Tags Posts tagged with "2nd Amendment"

2nd Amendment

by -
0 17

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative people have a rabid dislike for the ACLU.

The ACLU’s latest decision won’t win them any friends on the right.

After the recent protests and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU has announced that they will not defend organizations that seek to exercise both their First Amendment and their Second Amendment rights at the same time. AWR Hawkins writes,

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said, “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the policy shift that Romero highlighted is focused on “hate groups,” which are listed as “white nationalists” and “neo-Nazis.” Romero did not say whether ACLU protection would also be denied to Black Panther protesters who are armed or to communist party members who could rally for the left while armed.

It appears that the ACLU has never heard that, without the Second Amendment, the First Amendment won’t exist.

Look, we can have a discussion about whether the “Unite the Right” protesters were morally good in their positions (frankly, none of the right-leaning people that I know would support the “white power” rhetoric that the “Unite the Right” groups are accused of), but what can’t be argued is whether they have a right to say something that we disagree with or whether we have a right to defend ourselves if attacked, even if that means using firearms if their lives are in danger.

I can’t tell you who started the violence (both white supremacists and antifa protesters have a history of violence), but is anyone seriously going to tell me that anyone having guns made the situation worse? The death that has been in the news most from that weekend involved a car ramming a crowd of people. It wasn’t gun related.

So, again, we have a situation where people react to the idea of the firearm instead of the reality of what caused injury that weekend and what firearms can do to decrease violence, and the only logical conclusion that anyone can come to is that the ACLU got this decision wrong.

by -
3 347

If you concealed carry, then you know about taking the time to think through what you are wearing (part of the point of concealed carry is that you aren’t drawing attention to the fact that you are carrying, isn’t it?). Some clothes will be easier to wear to prevent advertising that you are carrying than others.

You probably also know that you’ve had to tend to shop in gun shops or other specialty stores to find clothing specifically made for carrying, but this may be about to change. It appears that Wal-Mart is, at least, testing the waters to see if it will be profitable for them to carry clothing for gun owners (other than camouflage for hunting). Dean Weingarten writes,

WalMart is carrying a jacket specifically designed for concealed carry. Clothing designed for concealed carry has been available commercially for decades. But most of the shops marketing it were specialty oriented. WalMart may have seen the latest CPRC report. It shows the presence of 16.2 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States. The 16.2 million does not include the populations of the 14 states that do not require a permit to carry concealed pistols. Second Amendment supporters are winning the culture war. From

Rothco’s Lightweight Concealed Carry Jacket has 2 inner pockets for concealed carry, one on each side, as well as 2 inner mag pockets on each side for ammo. The mirroring pockets on both the left and right, give the jacket a unique ambidextrous feature.

The jacket is a product of Rothco, and comes in Coyote Brown as well as black. The price at WalMart is $60-$78.

I have not examined the Rothco jacket. But its existence in the WalMart inventory is a powerful statement about the normalization of the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

(You can see the jacket at Wal-Mart by clicking here.)

I have to agree with Weingarten that a major retailer carrying clothing specifically for permit holders is a sign of our influence and, hopefully, this is a sign of other retailers to come who realize that 2nd Amendment rights advocates and law-abiding citizens carrying is, again, becoming a normal part of American society and culture, no matter what anti-gunners would have people believe.

by -
1 255

Anti-gunners want people to believe that we don’t need the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And, in a way, they are right, but not for the reason that they think.

You see the Second Amendment explicitly states that the Federal government doesn’t have a right to prevent you and me from owning and responsibly using firearms, but there are two other Amendments to the Constitution that cover the Second Amendment and more. They are the Ninth and the Tenth Amendment. Mike Maharrey explains,

As I explained in my Constitution 101 article on the Second Amendment, the Constitution only delegates specific powers to the federal government. The enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all powers not listed. Designato unius est exclusio alterius is a legal maxim meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” You will find no authority to regulate firearms or ban certain types of weapons in the Constitution. The supporters of the Constitution consistently argued that the federal government would not possess the authority to exercise any power not explicitly given.

As a condition of ratification many states insisted on a Bill of Rights, including amendments to make this rule of construction explicit. The result was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

So, even if the Second Amendment was never ratified, or if we accept the very narrow application preferred by progressives, the federal government still cannot infringe on the individual right to self-defense.

The Ninth Amendment was ratified to ensure that listing certain rights in the Bill of Rights would not be construed as all-inclusive.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Madison’s proposal for what became the Ninth Amendment makes clear the intent was to amplify the limits of federal power – specifically to ensure the enumeration of certain rights was not taken to imply the federal government could violate rights that were not mentioned.

Maharrey continues,

That brings us to the Tenth Amendment. It works together with the Ninth Amendment to explicitly define the limits of federal power.

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.”

Because the Constitution does not delegate gun control to the federal government, and because the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government cannot infringe on individual liberties – even those not listed in the Bill of Rights – any regulation or laws regarding guns remains the province of state governments, as dictated and limited by their constitutions.

