United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- By now, Second Amendment supporters are probably aware of what the ACLU put out regarding the origins of the constitutional provision that protects our right to keep and bear arms. This isn’t a mere whopper, it’s a Triple Whopper with Bacon and Cheese – with appropriate apologies to that delicious fast-food burger for being associated with a blood libel.
The Founders of this country had a lot to say about the Second Amendment and why they included it. The history of both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment discussed in a pair of landmark Supreme Court cases also has a lot to say about the ACLU’s version of history. In fact, Clayton Cramer makes a compelling case that it is the effort to deny Americans of the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights that is founded in racism.
Suffice it to say that the ACLU’s lie is easily refuted. But let’s think about what the ACLU was doing with this attack. They wanted to smear those who are defending the Second Amendment as defending the evils of slavery and racism. In essence, there was nothing about history in their post. It was about sticking a social stigma on those who defend the Second Amendment.
Why the social stigma?
Because these days, corporate America is buying a lot of nonsense, and when you consider that corporate America, notably Silicon Valley, are actively making moves against the Second Amendment and its defenders, and have for a while.
There is just one big problem: They need to find something to justify continued censorship. Jen Psaki blew up one of the fig leaves a few weeks ago. So, if the government cannot flag so-called “misinformation” for Silicon Valley to censor, those who want to cut off Second Amendment supporters from being able to even make the argument have to find a new pretext. Phony charges of racism will do nicely, especially as a way to dehumanize Second Amendment supporters.
These lies can have serious consequences, and Second Amendment supporters need to hold the ACLU accountable. Second Amendment supporters need to be very vocal in calling out these lies. The ACLU’s decision needs to also have repercussions for them. Only we will not be using the underhanded tactics of the likes of Letitia James and Andrew Cuomo. In this case, we will exercise our First Amendment rights. We will be writing letters to the editor of your local paper is one means to do so. We will contact our federal, local, and state elected officials as well, to point out the ACLU’s despicable smear.
Those who can see the truth about that and who will support our Second Amendment rights will be rewarded with our support. Those that don’t will have to be dealt with at the ballot box as soon as possible, whether they are at the federal, state, or local levels.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- How would it sound to you to get paid by the State of New Jersey to break the law? Well, if that is appealing to you then standby because you’re not going to want to miss this.
It’s no secret that New Jersey has conceivably the worst gun laws in the country. In the Garden State, subjects can only possess firearms legally under two circumstances according to the statute.
If you want to possess (or purchase) a shotgun or rifle (long gun) you must have a valid firearm owner’s identification card.
If you want to possess a handgun/pistol you must have a valid permit to carry.
Those are the circumstances of firearm possession in New Jersey not covered by the exemption.
To obtain a firearm owner’s identification card (FID) one must go through an application process, background check, proof of employment must be supplied, fingerprinting, mental health background check, paying off numerous fees, and having two people not related to the applicant vouch for them. Getting an FID is a pain but if you don’t have any disqualifiers, you’re usually granted one. Yes, there are plenty of hellacious exceptions to this and there are plenty of local jurisdictions that do not respect this fundamental right, but for the most part, getting an FID is straightforward in New Jersey.
To obtain a permit to carry, the ordinary peasants in the Garden State cannot get those. Unless you’re politically connected or in some sort of security-related field, you’re more than likely not going to obtain a permit to carry. New Jersey is one of the final holdout states that just does not think ordinary citizens are entitled to their enumerated, god-given, birthright to both keep and BEAR arms.
Every other scenario concerning the possession and transactions of firearms in the state of New Jersey is through a narrow group of exemptions. This is where you, a citizen, are being invited by the state to break the law and get paid!
You read that correctly, the New Jersey office of Attorney General is asking citizens to break the law, risking receiving felony convictions, by taking part in a so-called gun buyback program! But before we go over that, let’s discuss those possession exemptions to make sure we’re not missing anything.
Without either of the documents, a person may possess a firearm in their home, place of business that they own, at a range, and at a gunsmith’s shop. People may also transport their firearm directly from their home, to the range, or their place of business, etc., without any unnecessary deviations, and then directly back. To repeat, you can not drive or transport your firearms to any other place inside of NJ that is not one of these few listed exemptions.
Enter the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, the Chief Law Enforcement Agency for the entire state of New Jersey.
The AG’s website recently posted online the following:
GUN BUY BACK – CASH FOR GUNS EVENTS NJ residents can anonymously turn in up to 3 guns. NO questions asked! Saturday, August 7 10AM – 4PM
Atlantic City, East Orange, Newark and Paterson
Up to $250 per weapon!
The release continues:
In partnership with Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia Valdes, Acting Essex County Prosecutor Theodore Stephens II, and Acting Atlantic County Prosecutor Cary Shill, Acting Attorney General Bruck announced that the state- and locally-sponsored “Guns for Cash” events will be held on Saturday, August 7 in locations in Passaic, Essex, and Atlantic counties.
Residents can turn in firearms with “no questions asked,” and receive as much as $250 per weapon. Police officers will be stationed at each buyback location to collect and secure the guns. The gun buyback initiative is funded with forfeiture dollars obtained by the local police departments and County Prosecutors’ Offices, as well as forfeiture funds from the Division of Criminal Justice.
Where are these gun “buy backs”, more appropriately called by Cam Edwards “compensated confiscations” occurring?
East Orange
New Vision Baptist Church
100 Warrington Place
Newark Prudential Center
25 Lafayette Street
Paterson
St. Luke’s Baptist Church
139 Carroll Street (A.M. Tyler Place)
Atlantic City
Atlantic City Fire Station No. 1
John R. Jasper Jr. Memorial Fire Station
900 Atlantic Avenue
Paterson Gilmore Memorial Tabernacle 68 Bishop Clarence Gilmore Blvd
There are a couple of things that your attention needs to be drawn to.
First, none of the locations listed are one of the places people are allowed to legally possess firearms within the state exemptions. Want to hand in a handgun for the whopping $250.00 bribe? Well, if you don’t have a permit to carry, you’d be breaking the law. Have an old rifle in the closet from granddad and want to be rid of it? If you don’t have an FID card, don’t even think about transporting your firearm to one of those locations. The AG’s office touts these as “safe locations“, but nowhere in New Jersey’s laws is there a vehicle to host one of these law-breaking buy-back events.
What assurances are people offered if they’re stopped on their way to one of these locations to dispose of a firearm? There are none. But hey, the AG says it’s okay to break the law.
Second, not that I advocate for this, but let’s be real here, the AG is making it super easy for criminals to dispose of evidence. Are you a criminal that is in possession of a defaced firearm or one that you discharged during a crime, like maybe a murder? Well, the AG will take that firearm from you “no questions asked”.
If you’re tired of throwing your murder weapons in the river, use this opportunity to make some money while ridding yourself of potentially harmful evidence to be in possession of.
And finally, third, there is money to be made here folks! Are you a collector? Do you have a LOT of guns? Do you have some old junk guns? Well now is your time to shine! Bring your junky old wall hangers to one of these compensated confiscation programs and get paid good money for them! Something you picked up years ago for fifty bucks could now be worth five times that! Talk about a good return on your investment. Or better yet, seek out some junk guns to buy on the cheap and offload them at one of these locations. This is a win-win for someone that wants to turn their old junk guns into cash to buy a newer and more modern well-functioning firearm. With the prices of ammunition today, $250.00 will help buy a good amount of rounds to feed through your firearms! And the state is begging you to break their law in the process.
Just remember person-to-person firearms sales are illegal in New Jersey without a state background check!
Don’t think this is a worthy endeavor? Take a look at these circumstances where it was a win for “buy-back” customers:
The group, Guns Save Life, brought home “thousands of dollars to use” for the camp after trading in guns at the June 2 event at New Life Covenant Church in Grand Crossing, said John Boch, the executive director of Guns Save Life. Boch, of Downstate Bloomington, was able to trade in two guns for $100 each, and he said other group members who went to the buyback were also able to trade in guns for money.
…
The guns Boch turns in at the events are “mostly scrap,” he said: They’re usually old and unusable, but even the newer ones that the Guns Save Life members turned in were all “broken down, all non-firing, missing parts and pieces.” Some appeared to have been through fires or rusted beyond use, he said.
On Monday, the city’s Police Department paid gun owners anywhere from $25 to $500 for their unwanted firearms and magazines in an attempt to get weapons off the street, FOX 45 News reported.
…
While some residents turned in firearms that went unused for years, a woman who went by the name Darlene told the station she was turning in her 9 mm so she could “upgrade to a better weapon.”
“I don’t know [what type of weapon],” she said. “I haven’t quite decided.”
These are a few of the many stories of people profiting over such absurd events as a gun “buy back”. Now, if you’re one of the people out there that legitimately wants to get rid of a firearm you have for some money, you’re best off reaching out to a federally licensed firearm dealer. Talk to them, find out the value of what you have, and try to sell it through or to them. There have been so many instances of rare and valuable firearms being traded into some of these events that people would be willing to pay real good money for. If you’re afraid that the firearm would then be “out on the street” for illegal use, rest assured many collectors looking to pick up war relics and rare firearms are not going to be out running amuck with a priceless firearm.
I reached out to New Jersey gun lawyer, Second Amendment advocate, and author of several books Evan Nappen about this absurd program for his perspective. This is what he had to tell me about compensated confiscations:
“It’s the feel good, no impact on crime, fool the public, no questions asked, destruction of evidence, crime gun disposal program. These so-called ‘Buybacks’ lure the unsuspecting to transport and possess their guns outside of any statutory exemption. All this, while the State vigorously enforces its gun laws on honest citizens for any infraction, no matter how trivial.”
The fact of the matter is gun “buy backs” are feel-good “look we’re doing something” failures. They do nothing to increase the public safety of the neighborhoods they purport to serve. In fact, a study recently noted that there is an acute increase in crime in areas that recently had firearm buy backs. Why? Because the bad guys know that there are fewer guns in the area.
Over the last decade, over 100 U.S. cities have adopted GBPs with the hope of reducing gun crime. Using data from the 1991-2015 National Incident–Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), this study is the first to comprehensively assess the impact of city GBPs on gun crime and firearm-related violence.
Our findings provide no evidence that GBPs are effective at deterring gun crime, firearm related homicides, or firearm-related suicides in the short- or long-run.
…
Moreover, we find some evidence of a small, short-run increase in gun crime in the two months following a GBP. This result is consistent with the notion that GBPs primarily target low-risk firearms that are more likely to deter crime than be used in the commission of a crime (Kuhn et al. 2002) and with the hypothesis that some criminals may be emboldened by their perception that victims will be less likely to defend themselves with deadly physical force (Lott 1998).
So there you have it, you can profit off of New Jersey’s illegal and sad excuse of a public safety event.
If you get caught with a gun heading to one of these “safe locations”, just tell the cops “The AG told me to do it.” Send us an email from jail, we’d love to hear about your experiences, and maybe we’ll help find an attorney to start a go-fund-me for you. If you succeed in offloading some old junk guns and buy something neat and new with the money, snap some selfies and be sure to thank and tag Governor Murphy and the NJ Attorney General in your social media posts.
A new George Washington University survey reveals divided sentiments about using force to preserve America’s way of life.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A stunning George Washington University poll conducted in June revealed that “Over half of Republicans (55%) supported the possible use of force to preserve the ‘traditional American way of life,’” while also finding that 47 percent of Republicans think there may be a time when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.”
Another finding listed in the survey is that Republicans are far less likely (21%) than Democrats (83%) to say that “changing the nation’s gun laws is very or somewhat important.”
As reported by The Hill, “support for principles like free and fair elections, free speech and peaceful protest were nearly unanimous among Democratic and Republican voters.”
However, The Hill also noted, “Republicans were significantly less likely to have a strong amount of faith in local and state elections. Eighty-five percent of Democrats expressed trust in local election officials, with 76 percent saying the same of state officials, compared to 63 percent and 44 percent, respectively, for GOP voters.”
What this survey actually accomplished was to show the continuing, and perhaps widening divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun rights, and how political partisans disagree in their understanding of what the Second Amendment is really about. As grassroots gun rights activists repeatedly remind one another on social media, it’s “not about duck hunting.”
Considering the reductions to police departments in some major cities over the past year—a result of the “defund police” movement and an apparent decline in morale among police officers due to what they see as a lack of support from elected officials—it probably should not be surprising to see an increasing number of citizens concerned about having to act as their own first responders in life-threatening emergencies.
Amid the turmoil of 2020 and continuing into this year, gun sales have continued briskly in many parts of the country. Some estimates have put the number at 8 million new, first-time gun owners have joined the firearms community.
Alarming to gun rights activists, that survey also found 46 percent of respondents “said that limiting gun ownership was more important than protecting the Second Amendment, while 44 percent said that gun ownership rights were a higher priority.”
In May, Pew Research released a report citing eight “key facts about Americans and guns.” This poll also illustrates the divide between party philosophies on the Second Amendment.
According to Pew, the eight points are:
Around half of Americans (48%) see gun violence as a very big problem in the country today.
Attitudes about gun violence differ widely by race, ethnicity, party and community type.
Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019.
Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings.
There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive.
Americans in rural areas typically favor more expansive gun access, while Americans in urban places prefer more restrictive policies.
More than four-in-ten U.S. adults (44%) say they live in a household with a gun, including about a third (32%) who say they personally own one.*
Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm.
(*There is an interesting aspect to this question on gun ownership, and it came up recently in an Elway poll conducted in Washington State. When survey participants were asked whether anyone in their household owned a firearm, 42 percent said “yes,” 44 percent said “no,” but a sizeable number (14%) declined to answer. It is becoming more frequent that gun owners refuse to answer such a question because they do not believe it is anyone’s business whether they own a gun. Washington, incidentally, is a state with about 7.3 million residents, and there are currently more than 625,000 active concealed pistol licenses in circulation. That translates roughly to about one in nine or ten adults in the state who are licensed to carry, and roughly 20 percent of them are women.)
Among the prickliest of issues may be that 80 percent (or more) of Democrats “favor creating a federal database to track all gun sales and banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose the proposals,” Pew said.
Gun owners have long opposed a federal gun registry, a sentiment that could be more
However, 72 percent of Republicans “support allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (66%)” Pew added. Democrats, on the other hand, are largely opposed. Only 20 percent support broader concealed carry and 24 percent supported the idea of armed teachers.
The George Washington University poll revelations about the differences between Republican and Democrat responses underscores the concern American gun owners have about the push to change the nation’s gun laws and make them more restrictive under Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Pelosi-Schumer Democrat majority on Capitol Hill.
The political landscape could change dramatically in November 2022, largely driven by those concerns. Between now and then, however, activists will have their hands full blocking the gun control schemes that have already been introduced, and those yet to be revealed.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Then-clerk, now mayoral candidate Michael Dekota McRae lies his head off. (Thumbnail: Iowa Firearms Coalition YouTube video)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “McRae moves past felony conviction to make a change in self, Rockingham,” The Richmond Observer reports. “When candidates file for political office, one of the questions they’re asked is if they’ve ever been convicted of a felony … According to a disclosure form, Michael Dekota McRae wrote down that he was convicted of ‘conveying a threat.’”
“After law school, I was convicted and served time in a federal prison,” McRae admits on his campaign website. “I made a mistake and I own my mistake. I paid my debt and I learned from my experience.”
He’s not owning anything if that’s as far as he’ll go. We went into detail on what McRae did five years ago on this site, highlighting findings by the Iowa Firearms Coalition that detailed how, as a legislative aide to an anti-gun politician he faked a racist hate hoax/death threat letter. He put white powder in the envelope and then opened it on the Iowa State Legislature floor during an active chamber session, forcing an evacuation of the Capitol.
His reason? He wanted to derail “stand your ground” legislation. Here’s what McRae said:
Sorry, but a “mistake” is where you’re adding numbers and neglect to carry over to the next column. This was a premeditated and evil plot that by all rights should have been treated as an act of terrorism, rather than with the prosecution — which had him dead to rights — simply charging McRae with “false information and hoaxes.” So much for “paying his debt.”
What do you think the feds and media would do if they could pin actions like this on one of the “Capitol insurrectionists” (with that fabricated term purposely placed in quotes)?
McRae minimizing his crime shows what he’s “learned from his mistakes” is that with the right level of constituency ignorance and citizenship malpractice, any criminal can be a successful politician. And that felony conviction making him a “prohibited person” doesn’t hamper his ability to blame guns for violence instead of perpetrators. From his website’s “Vision” Page:
“No child should be bullied into choosing gun violence over peaceful solutions.”
The attackers are the victims. With “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The Supreme Court has, at least for now, kicked the Second Amendment can a bit farther down the legal road. How much longer can this continue? Dave Workman photo)
Amicus (friend of the court) briefs are submitted by parties who wish to bring facts and arguments before the court, which might not otherwise be noticed by the court.
This is an important function. It has the potential to prevent absurdities such as happened in the first direct challenge to a federal law using the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, 1939. That case challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was sent back to the District Court, in part, because the Court ruled no one had presented evidence that short-barreled shotguns were useful to a militia.
In the New York case, 52 amicus briefs have been accepted by the Supreme Court. Amicus briefs are required to be submitted in a rigid format, with strict printing requirements, on a fixed timeline. This author was contacted to contribute to one of the amicus briefs. Unfortunately, events prevented such a contribution.
What appears to be the last amicus brief accepted was from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid of New York City.
As with most amicus briefs accepted by the Supreme Court, it is well written and argued. The bar for acceptance is high. This brief spotlights the enormous human costs of the routine violation of Second Amendment rights by the State of New York.
Those who have been involved in the fight to restore Second Amendment rights are familiar with those costs: Innocent lives destroyed, lives lost, years in prison, property lost, children lost, marriages destroyed, all because governments have been unwilling to recognize the exercise of Second Amendment rights, and courts have been unwilling to enforce those rights. Here is the summary of the amicus brief. From the supremecourt.gov:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The incorporated Second Amendment affords the people “the right to keep and bear arms.” U.S. Const. amends. II, XIV McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.742 (2010)District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Despite the clear text and this Court’s precedent, New York’s licensing regime does the opposite. It deprives everyone of that right, only returning it to those select few who manage to first secure a firearm license from the police. For everyone else, possession of a firearm is effectively a “violent felony,” punishable by 3.5 to 15 years in prison. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.03; 70.02(1)(b). New York’s licensing requirements criminalize the exercise of the fundamental Second Amendment right with rare exception.
As a result, each year, we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. For our clients, New York’s licensing regime renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction. Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment right are Black or Hispanic. And that is no accident. New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today.
The consequences for our clients are brutal. New York police have stopped, questioned, and frisked our clients on the streets. They have invaded our clients’ homes with guns drawn, terrifying them, their families, and their children. They have forcibly removed our clients from their homes and communities and abandoned them in dirty and violent jails and prisons for days, weeks, months, and years. They have deprived our clients of their jobs, children, livelihoods, and ability to live in this country. And they have branded our clients as “criminals” and “violent felons” for life. They have done all of this because our clients exercised a constitutional right.
Therefore, we ask this Court to answer the question presented in a way that will protect the Second Amendment for all the people: by holding that Petitioners’ license denials violated the Second Amendment because New York’s licensing regime is unconstitutional.
This correspondent has a minor issue with the argument in the second paragraph.
New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities.
The sentence is true. It does not go far enough. A primary purpose of the New York scheme was to prevent people from fighting back against organized crime in New York City. The proponent of the scheme, Big Tim Sullivan, was one of the leaders of the Tammany Hall Gang. Extortion does not work as well if your victims are armed.
Over the decades, this correspondent has seen innocent people arrested, jailed, sent to prison, their property confiscated, their lives ruined, their children taken, their careers destroyed, all for exercising their Second Amendment rights. A fair number have been killed.
No system is perfect. The Constitutional system of ordered liberty with checks and balances to limit governmental power has been shown to be the best implemented thus far. It allows for continual improvement.
Much progress has been made in restoring the legal exercise of Second Amendment rights. Much more needs to be done.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Opinion
Another Crazy Marxist Notion About The Origin Of The Second Amendment.
Crosscut 7-29-2021 “Jay Inslee’s racial equity agenda must include gun control” screengrab Note the dangerous carry by a Seattle Riots supporter. No educated, trained, safety-conscious, gun-owner would ever risk carrying a gun in this way.
“Gun violence is a public health crisis in communities of color, and the Second Amendment has roots in slavery.” —opening remark in an article titled, “Racial equity agenda must include gun control,” as published in the Leftist website, “Crosscut,” on March 8, 2021 by Clyde W. Ford .
In tandem with the incendiary myth of “critical race theory,” thrust on the public and on our children by a Marxist-controlled Federal Government, a Marxist-controlled public educational system, a seditious, legacy Press, a Marxist-inspired Press, and arrogant Marxist academia, there is the erroneous and dangerous myth by the Nation’s Obstructors and Destructors that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has its roots in racism:
“The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in America’s racist past, and fundamentally connected to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others. But to make this connection, one must be a “strict constructionist,” someone who looks beyond the Constitution’s written word to the underlying motives of the founders.
At the Second Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, Southern delegates were fearful the U.S. Constitution they were drafting would restrict their right to own, sell and transport slaves. In response, Northern delegates crafted a document in which nearly one-quarter of the clauses appeased the slaveholding South, and the words “slave” or “slavery” never appeared. The Second Amendment was key among these appeasements.
