The greatest equalizer for the individual is the second amendment. It takes a soft bodied human and turns them into a lethal weapon. The second amendment assures that a woman need not walk defenseless down a dark alley and be prayed upon. It also assures, and this is not for debate, that the people of …
The number of concealed carry permits has grown from 8 million in 2008 to just over 16 million in 2018. Most states require a permitfor concealed carry and limit those permits to residents, or a select few statesthrough reciprocity. For example, a concealed carry permit in Texas is also valid in Arizona .There are currently 45 states that havepermissive open carry. As the scales of the gun control debate teeter one way or the other, the visibility of opencarriers has been embraced by many pro-gunactivists to normalize gun ownership. While often acceptable to people who have been raisedaround firearms, it is often a culture shock to those who have not.
As the political spectrum becomes even more polarized, there is less concern on both sides to consider or even care about the sensibilities of people across the political divide. While one’s political party is in power, this may not be a cause for thought. When the political scales tilt – and they always do- it then becomes a majorconcern, and then too late. How the political left tends to react to the sight of openly carried firearms is with anything but antipathy.
By “spooking the straights” it fuels their desires to take the rights to carry anything away. Some are so full of fear at the sight of a gun that they assume the carrier is a mass shooter, calling the police. Others point to a difficulty that police officers have in determining who is and is not a threat, and there have been plenty of instances when police have reacted with zealousness when presented with an open carrier. The situation becomes even more complicated when raceenters the equation. Now it is true that the examples presentedhere may have been antagonistic to the officers – there is a certainlack of empathy on behalf of some carriers not to understandthe situation officers are placed in when they must respond to calls of a person with a gun. And sometimes, the officer may not be as comfortable with you having the gun: this opens opportunities for misunderstandings and accidents. Such instances do not help the cause.
Perhaps this is a goodplace to point out that if you carry, open or concealed, that it is of vital importance to follow an officer’s instructions to the letter when the interactionoccurs. Do not argue about your rights until the officer feels that they have control of the situation: that is what they are trained to do. It is what you would want them to do if you were the one that called them. And while you may win a legal debate with them, you are as likely to end up in cuffsor bruised. You may even end up dead.
Concealed carriers certainly need to follow the same rules of conduct, but they have the benefit of discretion. Many gun control activists will point to the laws of the wild west where guns were not permitted in town while ignoring other facts. The local rules expressly prohibited the carrying of firearms but donot offer instances where people – residents or visitors -were invasively searched. It is not coincidental that pocket pistols such as the Deringer started becoming an actual product in the 1800’s when the rule of these laws began appearing. In such circumstances,the age-old adage “out of sight, out of mind” protected the carriers whether they were law abiding or not.
Even without the politics or the threat of nervous anti-gunnersand potentially under trained police officers, open carry does something else: it paints a bullseye on the back of your head for any potential criminal. Policeare paid to enforce laws; citizensare not. While society benefits from as many enforcers and followers of the law as possible, those of us who are not involvedwith law enforcement authority can complicate matters in a situation, and not necessarily to our benefit. If the badguy does not get the drop on us,we still are faced with the fact that even officers not in uniform may seem likea threat by uniformed responding officers.
Consider the following scenario: you are standing in line at the bankwhen someone decides to rob the bank. You have a concealed carry firearm, but, the robber is not firing his weapon. The money stolenis insured. If you act like the other customers, the whole scary scenario may end in a few minutes with you only having to be a witness to the responding officers. Another result of the situation is that the robber has already shot someone. Perhaps now they will decide to leave no witnesses. At that point, if your firearm is concealed, you have a chance to defend yourself. If your firearmwas not concealed, you mightvery well have been the first one killed.
The political landscape has many gun owners tempted to declare their position proudly, even defiantly. And the open carry movement has gone from a positionof crime deterrence to a political positionof antagonism. Thisis not the scenario in which any of us should introduce an open and visible firearm. Discretion is the better part of valor because discretionis one more tool at our disposal when we carry: leaving the decision to engage in our hands, not the hands of the “bad guy.” So, when you carry, be aware, be considerate, but most importantly, be sensible and choose your battles. Don’t have them chosenfor you.
Young people should be demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice says.
“[T]he demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” John Paul Stevens wrote of large crowds of gun-control protestors in a Tuesday New York Times op-ed. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
“… That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens wrote. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.
“It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence,” Stevens claimed.
Stevens believes repeal is the only way to overturn the Supreme Courts’ Heller Decision, which found the Second Amendment granted an individual right to bear arms. Stevens was among the four justices who dissented in the Heller case in 2008.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens wrote.
The history of interpretation of the Second Amendment, Stevens argued, does not support an individual right to own guns.
