no limits. Monthly? Weekly? No wonder the Biden administration wants a $1.7 billionincrease in the ATF budget.
Or maybe there won’t be that many FFLs to inspect after all. SEC. 12. AUTHORITY WITH REGARDS TO LICENSE ISSUANCE AND RENEWAL makes FFLs explicitly may-issue.
For those who still manage to get a license, fees would double (Sec. 13).
Read on: It’s got new employee background checks, loss of FFL protections, restrictions on appeals… If you can think of some way to screw dealers, it’s probably there.
The good news is that GovTrack gives this bill a mere 2% chance of passing. Depending on Dim leadership IQs, that may even be — for Dims — optimistic. The midterms are coming, and passage of this bill would likely require election fraud that leaves 2020 in the dust, if Dims expect to win any election. Worst case — for them — is how many abruptly vacant seats would suddenly be up for grabs, due to hordes of irate constituents.
The bad news is that, while this package won’t pass, we will see every individual provision coming back like whack-a-mole.
I’m talking about the wanton, reckless firearm slayings that happen too often in Virginia and around the country. The victims and killers are disproportionately Black men.
So far, Mr. Chesley is correct, at least according to the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. Anecdotally, based on decades of media reports, I concur. Blacks are disproportionately committing crimes, and being victimized. One — and Chesley does — wonder what causes that. How do we fix it?
Chesley’s answer is…
Guns. Too many guns. Easy access to guns.
Of course, it is. [-roll eyes-]
To me, based on the data, news reporting and other observations, it seems a three-pronged approach is necessary if this nation will ever significantly lower firearm deaths:
Use the research on guns, mayhem and intervention that is widely available; more than 1,400 violence prevention studies have already been done.
Do better at stopping guns from getting into the hands of criminals and would-be criminals. More than 73 percent of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data in 2019 involved firearms, the agency reported. Handguns comprised 62 percent of the firearms used in murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2019.
If the guns are the cause of the problem, why are black men disproportionately using the guns, and disproportionately on each other? According to Pew:
And while 36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%) and 15% of Hispanics say they own a gun.
Whites, particularly white males seem to disproportionately own guns. If Chesley’s thesis that guns are the problem held true, then offenders and victims would be disproportionately white, not black.
The reflexive response, by those with a vested interest in funding to study the problem — as opposed to fixing it — is to blame inherent, systemic racism that somehow causes those blacks to be involved in crime. That is both simplistic and wrong.
Per this study, 23% of blacks have felony convictions. That’s unfortunate, but looking solely at that number ignores a much happier fact: The vast majority of black — 77% DO NOT have felony convictions.
That would seem to rule out systemic, keep-the-black-man-down racism. Once more, if that was the problem, it wouldn’t only be holding down one small portion of the population.
Perhaps you noticed that I left out Chesley’s “third prong” in his approach. Third; apparently less important, less pressing and blaming guns.
Instill into young men – overwhelmingly African American – a respect for life and a determination not to use guns to settle arguments. (Why so many believe America devalues them is a discussion for another day. Many young Black men, though, can’t envision a productive or equitable future.)
Finally, he is on the right track. Sort of. Instead of comparing white vs. black crime and victimization rates (and leaving the damned guns out it), what needs to be studied is why the majority of blacks are not criminals. What differentiates the 23% from the majority 77%? Why does that small subset lack that respect for life; why does that small subset lack that vision?
I have my own suspicions, based on personal anecdotal experience. One productive neighbor is a college graduate; I know he has a clean record because a felon cannot be licensed to do the job he held.
The neighbors on the other side of me are likewise fine, decent people. In fact, when I had my accident last year, A—- was one of the first people to rush to my aid. She was also the first to rush to hug me when she saw me finally walking without a walker (I was still on a cane).
The common denominator for these people, whom I cannot imagine turning to a life of thuggish crime, is family. They have intact families with whom they are in contact. Families that taught them to be decent people, and self respect that allows them to respect others, as well.
If Chesley wants to fix the problem, he needs to find a way to instill that same kind of respect in that small group that lacked that advantage in their youth. But that’s going to be a lot tougher than just blaming guns.
It could be done, but implementing it — three easy lessons — requires courage.*
* For the record: I do not think that anyone in a position to begin implementing my suggestions has the inclination or courage to do it. Nor do I think that anyone with said inclination and guts will be allowed to achieve such a position any longer. Hopefully, someone will prove me wrong.
If killing people has become legal — a bit of news I somehow missed — I’d pay a premium for a Hogg-hunting tag. Not that I’d use it; it would just be worth it for Hogg to simply know he was a lawful target of the people whose rights he wants to violate.
If you need a license to kill deer why don’t you need one to kill humans?
Let’s look at his other non sequiturs.
If you need a license to drive car, cut hair or to hunt you ought to need one to buy a gun.
I only need a license to drive a car on public streets. I don’t need a license to buy one.
I need a license to cut hair professionally, not to buy clippers or cut my own hair or that of family members.
I need a license to hunt some game, not to buy a gun.
There is something of a difference between buying a tool, and using said tool in a specific manner.
But Hogglet is to too g-ddamned stupid to grasp that.
Your right to own a gun with little regulation matters a lot less to me than the rights my classmates had before they were killed.
What do my rights have to do with what a known criminal in another state did to your classmates?
I still belong to a group of like minded people that belonged to the Israeli political party Zehut, which means “Identity”. And we’ve been having conversations about the recent wave of terror attacks in Israel. You may not have been aware of them as President Puddin’ head has been trying to start World War III during his walk back weekend. I’m sure circle back Psaki (Ginger Goebbels) has been having nightmares. But yes, there have been several attacks in just the last few weeks. The religion of pieces is getting warmed up for Rama-damn. Like most of the world’s other religions, Islam has the time of year, certainly not a holy day, where they celebrate with fasting (during the day) and going out and trying to kill Jews. In Israel or anywhere else they might be living.
So in the course of the group message conversation I made some statements. Someone in the group said something about the terror attack in Bnei Brak (a religious neighborhood) and the conversation started.
Concealed carry, free ammo and practice time for every Israeli citizen starting tomorrow
Shocking I haven’t been asked to run for office isn’t it?
There is no limit of one firearm to one person even. Rifle shotgun and handgun have different purpose. Ideally a person needs one of each. There is no firearms limit nor is there a magazine capacity limit.
Law abiding citizens should not have to live in fear of wild animals. Two or four legged.
No that’s my platform! I think you’re right there are strict limits and that’s why this keeps happening🤬
The arabs like all criminals couldn’t care less about weapons laws
Too bad they are so strictly limited and the arabs know it.. They’ll just go to areas where they can’t have them like finding gun free zones in America
It will be a great day when the leaders of countries care as much about their own actual citizens as they do illegals, arabs and criminals.
Now if they could get the media to announce every Jew applying for a permit will be granted and the government to ignore the railings of President Puddin’s handlers perhaps it could be sorted. The homicidal maniacs have to understand they will be stopped before the can create orphans and widows since they don’t mind dying.
I’m not including statements from anyone else as I haven’t asked permission.
But since Ukraine is the current distraction from the rise in all cause mortality, the galloping tyranny and injection reactions is being spoon fed with a shovel at the moment I’m not sure the MSM aka #FakeNews has had a chance to mention them. So here ya go.
The attacker hit a cyclist with his car, killing the cyclist, then exited his car at the mall and stabbed three people to death before being shot to death by a bus driver. The dead included three women and a man. Police are searching for a suspected second assailant.
Kann News, a government-run news station, said the attacker was an Israeli citizen and a Bedouin. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist groups praised the attack but did not directly claim responsibility.
Kann reported that there have been repeated calls by Islamist terrorist groups for knifing attacks on Israeli citizens in recent weeks. The Jerusalem Post reported that this was the third stabbing attack in Israel in a week.
The murderous rampage in one of Israel’s major cities March 22 not only left four Israelis dead in just eight minutes, but also delivered a devastating blow to the ruling coalition. It was the worst terrorist attack in Israel in years, made even worse by the perpetrator being an Israeli citizen, a Bedouin from the village of Hura. He was reportedly also a supporter of the Islamic State who had spent time in Israeli prison for security offenses.
Hamas spokesperson Abdel-Latif al-Qanou praised the “executor of the heroic act in Be’er Sheva. Our battle against the occupation continues and we will not stop.”
“The occupation’s crimes shall be met with heroic operations: stabbings, rammings and shootings,” al-Qanou said.
Tensions have risen in Israel and the Palestinian territories ahead of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, slated to begin next month.
On Sunday, a 20-year-old Israeli police officer was wounded in a stabbing attack in the Arab neighborhood of Ras al-Amud in Jerusalem.
A day earlier, an Israeli man was wounded in another stabbing attack in Jerusalem on Saturday by a Palestinian terrorist.
Ah yes, I’m sure we all, Jews and Christians, remember celebrating the holy days during our youth and childhood when we would all go out and try to murder innocent people of a different faith and then our friends and neighbors would hand out candy and sweets if we managed to kill an old woman, a young child, anyone really. /bitter sarcasm.
The first time I ever went to Israel I stayed in Beer Sheva. I loved it. I had a tree with a planter around it that you could sit on out in front of the building. I’d take coffee and my book or journal out there of an evening and write in it, of a morning coffee and prayers. No one ever bothered me. It was a lovely city.
A gunman randomly killed at least five people when he opened fire on a busy street in Israel on Tuesday before he was taken out by cops, reports said.
The suspected terrorist shooting in Bnei Brak, an ultra-orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv, comes after two other attacks by Arab citizens that have sparked fear of ongoing violence ahead of the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on Saturday.
…
The gunman was identified by the Jerusalem Post as Dia Hamarsha from Ya’bad, He was allegedly convicted in 2015 on arms dealing charges related to his affiliation with a terrorist group, the Post said.
With all these Arabs committing attacks that have previous records of crimes does anyone know if the criminal supporting “judge” Ketanji Jackson has been working in Israel? Obviously they were set loose to commit other crimes. Though we are assured Ketanji is a lovely lady by RINO Susan Collins Susan Collins to vote ‘yes’ on Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court, in first Republican backing Side note unrelated to current story, this is why you never ever send money to the republican party. Just don’t do it. Your welcome.
The two gunmen opened fire at a bus stop in the city, which was located near several restaurants. Both of the gunmen were killed by undercover police officers who happened to be eating nearby, according to The Times of Israel, and six others were wounded in the shooting.
Thankfully they appear not to have been “woke” cops.
The wave of terror continues in Israel. A Palestinian terrorist on Thursday morning boarded a public bus near the Etzion Bloc of Jewish settlements in Judea and stabbed a passenger with a screwdriver.
But the murderous plans of the would-be killer were quickly ended by an armed civilian who neutralized the threat.
Murad Barkat, a resident of the Abu Tur neighborhood of Jerusalem, has been indicted for the stabbing attack of a 35-year-old man about two weeks ago on Derech Hebron Street near the First Station plaza in the city.
The attack in Beer Sheva was stopped by armed citizens. The one in Hadera by off duty under-cover officers, the one in Bnei Brak was stopped by Police, one of whom was a Christian Arab officer who gave his life.
Haredi, religious Jews pay respects to Christian Arab policeman who gave his life to stop Bnei Brak terrorist attack
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We know during Rama-Damn that the Arabs celebrate their holy day by trying to kill innocent people. That it is praise worthy. So let’s look at some reactions to the most recent wave. Just a few.
“We the Jews are the very provocation, and until we vanish, the terror won’t end” This article has views from the political right and left. But for those that don’t know, Naftali Bennett, the current Prime Minister was head of a party called “Yamina” which means rightward. He campaigned saying he would never form alliances with the left. But Israel had a weird political system and no political party got the magic number of over 60 votes, so Bennett promptly formed an alliance with the left wing nut Benny Gantz who not only threw Jews out of their homes in Gaza (and that’s worked out so well) but the snakey Bennett had said in the past that Gantz should never become Defense Minister. So of course he joined forces with him and now Gantz is Defense Minister. He also enlisted Yair Lapid, and, wait for it, Mansoor Abbas. Head of the Arab the Arab joint list.
Abbas is also the Deputy Chairman of the Southern Branch of the Islamic Movement. That is not a small matter, given the fact that the Norther Branch of the Islamic Movement was outlawed in Israel.
Well of course he is. Always make political alliances with those trying to kill you in pursuit of personal power. And of course, Bennett can’t/won’t do anything to displease Abbas because if Abbass pulls out of the union, the government falls apart and it’s new elections. So you have a wave of Arabs murdering Israeli citizens and a PM who is scared to do what needs to be done. More on this in a minute.
Umm al-Fahm Mayor Dr. Samir Sobhi Mahamed withdrew his resignation after publishing a letter of condolence to the families of the terrorists who committed the deadly shooting attack in Hadera on Sunday.
Mahamed had announced his resignation in a live interview Thursday evening, only to announce he would remain in office a few hours later.
The words of condolence to the families of the terrorists were published on the official Facebook account of the Municipality of Umm al-Fahm, and were written on his behalf of all municipal employees and residents of the city.
Every terror-supporting Arab-Israeli should have their citizenship revoked, several Israelis said, in what appears to be a growing consensus.
Yes, yes they should. I believe Moshe Feiglin had a great plan for relocation. Sha’i ben-Tekoa has a fabulous plan. Any terrorist not killed committing a terrorist attack will be gathered up with their family taken to the Gaza border and shoved over with the clothes on their backs never to return. The doors will be taken off their house and it will be looted by their neighbors. Done deal.
“Those who dislike the current government will blame the government, those who oppose the occupation will blame the occupation,” said one Israeli man. “It’s all meaningless.”
Pro-tip: Don’t make alliances with those that hate you.
A new immigrant from Moldova, a mother of two, said what’s happening “feels like something new, a different style of terror. Especially when you hear of terror attacks being carried out with firearms instead of knives. You’re never safe, not even in your car, as we saw with one of Tuesday night’s victims.”
She, like many Israelis, feels the blame lies with the police who “had no problem surveilling Israelis who might be positive for COVID-19. How are they oblivious to organized terror attacks?
Ohhh, now that’s a really good question. The police can track and trace innocent people suspected of the crime of having a 99+% survivable flu, but not terrorists. Perhaps they need to re-examine their priorities?
Another Israeli woman, strolling through a local Holon park with her granddaughter, said she feels the attacks are retaliation for Foreign Minister Yair Lapid’s Negev summit, which took place earlier this week with ministers from Abraham Accords nations, Egypt and the US. “It agitates [the Palestinians]. On the other hand, we don’t invest in their education, their infrastructure. It turns Palestinians resentful toward us.”
Um, Ma’am, they get “education” oh yes indeedy they do. And like the American school system that is churning out kids that are groomed for depravity from kindergarten on up but can’t do math or science they know all 57 genders by third grade. Falestinian UN-schools have school books that teach Jews stole the land, and its good for Arabs to kill them, so yep you’re investing in their education, it’s just not the education you hoped for. Much like American parents who are waking up.
Others have already decided to take security into their own hands. A father in his 30s revealed he is one of the many Israelis who have filed a request for a license to carry firearms.
And this brings me back to the start of my column. Israel has very strict gun laws. Firearm Licensing Department This is in English, but like the Torah:
The information provided in English is for explanatory purposes only. In case of any discrepancy, the definitive and binding version is the Hebrew wording of the law or the information provided by the Ministry of Public Security in Hebrew.
Government policy doesn’t turn on a dime. But now Naftali Bennett, is telling people to carry, if they can.
During the upcoming Islamic month-long holiday of Ramadan, which begins on Saturday, Palestinians traditionally ramp up their violent, unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians. According to a Dutch study cited by the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, “Ramadan brought with it a 200% increase in terrorist attacks in Israel between 2005 and 2016.”
And Rama-Damn hasn’t even started.
Closing thoughts, for those that want to judge Israel severely, I point out in the past when there have been waves of condemnation towards Israel, similar things begin to happen to U.S. And with President Puddin’ Heads puppet masters planning to open the flood gates of illegal immigration there will soon be plenty of opportunity.
To the feckless Bennett, you knew they were snakes when you picked them up. Now everyone will suffer because of your desire to be PM. You call on everyday Israelis to solve the problem but you have them crippled with strict gun control laws. How do you expect that to work out? Thus the point in my platform; rifles, handguns and shotguns all have different purposes. Every Israeli (not household, each) citizen can be armed with no ammunition limit.
Both of our countries right now are being led by people that hate us, they say you get the government you deserve, and looking at all the craziness going on maybe so. But I didn’t think we’d been that bad. But, ultimately, it’s not what I think, it’s what G-d thinks. אין עוד מלבדו
I know, shocking that I’m not fielding phone calls from Israeli political parties isn’t it?
It’s been a while since I delved into the murky world of scholarly pro-victim-disarmament papers. Let’s take a look at Can States Block or Heavily Restrict the Second Amendment Constitutional Right by Following the Design of Texas Bill 8? (PDF). Basically, the weirdos compare the alleged right to abortion to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (yet oddly keep talking about licensure). The paper is a difficult to read mess, mainly — I suspect — because they have no frickin’ clue what they’re talking about.
In this research we ask three interrelated questions. First, does the Second Amendment right constitute an afront to International Law’s right to life under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)? If yes, can states adopt a design similar to Texas Bill 8 to ban or extensively regulate the second amendment right? Finally, what are the intrinsic differences between the right to bearing arms and the right to abortion? If they are intrinsically different, this research calls for examining each of them under a different scrutiny standard. In order to answer the last question, we assess two landmark cases regarding abortion and right to bear arms currently pending before the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to predict the future of those rights.
At the first glance, it follows from a logical point of view that allowing anyone in the street to possess lethal weapons only results in more homicides, assassinations, and general chaos even when initial purchasers meet the arm licensing conditions. [emphasis added]
Only?
Yet the potential dangers surrounding bearing arms did not enter public discourse until after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Not until 1963? I seem to recall something in 1934.
Money quote:
Taking our findings into account, we argue that the US Supreme Court should assess the right to abortion under a strict scrutiny standard, and the right to bearing arms under an intermediate scrutiny standard.
So abortion, not a right until 1973 — and not to be found enumerated anywhere in the Constitution should be given strict scrutiny. But a right recognized by states prior to the Constitution and specifically enumerated therein for more than two centuries should only get intermediate scrutiny?
The second practical concern was to guarantee personal and state autonomy against the federal government. This was influenced by John Locke’s thesis legitimizing revolution against oppression or injustices.36 By examining these practical concerns in the 21st century, they seem to be largely hyper-vigilant. Further, these practical concern could easily be rebutted by the distinction between militia’s right in bearing arms (which is currently substituted by the police force) and bearing arms for personal self-defense.
Ah, NO; the “police force” is not the militia. One might expect a law professor to know something about the law, particularly in an area he chose to write about. But clearly he doesn’t:
Perhaps the majority created this exception on a misreading of history regarding the ban of shotguns and machineguns…
When did that happen? I was aware of registration requirements for machineguns and short-barreled shotguns (the previously linked National Firearms Act of 1934), but when did this alleged ban happen? Anyone? Bueller?
Dear Bog, they even slipped in this BS argument:
In contrast, an accurate originalist interpretation of the second amendment would lead to a contrary result: namely, banning most firearms currently existing since they are not the same – technologically – as the ones existed in the 18th century when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the second amendment.
The next victim-disarming idiot who uses a smart phone connected to a computer network operating over fiber optic lines to tell me the framers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment never envisioned modern firearms, and that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is getting bitch-slapped.
James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.
Consider yourselves slapped, bitches. And recall that repeating firearms predated the very existence of the United States. By centuries. These folks’ knowledge of history is matched only by their knowledge of federal law. Well, lead author Yacoub is an “International Lawyer” practicing in Egypt, so perhaps there’s some slight excuse for his ignorance. But Briggs claims to be a practicing US attorney; G-d save her clients.
Section II of this paper gets interesting, in a morbid way. Now they bring up the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — more a hash of muh socialism and a checklist of things governments can do to their citizens, than a bill of individual rights — and argue that it trumps the Second Amendment, because life. You see, keeping and bearing arms somehow violates someone’s right to life; but ending a life through abortion doesn’t.
The right to life was specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); regional conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights among others.90 Invoking the right to life was very influential in abolishing the death penalty in many nations.91 Yet the indirect relationship between the right to life and the US constitutional right to bear arms remains unexplored to a large extent.
In the HRC General Comment No. 36 issued in 2018, paragraph four, in particular, connects the right to life and states’ obligation to implement policies so a person is not arbitrarily deprived of their life. “[A]rticle 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law.
No.
Under the Convention, gun control is essential to protecting the right to life. While persons can claim self-defense of the individual person as an exemption to criminal responsibility, it does not trump the fundamental right to life that is inherent in international human rights law.109 Even if there was a so-called “right to self-defense,” States still have a positive legal obligation under the Convention to implement gun control measures to protect their citizens in the collective sense and not the right of one individual to carry a gun.
I said, “No.” An aggressor’s “right to life does not trump my right to self defense — protecting my own life, BTW. And defending myself against a specific individual who attacks me is not arbitrary; I’m not randomly shooting every sixth person that walks past.
I really wanted to analyze this whole mess for you, so you wouldn’t have to. But I’m going to have to stop only a third of the way through, for the sake of my own sanity if nothing else. Feel free to read it yourself. But be aware that it only gets worse.
As a warning of what you’ll encounter, note that these two scholastic schizos have done a number of papers together. My personal morbid favorite is the one where they argue for the United States to adopt Sharia law to “solve the problem of US mass incarceration.”
Beating, hand-chopping and beheading as an alternative to prison time? That might make “the rehabilitative approach of the Icelandic criminal justice model part a bit tough to implement.
(A)It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone
.
(B)Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i)on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii)if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
If you are concealing properly, that may not not be much of an issue. Who’ll know if you’re carrying? Although if some anti-rights type happens to know you do…
At any rate, it would not surprise me greatly if the feds try to come up with some new enforcement action to catch good guys.
Be alert.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