Patrick Henry, a Virginia slaveholder, opposed ratifying the Constitution, fearing it would cede state control of slave patrols (politely called “militias” by the founders) to the federal government. James Madison, favoring ratification, said in a debate with Henry, “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.”
Take either side, Henry’s or Madison’s, local or federal, and the same fundamental issue remained: preserve slavery at all costs.” Id., supra
This, in essence, as set forth in Ford’s article, is the rationale behind the myth perpetrated and perpetuated by America’s Neo-Marxist zealots, i.e.: “Since the Second Amendment is to be perceived as inherently racist, it must be abolished.”
On its face, this is a bizarre, absurd notion, hard to take seriously, but a dangerous one nonetheless because there are many people who do take it seriously. It is bubbling up and through the Nation, permeating the Nation’s universities, seeping into the grade schools and high schools, embracing, as well, the equally ludicrous idea that the United States is a Nation of white Race Oppressors and of black slave Oppressed. And, although the Neo-Marxists are loath, these days, to use the phrase, “Critical Race Theory,” in the Press and on broadcast and cable news, given the groundswell against this propaganda, now that the public is well-aware of the intent of the Marxists to indoctrinate the Nation’s youth, it cannot be denied that “Critical Race Theory” lies at the core of the “1619 Project,” which IS the new comprehensive lesson plan to replace the traditional teaching of history in our Nation’s public schools. “Critical Race Theory” is the salient idea at the core of the Neo-Marxist 1619 Project. See article in CATO.
This new attack against the Second Amendment is predicated on the inane theory that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was created by Racist white men to keep oppressed black men enslaved. This idea is of a piece with everything else that Neo-Marxists fault America for: the entirety of our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture that they seek to tear down, to pave the way for the shell of what it remains of a once-proud, powerful, and wealthy and healthy, and exuberant independent, sovereign Nation and a free, sovereign people, to be merged into a transformative, transnationalist, Neo-Marxist, Globalist political, economic, social, and cultural governmental scheme, reducing the citizenry as a whole to a sad existence of poverty, misery, and, curiously enough, slavery, too.
But of all the schemes falling under the irrepressible, boisterous Neo-Marxist mantra of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” it is the elimination of the Second Amendment that is absolutely essential to the Neo-Marxist game plan.
Essential if their Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776 is to have a concrete effect and lasting success. This little but insistent fact about the need to get rid of the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is papered over by America’s Neo-Marxists.
Claiming the Second Amendment has its roots in racism is simply one more avenue of attack America’s Neo-Marxist leverage against a Country forged on the tenets of Individualism and on a Judeo-Christian Ethic, the predicate basis of the U.S. Constitution; the blueprint of a truly free Republic in which the American citizenry itself is the sole sovereign, and those that serve in Government are the Nation’s mere caretakers.
As Long As Americans Remain Armed And True To Their History, Heritage, Culture, And Moral Precepts, And Reject, Outright, The Inanity Of The Marxist Messaging, The Marxists Will Fail.
The concepts of a free Constitutional Republic, and a free, independent, sovereign Nation, and an American citizenry as the Nation’s sole sovereign were all borne of the American Revolution of 1776 and these concepts became concrete; a reality; the essential backbone of the United States of America.
A free Constitutional Republic, and a free, independent, sovereign Nation, and an American citizenry as sole sovereign—are all seated in fact—resting in the psyche of the American citizenry, residing forever in ancestral memory; and are not so easily dislodged from ascendency, so long as the American people remain armed.
It was firearms in the hands of steadfast Americans that won the American Revolution of 1776, and it will be by dint of firearms in the hands of steadfast, resolute, American citizens now, 250 years later, that Americans will be able to preserve their free Republic, their liberty, and their sovereignty against a horrific, usurpacious, rapacious, abrasive, sanctimonious Marxist-led Government; and against this Marxist Government’s fellow travelers in the legacy Press, in social media, in academia, in sports and entertainment; and against an astonishingly gullible, insular, malignant Marxist mob. Mammoth evil forces have a firm hold over our Country, metastasizing rapidly throughout its length, and breadth, and depth.
Only through the preservation of an armed citizenry will Americans be able to successfully resist this Anti-American Marxist Counterrevolution of 21st Century. And these Marxist Anti-American Counterrevolutionaries know this all too well. They are very aware of the indomitability and invincibility of an armed citizenry, and they know they must crush Americans’ resolve if they are to succeed in their goal of annihilating every vestige of America’s past.
A Truly Monumental Struggle Is Upon Us.
Americans are beset by tidal forces intent on destroying not only the structural foundations of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic, along with the Nation’s long-standing political, social, and educational institutions, but are intent on destroying the very ancestral memory of the people of the United States. To that end, the Marxists find it necessary to undercut the Bill of Rights and, especially, to annihilate the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, which is codified in the Second Amendment.
And, slowly, inexorably, the Marxists are drawing a noose around the ultimate failsafe against tyranny: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
To date, these Marxists have been working gingerly around the edges in attacking the Second Amendment, since Biden and Harris, through chicanery, assumed the Article 2 Authority. But, as with every other aspect of American life and as with every sacred fundamental, unalienable right that Americans cherish, they, through their secretive Marxist handlers, are assiduously going after civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms and, of late, with much more than the usual customary jealous, audacious zeal. They are trying their damnedest to now tie the most cherished of Americans’ rights—and the most important to the maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic and to the sovereignty of the American citizenry—to the ever familiar, noxious notion of “racism.” This latest charge is as repugnant as it is absurd.
But will the power of the seditious, legacy Press and of the monopolists of social media and of the internet in fomenting and provoking substantial rage against the very notion of an armed citizenry, provide conditions sufficient for military and police action against tens of millions of armed Americans? And, what then? Will Americans “call or fold”?
Whether the Marxist Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776 yet succeeds in this Country, it will come down to that ultimate decision of a game of poker, but with the highest stakes on the table: Preservation of, or the loss of, a free Constitutional Republic and a free sovereign people.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) needs to change its name. At this point, it’s false advertising. IMG: iStock-1245041394
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) needs to change its name. At this point, it’s false advertising.
The ACLU recently argued that “anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws.” That’s plainly arguing that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as a tool of racist control of slaves. The posting by communications intern Ines Santos was an introduction to a podcast that included opinions from several professors who wholeheartedly agree the Second Amendment is racist and is a tool to deny civil rights to African-Americans.
It’s clear the ACLU is a shadow of its former self. It’s not the bastion to protect God-given liberties, but to drive special interest agendas. The ACLU’s disdain for the Second Amendment as a foundational and individual right isn’t new, but it is an attempt to flip it on its head. The ACLU‘s argument that the Second Amendment is a tool of oppressors doesn’t just ignore history. It is rewriting cold, hard facts.
Backlash
The criticism over the outlandish claims was as quick as it was severe. The Twitter-sphere lit up with reactions denouncing ACLU for peddling falsehoods.
Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby noted the irony that the ACLU was denouncing the Second Amendment at a time when African-Americans are claiming their gun rights in record numbers. “The ACLU has completely lost the plot. Meanwhile, the [sic] National African American Gun Association, which began in 2015 with a single chapter in Atlanta, now comprises more than 75 chapters with 30,000 members,” Jacoby tweeted.
NSSF’s own retailer surveys in 2020 showed African-Americans were buying guns at a 58 percent increased rate over 2019. At the same time, Hispanic-Americans were buying guns at a 49 percent increased rate and Asian-Americans at a 43 percent increased rate.
National Review writer David Harsanyi lambasted the claims as “nonsense,” and linked to a previous article where he debunked the same claims pushed by the 1619 Project as “wishful thinking.” Harsanyi refuted the theories, pointing out that John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams were abolitionists who argued against slavery and for the right to keep and bear arms. Harsanyi pointed out the ludicrous presumption that if African-Americans are being denied their rights, then that right must be stripped of all Americans.
“We don’t attack the idea of free speech simply because people are denied its protections,” he wrote. “That fact only accentuates its importance. For most of our history, self-defense was also seen as an immutable right that existed with or without the sanction of the state.”
Real Racist Roots
Maj Toure, the founder of Black Guns Matter, told The Daily Caller in his usually blunt fashion that claims the Second Amendment is racist is an attempt to, “brainwash black people into believing that having the means to defend themselves is nefarious. I think gun control is racist, not the Second Amendment.”
Toure explained to The Daily Caller these attempts to twist history are exactly why he and his organization are dedicated to educating the public about their rights.
That used to be the role of the ACLU – to educate the public and defend civil liberties from government infringement. The Second Amendment is a second-class right in their estimation, though. The ACLU doesn’t agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Heller decision that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right. They contend, still today, that owning a gun is a governmental matter.
“Given the reference to ‘a well regulated Militia’ and ‘the security of a free State,’ the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right,” the ACLU website states.
The ACLU isn’t just ignoring a Supreme Court ruling that’s over a decade old, they’re ignoring legal history that’s nearly 400 years old. That’s the racist history of gun control laws. Gun control is literally rooted in slave codes and Jim Crow laws. Some of those laws – like requiring local sheriffs to approve handgun sales – still exist in North Carolina. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication pointed out that in 1640, Virginia already had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts. Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes after the Civil War.
Even as late as 1994, the Clinton administration “introduced H.R. 3838 to ban guns in federal public housing, which would have affected 3 million individuals.”
Attempts to twist history to fit a particular narrative aren’t in anyone’s interest, least of all when those who would do it pretend it is for the greater good. Nothing is further from the truth. The Second Amendment clearly isn’t a white right or a Black right. It is a God-given right of all Americans to freely exercise at their choosing. If the ACLU can’t defend that, they need to change their name.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
The DuraMag now offered by MSR works great with your favorite AR-15, like this LaRue Tactical Ultimate Upper build with SilencerCo Saker ASR 762 suppressor from SilencerShop.com IMG Jim Grant
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- HB 957, the new silencer/gun muffler/suppressor law, will become effective in Texas on 1 September 2021. On that date, the Attorney General, Ken Paxton, will be able to accept written notification by a United States citizen who intends to make a firearms suppressor as per Section 2.052 of the new law. The Attorney General shall then seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court.
There is strong Supreme Court precedent the federal government may not command a state to enforce federal law, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
HB 957 goes far beyond anti-commandeering. It sets up a test case to undermine the pernicious doctrine which has crept into the federal judiciary over the last 80 years. The doctrine is: all commerce is essential, interstate commerce, and may be regulated by the federal government. From HB957 (now law):
Sec. 2.052. NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. (a) A firearm suppressor that is manufactured in this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation,including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
(b) A basic material from which a firearm suppressor is manufactured in this state, including unmachined steel, is not a firearm suppressor and is not subject to federal regulation under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as if it actually were a firearm suppressor.
Sec. 2.053. MARKETING OF FIREARM SUPPRESSOR. A firearm suppressor manufactured and sold in this state must have the words “Made in Texas” clearly stamped on it.
Sec. 2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution.
The United States Courts have created the precedent, since 1942 in Wickard v. Filburn, that all commerce may be regulated by the federal government, because all commerce affects interstate commerce. The precedent has established by courts overwhelmed with justices who were ideological Progressives.
Several cases, starting in 1995, with U.S. v. Lopez(1995), then U.S. v. Morrison(2000), and even “Obamacare” NFIB v. Sebelieus (2012) establish a different precedent, that the power of the United States government to regulate commerce has some limit.
The most problematic of these sorts of cases is Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). In Raich, the Supreme Court held that people growing Marijuana in their own homes for their own use affected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation by the federal government.
Justice Thomas wrote a famous dissent in Raich, which was decided 6-3. Justice Thomas is the only member of the court who created the Raich decision who is still on the court.
The National Firearms Act (NFA), which is the base federal law used to regulate silencers/gun mufflers/suppressors, is a good test case to work to advance the precedent which limits the federal power to regulate all commerce.
The historical record is clear. The taxing power was used, in the case of the NFA, to avoid the limitations on the federal government placed by the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the commerce clause. The legislative intent is well documented.
There are numerous precedents that using government power to restrict fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, is invalid. For example, newspapers may not be taxed more than other, similar establishments.
In other cases, the federal courts are reluctant to restrict taxing powers.
The logical problem is, if you allow taxation of the exercise of Constitutional rights, you grant the government the power to violate those rights.
Silencers are the weakest part of the NFA. There was virtually no legislative history to give intent for the extreme tax on silencers. The tax is not popular; it taxes a safety device, there are numerous examples and statistics to show the tax does not reduce crime.
Silencers are increasing in popularity, while their use in crime is negligible. There are over 400,000 legal silencers in Texas.
Federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have been reluctant to restore constitutional checks and balances, and, especially, limits on federal power, after 80 years of Progressive infringements. The best approach is to offer the court small, incremental steps restoring rights, rather than “all or nothing” efforts that require the courts to invalidate vast expanses of law all at once.
This correspondent believes the way to expand the doctrine of limiting federal power over the commerce clause and to invalidate the NFA, is to argue that a person making a silencer for their own use, in their own state, is not “commerce” as defined in the commerce clause of the Constitution.
If everything is commerce, the commerce clause allows the federal government to invalidate the concept of federalism, by invalidating state power to regulate its internal affairs; and to invalidate the Second Amendment by allowing the federal government to selectively apply excessive taxation to a disfavored, fundamental right.
Arguing an individual, making a safety device, for their own use, which has virtually no effect on interstate commerce, is beyond a reasonable interpretation of the original meaning of the commerce clause, has a chance of being accepted by the federal courts.
Arguing a business, selling a commercial product inside a state, is beyond federal power, is much harder. It has a much lower chance of succeeding.
Limits on federal power, which have been stripped away by Progressive courts over the last 80 years, are unlikely to be restored all at once. They can be restored, incrementally, over time.
This correspondent recommends the examples used by AG Paxton be selected with care. Sympathetic examples are best; perhaps poor, minority, single mothers can be found. Selecting sympathetic clients has become a major part of jurisprudence in the federal courts.
If you believe you could be helpful to AG Paxton, you may want to contact him.
The law is set up so the AG can challenge the federal law before any items are made in Texas, under the new law.
This correspondent suspects such efforts are already underway. It is likely the briefs to be filed in federal court are already sketched out.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is not a fool.
It would be poor judgment to set up a shop and start to manufacture and advertise “MADE IN TEXAS” silencers/gun mufflers/suppressors before the Texas AG legal challenge is completed.
Privately made and discreetly held gun mufflers, on the other hand, will be much harder for federal or local authorities to find and/prosecute under the new law, because state and local authorities will be risking their budget to do so. Federal authorities mostly depend on local authorities to find cases.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- For years, voters in the Evergreen State have been assured that if only they approve certain gun control ballot initiatives, they would “save lives” and reduce crime. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), the organization pushing these ballot measures, has made an industry (if the term applies to an entity funded by donations from billionaires) out of peddling a new gun control law every so often.
The first measure WAGR and its allies proposed was Initiative 594 (2014), the so-called “universal background check” law, which required a federal background check for almost every gun sale and transfer, including temporary transfers, gifts and loans. The preamble to the initiative referred to the law as “an effective and easy mechanism” to eliminate access to guns by criminals, but it applied indiscriminately to artifact loans to museums as well as transfers during firearm safety classes and by licensed professionals in the security guard industry.
The second measure was Initiative 1491 (2016), a 21-page measure to authorize courts to remove firearms from persons presumed to be dangerous, based on allegations made by past or present spouses, dating partners, cohabitants, or any other persons related by blood or marriage. As with I-594, this was presented as a means of reducing violence and saving lives.
Initiative 1639 (2018) was also premised on increasing public safety, in this case by imposing a firearm storage requirement and restricting “semi-automatic assault rifles,” a made-up term that includes rifles used for legitimate and ordinary hunting, sporting, and competition activities. According to the initiative, “shootings involving the use of semiautomatic assault rifles have resulted in hundreds of lives lost…”
The NRA and others opposed these ballot initiatives, arguing they would accomplish nothing except to further burden honest gun owners. Law enforcement groups opposed I-594 and I-1639, stating the measures would have no impact on public safety or crime as criminals would “continue to ignore the law.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Washington State declined to support I-1491, citing concerns with the stigmatizing of mental illness, due process protection, and its questionable effectiveness.
Washington voters, though, chose to trust WAGR and the promised results.
Several years later, one way to evaluate the benefits of these initiatives is to examine information on crime rates and crime. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) publishes an annual report on crime in the state, compiled from data submitted to the Washington State Uniform Crime Reporting Program by local law enforcement agencies. The primary objective of the report “is to implement and administer a uniform system of collecting crime and arrest statistical data … and present the information in complete, accurate, and timely method.”
Contrary to the claims made in promoting the restrictions on “semi-automatic assault rifles,” the reports establish that rifles of any kind are rarely used in murders in the state, and this has consistently been the case before I-1639 was approved. In 2012, rifles were identified as the weapon in just three murders that year, compared to knives (28), blunt objects (12), and “personal weapons” like hands, fists or feet (11). Knives, personal weapons, and blunt objects continue to exceed, by a large margin, the use of rifles in murders for every year since. In 2018, for example, rifles were used in two murders, while knives (45), drugs/narcotics (7), personal weapons (17), blunt objects (9), and even vehicles (3) were much more likely to be the weapon of choice. This trend continues into 2020.
Another useful indicator is the movement of the state’s crime rates. The WASPC reports show that the rate for “crimes against persons” (those where the victim is always an individual, like homicides, sex crimes, assaults, and violations of protective orders) has increased from 10.15/1,000 pop. in 2013 to over 13.0 in succeeding years. The rate for what the reports call “group A” crimes, a much broader class that includes the above offenses as well as burglary, kidnapping, property crimes, and others, has been climbing, too, since the first initiative was enacted. In addition to these escalations, the latest report for 2020 contains a further worrisome sign: while violent crimes overall dropped during the pandemic year compared to 2019, the number of murders statewide in 2020 jumped by almost 50% over those of the previous year.
The number of “weapon law violations,” defined as “[v]iolations of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons,” has been increasing since 2013. According to the reports, these violations are overwhelmingly related to possession or concealment of a weapon rather than weapon use, and are therefore classed outside of the “crimes against persons” category. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the proliferation of new gun laws, violations have gone from a 2013 rate of 0.58/1,000 pop. to 0.76/1,000 pop. in 2020.
Based on the representations and assurances of WAGR and its like-minded supporters and enablers in light of this crime data, Washington’s voters are justified in asking how it is that their communities and lives have been made safer since these initiatives were imposed. Instead, by expanding state laws regulating the sale, transfer, possession, and storage of firearms, even by lawful owners, the initiatives have made it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves and their families against criminals, and much more likely that these ordinary citizens will inadvertently violate a firearm restriction and become criminals themselves.
Causes of crime are often complex, but the message for voters in Washington State and elsewhere is simple: criminals ignore laws, so adding more laws to fix the failure of criminals to comply is not a solution. Ask questions about proposed “gun violence prevention” schemes and whether these are, in fact, the “evidence-based solutions” they are held out to be. Beware of billionaire hobbyists spending millions to bankroll gun control laws to restrict the freedom and fundamental rights of everyday Americans.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
How many times does this piece of firearms history have to be declared “legal”?
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “David Codrea, Scott Heuman, and Owen Monroe lawfully owned bump stocks,” an amicus brief in support of a complaint by Gun Owners of America, filed Monday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh, declares. “They relied on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (‘ATF’) repeated express approval of so-called bump stock-type devices. Despite the ten-plus years of approval, the ATF reimagined and redefined terms in an unambiguous criminal statute to outlaw bump stocks under penalty of prison, fines, and loss of Second Amendment rights.
“As such, they have an interest in the outcome of this case because a positive ruling in the instant matter will assist them in their efforts to have their lawful property returned to them in the future and will help guide other courts in reaching the correct conclusion which is that bump stocks are not machineguns,” the brief explains.
GOA explained its actions in a Monday press release, defining why fighting the ban is essential for all gun owners:
“[P]ermitting ATF to reimagine bump stocks as machineguns in this case will have serious future repercussions, some of which are already occurring. [GOA and GOF] argued that, under the Final Rule, all semi-automatic firearms could qualify as machineguns… Enough is enough. The federal courts cannot stand idly by while ATF continues to blatantly evade the statutes Congress wrote through cutesy ‘interpretations’ of the text, thereafter rubber stamped by judges through use of Chevron deference. The statutory definition of ‘machinegun’ has a clear and unambiguous meaning, and it obviously does not include bump stocks. It is “emphatically the duty” of this Court to find and declare the meaning of the text.”
Forcing a court-ordered return of the property has been my goal. My device fits no rifle that I own but is nonetheless a collector’s item signed by its inventor, Bill Akins. Our complaint, which includes a “takings clause” claim, has wended its way from a standalone action against an acting attorney general to being consolidated with the Guedes v. BATFE complaint. The Supreme Court punted on hearing us, and both cases are currently pending before their circuit courts. So a positive GOA ruling would definitely revitalize our efforts.
A copy of our brief is embedded below. Because most of us aren’t lawyers, here are links to help better understand the legal arguments you’ll see regarding Chevron deference and the rule of lenity.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