Simply put, no matter how you care to interpret the Second Amendment, based on a constitutional reading guided by Amendment IX and X, the federal government possesses zero authority to enforce any type of gun laws, or infringe on the right to self-defense in any way whatsoever.

So, to put it in layman’s terms, the Constitution specifically says that, if the Constitution doesn’t plainly and directly grant a power to the Federal government, then the Federal government does not have that power, and, because the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Federal government has the right to prevent people from owning and using firearms, then the Federal government cannot take that right away from us.

This is something that you’ll probably never hear from an anti-gunner propagandist, and, to be fair, they’ve probably never heard it either (as evidenced by their illiteracy about the Constitution on gun issues), but, if they want to get silly with their notion of what a “well regulated militia” is, then just point them to these two Amendments. If they have a shred of honesty in them, they’ll simply admit that they don’t have any kind of legal standing for their gun control nonsense.

by -
28 3175

I guess background checks and legal gun purchases don’t mean as much as they used toBureaucracy Word Cloud in New York.

A man who purchased 3 guns through 100% legal channels had them all taken away by State officials.

He was quoted on Guns n’ Freedom:

“NY State Police just came to my house and took everything.” – Bill

From the same article, here’s the scoop:

All of the guns were bought legally, one at a Dicks Sporting Goods and the other 2 at a local outdoors-men store.  Background checks were also done at the time of purchase.

The state troopers gave the man a New York State police receipt and a certificate of relief paper.  They told him if he could get a judge to sign the relief paper he would get his guns back.

The man has since hired a lawyer but has not yet received his legally owned guns back.

Now it should be noted that the man had a misdemeanor on his record, from 15 years ago.  

Ridiculous, especially since he passed the background checks.

There have also been several other reports of gun confiscations in New York by State officials.  Guess the U.S. Constitution doesn’t hold the weight it used to.

Stay vigilant, because it looks like the real war on the 2nd Amendment has begun.

by -
49 3213

Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton supposedly assured the public she doesn’t want tothe moment of choice, Republican or Democrat repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Looks good, on paper.

According to The Blaze, if Clinton is elected President she just might do everything else in her power to ensure your right to bear arms is more like an afterthought:

“They may reverse that decision, or they may limit it so it doesn’t mean much,” George Mason University law professor David Bernstein told Fox News.

“They would say, ‘You have the individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to reasonable regulation, loosely defined,’” Bernstein added.

The “decision” referred to above is a Supreme Court decision in 2008, where the 2nd Amendment was almost lost and gone forever.

So don’t lose vigilance, because if for some reason the suspicion-ridden Clinton gets in office … she might aim for Constitution-altering gun-control.

by -
24 2358

Imagine a scenario where the gun-grabbing politicians get their way and we haveNo Firearms Allowed Sign to turn in our guns.  All of them.

(Of course the criminals won’t care, but that’s for another story).

So, in this fictional (?) scenario we no longer have the right to bear arms, but the Police and other necessary professionals still can as a part of their jobs.

You’re now unarmed.  Then,  because of that sometimes nasty thing called the Economy, your local police force gets totally underfunded and says…

“Sorry, we don’t have the resources to help you in an emergency … we aren’t coming.”

This is just fiction, right?

Apparantely it’s not in Miami-Dade, FL, according to Guns N’ Freedom:

According to wsvn, the proposed budget cuts would create a negative impact on public safety.

John Rivera, president of the Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association, said, “If the mayor’s not going to provide security, then my recommendation, as an experienced law enforcement officer for nearly 40 years, is either buy yourself an attack dog, put bars on your windows and doors and get yourself some firearms because you’re going to have to protect yourselves. We won’t be able to.”

These comments followed the decision by Mayor Carlos Gimenez to cut $64 million from the 2014-2015 budget which will result in the loss of at least 600 police jobs in the county.

Emphasis ours, and filed under “Are you freakin’ kidding me?”

So don’t let any gun-grabbing liberal try to talk you out of your guns, because a time may come when your city runs into economic trouble and tells you the following:

by -
9 2632

In Loris, SC a 75 year old woman was home with her infant great-granddaughterWoman taking gun from purse and 9 year old foster daughter.

Then the unimaginable happened … they got robbed by a male and female suspect.

During the chaos, which included the male using a stun gun on the older woman, the tide began to turn as she made it to her bedroom.

“Dirty Harry” comes to mind when we read what happened next (from The Right to Bear):

She added the the male suspect pushed her to the floor, but she managed to get up and make it to her bedroom where she kept a gun.

“I said, ‘You want to play with guns?’” Ring said as she demonstrated how she pointed the weapon at the suspects.

Ring said when she shot the suspect, he fell against the refrigerator in the kitchen and both took off.

Emphasis ours.

We can’t imagine what might have happened if we didn’t have a 2nd Amendment, and this older woman couldn’t have defended herself and her family in this “Dirty Harry” moment.

But we do have the 2nd, and she was able to defend herself … thankfully.

Guess those punks didn’t feel that lucky on that day in South Carolina … did they?


0 17
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative...