Gun Haters Never Stop Their Attack On The Second Amendment

Anti-Gun Politicians Using the Pandemic to Advance Their Anti-Second Amendment Agenda

This is dirty!

ByDavid A. Keene

March 26, 2020

2393

4

Fish Cop via Wikimedia Commons

Report Advertisement

Opponents of private firearms ownership are always looking for ways to keep people from buying, possessing or using firearms for legitimate purposes. They refuse to acknowledge the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution which was included in the Bill of Rights by America’s founders to prohibit the new government they were creating from “infringing” on the pre-existing right of people to protect themselves, their communities and their families from those who would deprive them of their freedom. 

When Hurricane Katrina in 2005 devastated New Orleans, the Mayor sent police house to house to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens even as marauding gangs were looting the city. They were stopped only after gun owners got a federal court to put a stop to the practice.

It’s happening again in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and not just in New Orleans. Anti-gun politicians across the country are using the pandemic to advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda in new and sometimes imaginative ways. New Orleans is suspending gun sales. New Jersey has said they will no longer process firearms transfers through the federal National Instant Check System which makes them, in effect, illegal and other states are closing gun stores as “non-essential.”

Colorado, a center of “progressivism” in the mountains has, at the state level at least, refused to shut down firearms sales, but the Mayor of Denver announced this week that while he considers liquor stores and marijuana retailers “essential” enterprises exempt from the shutdown I effect there, firearms retailers do not qualify for the exemption as “essential.”   

All of this is happening in jurisdictions where police are instructed to ease up on law enforcement and prisoners are being released from jails and prisons. Citizens who can no longer rely at all on the police for protection in these jurisdictions are now being told they have no right to legally obtain the firearms they want and need to protect themselves, their homes and their families. Such protection goes to the core of the Second Amendment especially at a time when law enforcement is often consciously AWOL.

These efforts will continue and increase as the shutdown continues. Liberals are appalled at the fact that since the pandemic began firearms sales have been increasing as more and more Americans are deciding that if they aren’t prepared to protect their families, no one will.

The National Rifle Association has just launched a new website designed to keep firearms owners and Second Amendment supporters apprised of these new threats to the Second Amendment. It’s to be found at www.nraila.org/coronavirus and those concerned about their rights in these challenging times would be wise to keep up with how the gun control community is working to take advantage of a crisis to enact new restrictions on those rights.

Its Coming!

This Case Will Tell Us Where The Court Is On The Second Amendment

Sheriffs Group Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down New York City Gun Rules

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

• 407
• Comments

KEVIN DALEYSUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT

November 28, 201912:06 PM ET

• The National Sheriffs’ Association is leading a coalition of police and Second Amendment groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down New York City’s gun transportation rules.
• The sheriffs argue in a brief before the justices that the public safety rationale the city uses to justify the rule does not have merit.
• The court will hear a challenge to the city’s transportation rules on Dec. 2.

The National Sheriffs’ Association is leading a coalition of law enforcement and gun rights groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down New York City’s gun transportation regulations.

The coalition filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief arguing that the city lacks a legitimate public safety rationale for the rule, which prohibits “premise license” holders from carrying their firearms beyond city lines or to any location besides an authorized gun club. The high court will hear a challenge to New York’s regulations on Dec. 2.

“The public safety interest alleged to support the rule is non-existent and unproven,” the brief reads. “There is no proof that premises licensees have ever posed a threat to public safety when transporting their handguns.”

“It is also highly implausible that premises licensees would engage in violence when transporting their handguns out of the city,” the brief adds. “Licensees undergo exceedingly searching inquiries during the application process, and licenses can be refused for even trivial reasons.”

To possess a handgun, New York residents must obtain a premises license. That license restricts possession to the address listed on the license itself. The holder may only transport a firearm to authorized shooting clubs within city limits. The plaintiffs in the Dec. 2 case are three city residents and a firearms advocacy group who wish to carry their guns to vacation homes and marksman competitions outside the five boroughs.

Inspector Andrew Lunetta, who leads the New York City Police Department License Division, said in an affidavit that the restrictive transportation rules are necessary to keep weapons confined in the home, as the premises license requires.

“Investigations have revealed a large volume and pattern of premises license holders who are found in possession of their handguns in violation of the restrictions on their license,” the affidavit reads.

The National Sheriffs’ Association counters that the city should produce specific examples of such violations. City rules require “an investigation and immediate report to the License Division” whenever a license-holder is involved in an incident that draws a police response. As such, the sheriffs group says the NYPD should release those records to prove its claim about wide-spread violations. (RELATED: Mexico Is Urging The Supreme Court To Stop President Trump’s Bid To End DACA)

President Donald Trump greets representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association at the White House on February 13, 2018. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Elsewhere in the affidavit, Lunetta warned that striking down the city’s gun transportation rules could make it impossible to enforce any restrictions on guns outside the home as a practical matter. He hypothesized that license-holders carrying guns in public would fabricate an explanation about traveling to a second home or shooting competition if stopped by police officers.

The rigorous application process for a premises license further diminishes the public safety rationale for the transport ban, the Sheriff’s Association says. Among others things, applicants must appear for an in-person interview; return waivers indicating all members of their household consent to having a gun present; and pass criminal and mental health background checks.

The simple fact of passing those reviews shows a license-holder is not the sort of person likely to commit a crime, the brief argues. In that connection, the sheriffs cite a 2009 article in the Connecticut Law Review showing concealed carry permit holders are “vastly more law-abiding than the public at large.”

“Licensees undergo searching scrutiny before obtaining a license, comparable groups of permit holders from other jurisdictions have repeatedly been shown to be far more law-abiding than the population as a whole, and most violent crime is committed by individuals with a criminal history who are ineligible to obtain a license,” the amicus brief reads.

The Trump administration is also supporting the gun rights plaintiffs in Monday’s case.

A federal trial judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the city at earlier phases of the litigation. After the high court agreed to take the case, the city amended its transportation rules to provide the relief the plaintiffs sought. City lawyers are now urging the justices to dismiss the case as moot, since the plaintiffs got everything they were seeking in court.

The plaintiffs oppose that course of action. They argue New York could revise its rules again at any time, and lower court decisions upholding the transport ban should be overturned in any event.

The case is No. 18-280 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.

Abortion Is Less Important Than Right To Bear Arms, Freedom Of Religion

No, Abortion Isn't a Constitutional Right

Ben Shapiro

|

Posted: May 22, 2019 12:01 AM

  Share   Tweet

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

  

Trending

• 
  Ben Shapiro
  No, Abortion Isn't a Constitutional Right
• 
  Byron York
  Mueller Changed Everything
• 
  Walter E. Williams
  Socialist Promises

In the past several weeks, a bevy of states have passed extensive new restrictions on abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion from point of conception. Georgia has banned abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected, as have Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi. Missouri has banned abortion after eight weeks. Other states are on the move as well.

This has prompted paroxysms of rage from the media and the political left -- the same folks who celebrated when New York passed a law effectively allowing abortion up until point of birth and who defended Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's perverse statements about late-term abortion. According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed "right to abortion" inherent in the Constitution.

This, of course, is a lie. There is no "right to abortion" in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The court's rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad "right to privacy" can be crafted from "penumbras, formed by emanations." Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life -- and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.

CARTOONS | AF BRANCO

VIEW CARTOON

How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of "substantive due process" -- the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn't like the substance of the law. That's asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process,  not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not a 'secret repository of substantive guarantees against "unfairness."'"

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America's moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion -- yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.

Recommended

Mueller Changed Everything

Byron York

For much of the left, then, the term "constitutional right" has simply come to mean "thing I want." And that is incredibly dangerous, given that the power of the judiciary springs not from legislative capacity but from supposed interpretive power. Judges are not supposed to read things into the Constitution but to properly read the Constitution itself. The use of the judiciary as a club has led to a feeling of radical frustration among Americans; it has radically exacerbated our culture gap.

The legislative moves in Alabama and other states will open a much-needed debate about the role of the states, the role of legislatures and the role of government. All of that is good for the country. Those who insist, however, that the Supreme Court act as a mechanism for their political priorities are of far more danger to the country than that debate.

Irony: Armed New Black Panther Party Marches In Support Of Governor Candidate Who Wants Gun Control!

GA GOV: Armed New 

Black

 Panther Party

 Campaigns for Dem

 Stacey Abrams (VIDEO)

Beth Baumann

|

 @eb454

|

Posted: Nov 04, 2018 10:00 PM

  Share   Tweet

The Atlanta chapter of the New Black Panther Party has an interesting way of encouraging people in their neighborhood of getting out to vote: by walking around with some variant of "assault weapons."

In a post on the chapter's Facebook page, they explain that their actions are their own and not that of any other New Black Panther Party chapter.

The group also had a Facebook Live video that showed them walking around Atlanta, trying to encourage people to head to the polls.

One of the men is hearing talking about wanting to protect their right to keep and bear arms. 

"We [sic] marchin'. Everybody wanna know one thing, why we marchin' with a gun. We goin' along with the vote. We got a constitutional right to bear arms. Got a constitutional right to [inaudible]. Got a constitutional right to bear arms. We want all our constitutional rights respected. All in the same way," the man is heard saying.

The most ironic aspect of this group walking around with various "assault weapons" is this:

1) Stacey Adams is a huge gun control proponent. In 2016 she introduced House Bill 731, which "prohibit the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullet." The bill also backed large capacity magazine bans.

2) The guns that these men are marching around with are the kind of firearms that gun control proponents have wanted to make illegal.

Recommended

Even CNN Thought SNL’s Swipe At Former Navy SEAL Was Total Garbage

Matt Vespa

3) At least if these guys are going to walk around and say they have the right to keep and bear arms then they should know what candidates are going to protect and fight for their beliefs. Clearly they think firearm ownership is important. Adams doesn't seem to see eye-to-eye with them on that.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the Black Panther Party as the campaigners. It's actually the New Black Panther Party.

Obama Administration Sat On Its Hands In Hopes Of Crushing NRA

A SET-UP? Deep State FBI Knew Russian Maria Butina Was Working the NRA and Conservatives But Did Not Warn Them She Was a Spy (VIDEO)

 by Jim Hoft July 18, 2018 174 Comments

• 916Share
• 249Tweet
• Email

Russian operative Maria Butina was indicted this week on charges of being a covert Russian agent.

Butina struck up friendships with the influential leaders of the National Rifle Association and the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Butina was charged with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation and is being held without bond.

On Wednesday night investigative reporter John Solomon told Lou Dobbs that the FBI knew about Butina and her operations but they did not warn the conservatives who she was cozying up to.

This is a STUNNING development.

John Solomon: I’ll tell you a little story I’ve never told before. In March of 2015 I observed her at several events and really cozying up to conservatives and making what I thought was a weak-handed case that she was this courageous gun rights activist going up against Putin and there would one day be a Second Amendment in Russia. There’s never going to be a Second Amendment in Russia. I became very perplexed by her behavior and her efforts of going up to presidential candidates and congressional candidates. So I started to do some reporting and I called FBI and US intelligence sources and very quickly I learned, “Yeah, we know that she’s somebody here as an agent of influence. She’s connecte to this guy Tortian(sp?) and we know what she’s trying to do.” And I thought, that’s really interesting. Are they going to tell the people she’s meeting with and it doesn’t appear they ever did. I thought the role of FBI counter-intelligence was to prevent contacts from occurring that are not in the interest of the United States. It sounds like they sat around and watched this for three or four years until it was convenient to create a headline.

  TOP ARTICLES1/5READ MOREAbusive and Corrupt Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman JacksonDoes It Again, Refuses Manafort Plea, Keeps Him in Jail

This won’t help build back trust with the Deep State FBI.
Was this just a set-up on conservatives and the NRA?
It very well may be.

Via Lou Dobbs Tonight: