Pigpen51 left a comment on an earlier column regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals complicity in California’s brazen violations of the Constitution. He thinks the Supreme Court needs to make some rulings with absolutely no wiggle room to allow California — and like-minded oathbreakers — to continue enforcing bad laws.
I hope that they do so with, shall we say gusto, or extreme prejudice, or with a heavy gavel? Because if they leave even the smallest crack in the rebuke, no doubt the anti Constitution liberals will find a way to yet again hold things up
Crack? Taking advantage of a “crack” is what they did with the original Gun-Free School Zones” law. SCOTUS tossed it, so they passed a new bill virtually identical to the original, with “moved in interstate commerce” tacked on.
Mostly they don’t worry about cracks anymore. If a law gets tossed, they simply pass it again with the punctuation slightly altered, and declare that it’s new and SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on this one. That forces the pro-freedom types to waste time and money to fight what is essentially the exact same law. Blue state legislators and AGs don’t mind because it isn’t their money they’re wasting; it’s yours.
SCOTUS should have put a stop to that decades ago. Now, emboldened by SCOTUS’ failure to slap them down, they’re escalating. California just passed a couple more bills that clearly violate BRUEN. And they know it. Newsom said so, saying that they will not be bound by the “general, historical legal tradition” demanded by BRUEN.
“Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.”
And it wasn’t just Newscum saying it. It’s actually in the bill passed and signed. (It helps to read the “Whereas” rationalization preface to bills, and not just the hard action portions.)
No longer will they need to “keep kicking that can down the road.” If SCOTUS doesn’t start arresting these scumbags, they don’t need to “change the makeup of the court” that they’ll ignore anyway.
Governor Newsom signed a couple of more bills yesterday, as if Commifornia didn’t have enough laws.
SB 2 raises the age to purchase any firearm to 21 years, and increases areas where firearm possession is banned.
within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public
Governor’s Mansion, or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature. (The governor’s mansion? Perhaps Newscum realizes how unpopular he’s becoming.)
the grounds of the Governor’s Mansion or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature.
any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport
a public transit facility
an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.
They generously exempt “place of residence or place of business or on private property.” If you live in a school zone and want to take any firearm that could be concealed carried somewhere else, it must be unloaded and locked in a case and transported in a motor vehicle or locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle. That means if your sole means of transportation is foot or bike, you’re screwed. Same with public transit buses, unless the bus can pick you up directly on your private property, and drop you off on private property.
But just in case they might have missed an area, there’s 25850
A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city, city and county, or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.
Streets, sidewalks, parks…
I’m sure all of California’s frustrated gangbangers are fretting over how this will impact their crime sprees.
But of you still want to buy a gun, and you’ve turned 21, prepare to shell out a lot more money. AB 28 adds a new 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. I expect ammo sellers in Nevada are pleased.
I’ll bet you’re thinking that these restrictions might run afoul of the BRUEN test of “general, historical legal tradition.” Newscum thought of that.
Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.
Yep, this was intended to out-right violate the BRUEN decision. Judge Benitez will have fun with this.
This column puts my personal contributions to The Zelman Partisans over 50% of all of our columns. I fear this makes TZP a little one-sided. Please, we welcome columns from other people. If you are interested in writing about 2A issues, particularly from a Jewish perspective, contact me.
“The order is being enforced, and citations will be forthcoming from the State Police,” said Caroline Sweeny, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office. ”To ensure officer safety, we will not be providing additional details at this time.”
Multiple people were live streaming the event in Old Town which turned into an open-mic lasting several hours for anyone in attendance, mostly armed with at least one weapon, to share feelings, concerns and possible threats in reaction to the order.
It appears Grisham expects the Staties to identifying “offenders” from video, and cite them for violating her unconstitutional diktat. Reportedly the Albuquerque police did have a surveillance “device” set up for the even, as they seemingly often do. But given the police chief’s opposition to the ban order, it seems doubtful that he’d assist them by providing video or still shots.
But several people live-streamed the event, so the governor may just pull that off the Internet. It wouldn’t surprise me if she tries geofencing the protest; but that leaves her with proving that a particular cell phone was carried by an armed person.
Next, she has to find someone willing to put his name on the citations, and open himself up to the expected 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Finally, she needs a bunch of Staties brave and stupid enough to serve the unconstitutional citations on armed citizens.18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242, again.
Will the State Police do this? While the Bernalillo sheriff, Albuquerque police chief, and district attorney were quick to weigh in negatively, I’ve seen nothing as yet from the State Police.
The State Police web site is notably devoid of any contact data other than a physical address and a post office box; no telephone numbers, email addresses, or contact form (other than a way to compliment them). I finally located a contact form for the Department of Public Safety, under which the SP falls.
I sent this a few minutes ago.
Good day,
I am a firearms policy and law analyst for The Zelman Partisans. I have a few questions regarding enforcement of Governor Grisham’s and Secretary Allen’s action in banning public possession of firearms.
Given that the Albuquerque police chief, Bernalillo County sheriff, and the Albuquerque district attorney have all announced that they will not enforce the unconstitutional edict, is the New Mexico State Police going to enforce it, as Grisham has claimed?
Has the State Police considered the Second Amendment implication in light of the BRUEN decision test of general, historical legal tradition?
Has the State Police consider the ramifications of the NM state constitution, Sections 4 and 6?
If the State Police choose to enforce this, what action will you take against any officers who refuse to participate and open themselves up to 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law charges?
Given that at least three groups have already filed lawsuits (NAGR, GOA, and FPC, I believe), are you willing to be added to the lawsuits?
Are individual State Police officers willing to be added to the lawsuits?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your replies.
A young man in Minnesota is facing a September trial for the unlawful possession of two firearms without serial numbers. The problem with the charges is that the firearms in question were home builds; private manufacture, not commercial.
The County Attorney and law enforcement have charged Walker with violating MN 609.667 because his privately made firearms do not have serial numbers on them – despite not being required under federal law – and, in our opinion, not needed under Minnesota statutes.
Whoever commits any of the following acts may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:
(3) receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.
…but, it not quite.
As used in this section, “serial number or other identification” means the serial number and other information required under United States Code, title 26, section 5842, for the identification of firearms.
Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
If you’re an idiot Sherbourne County deputy, county attorney, or judge mostly unfamiliar with federal law, that probably seems clear. They forgot to look at the chapter definitions, described in 26 USC 5845.
(a)Firearm
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
That chapter is talking about commercial manufacture and NFA firearms. Unless Walker‘s firearms are short-barrel rifles, or other NFA item, federal law does not require serial numbers. The firearms in question appear to be an AR-pattern 9mm pistol and an AR-10 with a 20 inch barrel. Not NFA.
My guess is that — unless someone hits the County Attorney with a clue bat, Walker will initially be convicted, the courts being what they are these days.
He should win on eventual appeal; though Ghu only knows how high the appeals will have to go. It’s going to be expensive, so if you can, you might contribute a little something to his GiveSendGo legal fund.
And once Walker’s record is cleared, he needs to sue the ever-loving s–t out of the idiot deputies and the County Attorney. None of them can claim good faith ignorance of the law since…
Walker informed the deputy of the federal laws around PMFs and not requiring a serial number if for personal use. And since he is a lawful gun owner, no restrictions on owning them. The deputies detained Walker for several hours, and confiscated his firearms.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Yesterday, June 6, 2023, federal judge Robert J. Bryan issued a ruling denying a preliminary injunction against Washington’s “assault weapon” ban. In my not so humble opinion, this proves that it is high time for the elderly –88 years old — Bryan to retire.
Reading his decision, a couple of points jumped out at me. I’ll begin with one that would almost be funny if the topic, victim disarmament, weren’t so serious.
Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change – they allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns.
Possibly the mentally challenged judge meant that such arms can be fired repeatedly “as fast as they can pull the trigger.” But specificity in law matters; we’ll take him at his specific written word, and note that any firearm, since the medieval hand cannons fired by setting a light to the touch hole, can be fired simply by pulling the trigger.
Allowing that maybe in his dotage he did mean rapid repeat fire…
Paging Jerry Miculek!. Eight rounds on target. In one second. With a revolver, not a semiautomatic firearm.
Moving on to the very next sentence:
While semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 were invented in the 1950s, the growth in ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons proliferated in the late 2000s.
Bryan, please note those were in the 19th century. We’re currently in the 21st century, and the basic idea of semiautomatic firearms is hardly innovative anymore.
That part was merely morbidly amusing (if you have my sort of twisted sense of humor). Bryan’s explanation of why Washington’s ban does not run afoul of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling (which requires to be constitutional, a gun control law must be based in a general historical tradition) is scary. “General” meaning that isolated local laws don’t count; and “historical” meaning somewhere in the chronological neighborhood of the passage of the Second Amendment or earlier.
For an example of an applicable law, he cites local laws against carrying — not a ban on ownership — of Bowie knives not even invented until decades after the proper historical time frame. Bryan is clearly losing it.
Nay, completely lost it. Because he also cites…. Well, in his own words:
[C]omplete bans on the possession of certain weapons (as opposed to laws forbidding the carrying of those weapons) did not occur as much in our early Nation’s history because the federal and state governments did not have the “maturity, powers, tools, or resources” to implement and enforce a complete ban.
Yes, he cited nonexistent laws which he supposes would have been passed and enforced, if only the poor government had the sheer raw power to get away with it. In his mind, it seems that constitutional authority derives from tyrannical, police state force not the ratified agreed-to words of the actual document.
And I guess he figures that Washington has accumulated sufficient power now, so it’s all good.
We’ll see. If constitutional authority now comes down to who has the most guns and accurate targeting, and not the legal language of the Constitution and courts, Bryan may be putting himself out of work, retirement or no. After all, mightn’t some people decide that if might makes right, is on the side of the heaviest artillery; why not skip wasting money on court challenges and go straight to Bryan’s preferred test-by- fire-power?
This ruling was so bizarre that I wondered if his… thinking was reflected in other cases he’s heard. The very first case I found in a quick search was Tingley v. Equal Rights Washington, in which a therapist was challenging the state’s ban on “conversion therapy. Bryan ruled against Tingley.
Regardless of your personal take on “convesrion therapy” (“curing” people of homosexuality), Bryan’s rationale in this should also raise questions about his mental competence.
The prohibited conduct at issue here, performing conversion therapy, is analogous to doctor giving a prescription for marijuana because it involves engaging in a specific act designed to provide treatment. In contrast, the speech at issue in NIFLA, notice requirements that regulated the information a provider must give to its patients, is more analogous to a doctor recommending that a patient use marijuana because both consider information that a provider may discuss with a patient.
TL;DR: You can have opinions on “conversion therapy” or medical marijuana, and discuss the options with a patient. But you can no more conduct/prescribe “conversion therapy” than you could prescribe medical marijuana. Prescribing marijuana is unlawful, so “conversion therapy is unlawful. Or so Bryan thinks.
Except that in Washington, it islawful to prescribe medical marijuana, and had been for decades when Bryan made that error-riddled ruling.
You’d think that a professionally, and mentally, competent judge could come up with a better comparison. Or at least one that wasn’t exactly the fricking opposite of what he was claiming. Considering the two cases together…
“Might makes right.” That’s one heck of a constitutional test. And I can hardly wait to see what the Ninth Circuit makes of the proposition. Do they uphold the state’s ban, or do they do a quick head count to see who has more guns and might — the state or the people — and decide accordingly?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Based on the majority of snooze stories, I was chalking up the Louisville bank shooting to workplace violence. Multiple reports had it that he had been, or was about to be, fired. Not so much, apparently.
[Some asshole] made three key points in the manifesto, which is in the hands of the police: he wanted to kill himself, he wanted to prove how easy it was to buy a gun in Kentucky and he wanted to highlight a mental health crisis in America.
Hmm. On the one hand, he seemingly thought that there’s some much “gun violence” that guns must be further restricted. On the other hand, apparently there wasn’t enough gun violence, so he had to stage some himself.
What the SOB really was… was a terrorist. No different than a psycho suicide bomber.
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Good riddance.
Victim disarmers will probably — secretly — consider him a martyr. The Daily Mail report seems to; given the way they use his case to illustrate why he was “right” and Kentucky gun laws are dangerously lax. Why if you aren’t a known criminal, and haven’t been ruled mentally ill, or use illegal drugs, or any of the other restrictions on gun possession, and if you’re old enough… why, you can go to a gun store, undergo a background check (to confirm all the above) and by a gun.
* I won’t give him the post mortem fame he wanted by using his name, unless it’s necessary for research. Clearly, the Daily Mail doesn’t agree; they give his name 33 times in just that one report.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Reminding gun owners what he did for the protection of the Second Amendment and pledging to do much more, former President Donald Trump closed the National Rifle Association’s main event Friday with a stemwinder that brought the crowd to its feet.
What he did for 2A protection? Lessee…
He did roll back a bizarre interpretation of 3D printer files as munitions (something that report falsely characterizes as “banning 3D-printed guns”). And he reversed the VA’s blatantly unconstitutional and illegal reporting of people to NICS. I’ll give him those.
On the other hand, he also signed Fix NICS, prompting states to arbitrarily convert more people into prohibited persons and felons.
And there was that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointee who thinks, “the Second Amendment has no application to state laws.” What could possibly go wrong?
Even more damaging, he magically turned inert pieces plastic into machineguns, by executive fiat. That did more damage to 2A-protected rights than any Dim president had managed in decades. Estimates vary, but turned tens to hundreds of thousands of people into unindicted felons. And more than a few indicted and convicted.
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool. Well, Trump did used to be a Dimocrat.
He established the precedent that federal bureaucrats are free to redefine words at will, without enabling legislation, to call any damned thing they want “machineguns.” And the ATF immediately ran with it; they live for this… excrement.
The Rare Breed Triggers FRT-15 trigger group, which requires the trigger be pulled for each round fired, suddenly became a “machinegun,” by using the exact same “logic” of “operation of operation of the trigger” really meaning “volitional movement of the finger. Oops; more newly-minted felons.
On a roll with redefining words, they came for pictures. Yep, thanks to Trump’s precedent, the ATF decided that line drawings of unassembled pieces of lightning links really are machineguns. A couple of folks are on trial for that even now, including a guy who let people run ads for the Auto Keycard, but never even sold them himself.
The Trump precedential damage continued with braced pistols becoming short-barrel rifles, after they specifically were not. But at least they gave you the options of begging permission to pay for the privilege of keeping them, or self-incriminating and hoping they’d make an exception for you. More felons.
And he’s “pledging to do much more?” While didn’t act on them before, Trump has supported no-due process red flag orders, raising the age to buy any firearm to 21, and an “assault weapon” ban. Is that the “more” he’s promising? If the Dims were paying attention, they’d nominate Trump themselves over Xiden.
On the bright side, Trump’s Supreme Court picks might… might eventually repair the damage he did to the Second Amendment. But his actions will still cost us millions of dollars in legal expenses, endless man hours, and hard work — not to mention the harm done to plaintiffs and improperly charged defendants — to get the Court to reverse him. (And note that the brilliant BRUEN decision was not written by a Trump appointee.)
If it were just his SCOTUS picks, economic work, and the incredible Abraham Accords, I’d be happy to see Trump elected again. But the man has zero impulse control on Second Amendment issues; he can demonstrably be panicked into rash action by any high profile incident.
And we have to live with his impulses.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Unlike the old Brady Bill waiting period, this one isn’t limited to purchases from FFLs, nor is it just five days
SEC. 2. 7-DAY WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF A FIREARM.
(a) Prohibition.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(aa) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to transfer a firearm to a person not licensed under this chapter unless at least 7 calendar days have elapsed since the transferee most recently offered to take possession of the firearm.
Any person, any transfer, with very few exceptions; all temporary.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—
At a range, hunting, or if the owner is physically present the whole time.
There are no exceptions for family members, not even for inheriting family heirlooms when granddad dies.
How exactly this would be enforced is left unexplained. It would seem to require complete firearm/owner registration (not in the bill), or an army of ATF agents swarming the country to make entrapping private purchases.
Seeing as how they still haven’t figured out how to get blackmarket dealers in stolen guns to comply with background check requirements, this seems unlikely to do anything about real malum in se crime.
Not that it’s really meant to.
It’s probably worth noting that this bill is co-sponsored by New Hampshire’s own Ann Kuster, who may be the stupidest member of Congress whose impairment isn’t obviously due to physical damage, or over-medication.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no – that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control – more restrictive than even the laws of New York City – is a human right.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
I would maintain that this is because the U.N. thinks they are G-d. G-d has a different command.
1 Praise be to the L-RD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.
As well as we are commanded to look out for the weaker or helpless.
Psalms 82:4
4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
So, what has set me off on this? An incident that happened in formerly red state Texas. And maybe Texas is still a red state, Austin however, is not. If Texas had any sense they would expel Austin.
In July 2020, during the summer of riots for a man that overdosed on drugs, had a criminal record including pointing a gun at a pregnant woman’s stomach, a BLM/Antifa rioter decided it would be a great idea to point a loaded rifle at a soldier who was working as a ride share driver. Apparently BLM/Antifa scum thought he would be the only one armed. He guessed wrong. Sgt. Daniel Perry was armed. When his car was surrounded after he had dropped his passenger off, and aforementioned BLM/Antifa rioter pointed his rifle at Sgt. Perry, Sgt. Perry shot him. This seems sensible to me.
This will be the last sensible thing in this saga for some time.
The Travis county jury found Sgt. Perry guilty of murder. Unbelievable. But wait, there’s more.
Fugitt said, “It became clear to me that the District Attorney’s office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or show the witnesses statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such witnesses gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question.
And now we’re at the point where the adults are going to have to intercede.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton slammed Soros-backed Travis County DA Jose Garza after a jury convicted a Texas soldier of murder for shooting a BLM-Antifa terrorist in self-defense.
A Texas soldier was found guilty of murder on Friday after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots.
Texas AG Ken Paxton slammed the Soros prosecutor after Governor Abbott refused appear on Tucker Carlson’s show to speak on the case.
Apparently the State of Texas no longer recognizes the right of self-defense. @GregAbbott_TX is welcome to come on and discuss. pic.twitter.com/A7o5MvZTVy
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he is seeking to pardon the U.S. Army sergeant who was convicted of shooting dead a man wielding a gun at him during a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020.
Abbott announced on April 8 that he will pardon Sgt. Daniel Perry, 37, who was working for Uber in Austin at the time, as soon as a request from the state’s parole board “hits my desk.”
“I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry,” Abbott wrote on Twitter.
There is a heck of a disconnect between the brain of a leftist and reality. Of course, if they used voting machines for the elections, who knows.
Chicago Mayor-Elect Brandon Johnson (D) told CBS News on Thursday his plan to tackle the city’s crime problem: Send more social workers to crime scenes.
Johnson, a staunch progressive, pointed to instances where police killed black men as evidence to say more police officers are not the solution.
While this is away from the topic of self-defense, it does I think give a clue to the mindset of the politicians on the left.
The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.
FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.
Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants.
Did this go through Congress? Senate? House? Hellloooo, did ya’ll vote for this? You’re our elected representatives, you answer to U.S. Did you sign off on this? Or did a tyrant just hijack your job in another blatant attempt to help China and limit the freedom of movement of American Citizens? The EPA, I don’t remember voting for them.
This is where I’m going with this, yes, there is a Second Amendment. However, if the Soros purchased D.A.s just ignore it (for some, not the protected class of course) and go ahead a prosecute even in a clear case of self-defense, does it matter? No ammo or guns were banned, it’s just if you defend yourself they will try to bankrupt you, or put you in jail for defending your life. If you’re not one of the BLM/Antifa rioters, or a repeat offender criminal, those they do catch and release.
Sometimes I read threads on Quora, there are discussion thread on all kinds of things. You might be reading a thread on a TV show, and the next thread under it is a question posted about “what would happen if I decided to take a gun away from someone I saw carrying” “Is there any reason I and some friends shouldn’t follow someone into a bathroom we know is carrying a gun and take it away from them”. “When will gun owners admit their right to have their weapons of death should not interfere with my right to feel safe”.
It is absolutely appalling to me the number of people that think they have the right to forcibly take private property from someone they don’t know, they aren’t doing anything wrong, and these moonbats think they are well within their rights to attack someone and steal from them. Thank you colleges, universities and MSM aka #FakeNews. If anything ever was a argument for concealed carry, it’s this sort of thing.
There is NO common ground to be found with these people. None.
Cognitively challenged Uncle Gropey Biden purports to know what all Americans think. He doesn’t know what he thinks, even with a teleprompter. (This is the senile, serial plagiarist, serial fabulist who just mistook two pistols and a pistol caliber carbine for two select-fire AK-47 assault rifles.)
Even if true — and have you ever seen a poll that accurately and specifically described what the pollster means by “assault weapon” — so the eff what?
America is not an absolute, direct democracy, where anything goes so long as an alleged majority want it. We are — or are supposed to be — a constitutional republic.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
That means eligible voters elect representatives, who in turn legislate within the constraints of the Constitution.
What can Congress do? That is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8. Read that list and just try to find “ban the possession of any firearm by the citizens.”
Where arms are mentioned in the Constitution, the Second Amendment…
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.
And since the oathbreakers are still dreaming up imaginary “governmental needs” to rationalize it: Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While you’re looking at that, Xiden (someone help him with the big words), notice that “States” and “people” are listed specifically and separately. When the Constitution means States, it says States. When it means the individual people, it says people. So blow that The Second Amendment means the States can have militias stuff out your… nether regions.
For those still having trouble with the concept, look at SCOTUS decisions in HELLER, MCDONALD, and BRUEN.
For those stupid enough to raise the old But they’re weapons of war; we must ban them, go for it.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
No doubt Xiden will be threatening US citizen with tanks, fighter jets, and bombs again any time now.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