“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun-control legislation,” Stevens wrote. “In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well-regulated militia.’”
What is your reaction? Share it in the section below:
Why Gun Control Doesn’t Work | episode 167
This week I talk about why gun control doesn’t work.
In the wake of the Vegas shooting gun control is being talked about again. Let’s define gun control real fast.
Most countries have a restrictive firearm guiding policy, with only a few legislations being categorized as permissive. Jurisdictions that regulate access to firearms typically restrict access to only certain categories of firearms and then to restrict the categories of persons who will be granted a firearms license to have access to a firearm.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- What is Gun Control
- The Vegas shooting
- No Tragedy Wasted
- Fear and Ignorance
- The NRA Sold You Out
- The Second Amendment
- The second amendment is already too weak
- Failed Gun Control
- Gun control won’t work anyway
- We need Evil Control
Want To help make sure there is a podcast Each and every week? Join us on Patreon
Subscribe to the Survival Punk Survival Podcast. The most electrifying podcast on survival entertainment.
Want to hear yourself on the podcast? Call in with your questions at (615) 657-9104 and leave us a voice mail.
Like this post? Consider signing up for my email list here > Subscribe
Join Our Exciting Facebook Group and get involved Survival Punk Punk’s
Think this post was worth 20 cents? Consider joining
The Survivalpunk Army and get access to exclusive
content and discounts!
Defending the First Amendment James Walton “I Am Liberty” Listen to this show in player below! This week we have seen the first amendment under attack like never before. Are you prepared to defend the first amendment? Not only now but in hard times. we will also discuss the importance of the second amendment in … Continue reading Defending the First Amendment
Legislation that would allow judges to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen might be coming to your state.
Lawmakers in 11 states want to give judges the authority to issue a Gun Violence Restraining Order, also known as a GVRO or “risk warrant,” The Atlantic reported. A risk warrant gives law enforcement the power to search homes and confiscate guns without notice, based on allegations that persons are a threat to others or themselves. It also bars people in that category from buying firearms or ammunition.
The subject of the GVRO would not know it was issued until police knocked on the door.
California and Connecticut have similar laws, and 11 other states are expected to consider such bills next year: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan and Massachusetts, according to The Atlantic.
Here is how California’s law works:
- A family member or law enforcement officer who believes someone is mentally ill or capable of violence asks law enforcement or a prosecutor to apply to a judge for a Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO.
- The subject of the GVRO is not notified of this action. This allows the judge to issue the order without seeing the person it is directed against and gives that individual no opportunity to contest it.
- Once the GVRO is issued, law enforcement officers have the power to confiscate the subject’s guns and hold them for 21 days – unless the judge determines that the order should be made permanent.
- The GVRO would give police the power to search homes and businesses without a warrant.
- Under California law — the model for such legislation — all the judge would need to issue it is a claim from a family member or a law enforcement officer that a person is mentally ill.
Gun Confiscation to Save Lives?
The rationale behind the California bill was to keep firearms out of the hands of potential mass killers, such as Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. News reports indicate the family tried to get law enforcement to take Rodger’s guns prior to the killing spree. Researchers also say that gun confiscation can prevent suicides. Jeffrey Swanson, a psychiatry professor at Duke University, believes that a Connecticut gun confiscation law that’s been on the books since 1999 has saved 100 lives, Atlantic writer Dan Friedman wrote. The Connecticut law that Swanson studied is different from the California law and allows only law enforcement to request risk warrants, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action noted.
Second Amendment-rights groups say they understand the intent behind the laws but believe that gun owners should have a right to make their case first.
“It’s important for gun owners to have the opportunity to put up their own defense before losing their Second Amendment rights,” the NRA said in a statement on its website.
When Connecticut legislators wanted to strengthen that state’s law and make it similar to California’s law, the NRA argued that the proposal had “low evidentiary standards” and allowed “doctors and family members, including even distant relatives, ex-husbands or ex-wives, to strip” gun owners of their rights. The Connecticut proposal eventually failed, but other states are considering similar legislation.
Would you support a California-type law in your state? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Today I thought I would write a guest post on a subject that I have normally avoided. That is firearms, gun control and protecting the Second Amendment. Now, the situation I am writing on currently applies only to California. So why do you care, if you don’t live in this left wing state run by crazies? If the left has its way, these new laws will spread to other areas.
If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, a radical left wing Supreme Court, that will impact future generations and may be irreversible, you should be concerned about what is happening in California. The new laws that have been passed here may be appearing in many of your states soon.
On July 1, six new gun control laws were signed by the governor, Jerry Brown. Then, a few days later, a seventh was signed. The following is a summary of the new laws — these aren’t proposals or bills waiting for debate. They are now LAWS in the State of California. The one good piece of news is that the people of California can, through the process of petitioning, force the Assembly to put these laws up for a vote.
SIGNED BOTH- Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 would make changes of monumental scale to California’s firearm laws by reclassifying hundreds of thousands of legally owned semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.” This legislation effectively outlaws magazine locking devices, more commonly known as “bullet buttons”. As of January 2017, all AR-type of firearms and even some hunting rifles will no longer be legally sold in the state. There is still a lot of confusion about the law. Depending on the way it is interpreted, it may even cover M1 carbines.
If you register your gun as an assault weapon, there are draconian limitations on how you own and transport the gun. You can never sell, give, lend, or trade an assault weapon to another person. Nor can you hand down an “assault weapon” to your spouse, children, or grandchildren. Upon your death, it is turned over to the state for destruction. If you move out of the state, you cannot move back into the state with your guns.
SIGNED Assembly Bill 1511 effectively ends the long-standing practice of temporarily loaning a firearm for lawful purposes. Under this legislation, the ability to loan a firearm to anyone other than a family member would now be prohibited unless conducted through a dealer, absent very narrow and limited exceptions. A simple loan to a trusted friend for a few days would take almost a month to complete, from loan to return. It now requires two background checks, two 10-day waiting periods, two fees and multiple trips to a gun dealer.
SIGNED – Assembly Bill 1695 creates a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm.
SIGNED – Senate Bill 1235 places unjustified and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and requires IDs and background checks for ammunition purchases. This requires a state-wide database to track such purchases. This law goes into effect in 2019. It permits the state to monitor the types of ammunition you buy, thereby identifying whether you have firearms that are not registered. It would be a crime to import ammunition from another state.
SIGNED – Senate Bill 1446 bans the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. Even the ones that are currently grandfather in would have to be turned in or destroyed.
SIGNED – Assembly Bill 857 requires serialization and registration of virtually every firearm possessed in the State. It requires anyone who manufactures or assembles a homemade firearm to first apply for a unique serial number or other marking from the state Department of Justice, which must then be affixed to the weapon. In 2014, Brown vetoed a similar bill by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, stating, “I appreciate the author’s concerns about gun violence, but I can’t see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety.”
Here’s what California residents can do
Under California law, if we collect 365,880 signatures on all seven petitions, the laws will be placed on hold and brought up for vote in 2018. This gives us time to campaign and educate the voters, so that we can block these laws from taking effect.
Currently thousands of volunteers are collecting signatures on all seven petitions, and it is looking like we have a good chance. The signatures have to be turned in by September 28, 2016. California is being run into the ground by power-mad, anti-gun Democrats, but the fact remains that it is one of our most populous states and home to tens of millions of gun owners.
Calguns and the NRA are among the groups that are helping to support this effort. Unfortunately, we are not receiving any support from three large sporting goods chains that sell firearms. They are blocking us from collecting signatures at their locations. In case you want to express your feeling to them or boycott their stores, they are Dicks Sporting Goods, Big Five and Sportsman’s Warehouse.
If you are registered to vote in California, I urge you to find a copy of the petitions and sign them. Non-residents can also help with financial support. Donations can be made to www.vetogunmageddon.org. Help us stop this attack on the 2nd Amendment because it won’t stop here. The anti-gun groups have been planning draconian laws like this for decades.
The post Help Protect our Constitutional Rights to Own Firearms appeared first on Preparedness Advice.
This week on Monday Mania: Judge Kills Gary Johnson’s Attempts to Change Presidential Debate Rules, Define Your Disaster, Seven Places Where WW3 Could Start at Any Time, With Terror and Rape Spreading, “Self-Defense Weapons Permits Hit Record Highs” in Germany, Now Collapsing Flint Suspends Trash Pick-Up: “Stench of Rotting Garbage Permeating Streets”, & 10 More Monday Mania – 8.8.2016 It’s … Continue reading Monday Mania – 8.8.2016
A group of politicians wants to turn terror watch lists into a tool that can be used to strip any citizen of his or her Second Amendment rights, but there’s a lot they’re not telling us about how those lists work.
“After Sept. 11, common sense dictates that the federal government stop gun sales to suspects on the Terrorist Watch list,” US Representative Peter King (R-New York) said.
King and US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) co-sponsored a bill that would prevent people on the list from buying guns and also would give the US attorney general the power to place names on the list.
But the list often includes names of innocent people who don’t deserve to be on the list and who would have their constitutional rights infringed, say both the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The Senate rejected a similar bill this month.
The ACLU said it does not oppose all gun regulations but believes the watch list is “error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.”
“Regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy,” the ACLU said.
More Than 1 Million Names on List
The government keeps different lists, but one such list includes about 1.5 million names, of which about 15,000 are US citizens or residents, according to FactCheck.org. A different list, the no-fly list, has more than 80,000 names, and 1,000 are citizens or residents.
For years, civil rights lawyers have alleged that the lists are full of names of innocent people.
“It is beyond easy for a government official to ‘nominate’ someone for listing, yet exceedingly difficult to be removed,” Ramzi Kassem, a professor of law at the City University of New York, wrote in The Washington Post.
Kassem heads the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility project (CLEAR), which has sued the government over the lists.
“Because the lists are shrouded in official secrecy, the public knows very little about them,” Kassem wrote.
According to the government’s own guidelines, “concrete facts” are not required to get included on the list. All it takes is “reasonable suspicion.”
“In fact, the guidance carves out a number of loopholes that dispense with reasonable suspicion altogether,” Kassem wrote. “Immediate family members of a suspected terrorist can be listed, as can other associates not themselves known or suspected to be involved in anything — and, finally, individuals with only ‘a possible nexus’ to terrorism. It is unclear what ‘a possible nexus’ actually means, and whether it is any different from a mere hunch.”
The only way Kassem was able to get four innocent men off the watch list was to sue the federal government.
“One of them was unable to visit his wife and three daughters in Yemen for years as a result. Another did not see his wife and family in Afghanistan. Yet another could not care for his ailing grandmother in Pakistan. And the fourth lost his job, as it required air travel,” Kassem wrote. “Only days before the first major court appearance in the case — presumably to minimize embarrassment in a public hearing — government attorneys informed us that all four of our clients had been removed from the list and should no longer face trouble traveling.”
Ted Kennedy’s Name on the List?
Incredibly, there is no official process for citizens to find out if they are on the watch list — or to get their names taken off it if they are.
“In fact, the government most often will not even tell our clients they are on a watch list, stating in its letters that it ‘can neither confirm nor deny any information … which may be within federal watch lists,’” Kassem wrote.
Names on the no-fly list included a 4-year-old boy who had been on the list since he was seven-months old, Off The Grid News previously reported.
The late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, in 2004, famously learned his name was on the list when agents tried to block him – on five separate occasions – from getting on a plane.
President Obama, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump all have said persons on the no-fly list or watch list should be barred from having guns.
“The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period,” the NRA said in a June 15 statement. “Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. … At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watch list to be removed.”
Which side are you on? Share your views in the section below:
The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to carry concealed weapons, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a decision that could dramatically impact the nation’s gun laws.
“We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” the opinion by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals read. It was written by Judge Susan P. Graber, a Clinton nominee. “We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
The case, Peruta v. San Diego County, originated out of California, although its effect was felt across the country. The vote was 7-4.
“The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held today that residents have no Second Amendment right to carry a firearm outside their home for self-defense,” Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said. “In effect, the appeals court ruled that San Diego County can outlaw guns outside the home by declining to issue anyone a permit. This court’s decision is a direct challenge to the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional.”
In a dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan, a nominee of President George W. Bush, wrote, “A prohibition on carrying concealed handguns in conjunction with a prohibition of open carry of handguns would destroy the right to bear and carry arms.”
The sheriff’s departments in two California counties, Yolo and San Diego, only issue concealed carry permits to people who can prove they are in danger from violent attack – such as by showing a restraining order. In 2009 two men, Edward Peruta of San Diego and Adam Richards of Yolo County, applied for concealed carry permits and were turned down.
That prompted the California Rifle and Pistol Association to sue the counties in federal court on behalf of Peruta, Richards and three others. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the policy violated the Second Amendment. The entire Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling on Thursday.
The immediate impact of the ruling is that it affects only the states in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Washington state, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, California and Hawaii. But if it is appealed to the US Supreme Court and upheld, then concealed carry could be banned nationwide.
The case attracted national attention, with briefs filed by states outside the district, including Alabama. All total, 20 other states signed the brief: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
The defendants in the case, San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore and the state of California, were represented by California Solicitor General Edward C. DuMont. DuMont appealed the loss from last year, after Gore declined to do so, the Associated Press reported. The plaintiffs were represented by Paul D. Clement, who served as US solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.
Interestingly, the court refused to touch on the issue of open carry of firearms in public.
“We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry,” the opinion read. “The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
The court also ruled that the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which upheld the right of private gun ownership, does not affect concealed carry.
Most observers expect Peruta will be appealed to the US Supreme Court – the only court of appeal from the Ninth Circuit.
The case will presumably arrive at the Supreme Court sometime after Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement is on the court. Scalia, whose opinions supported gun rights, died in February.
What is your reaction to the ruling? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Prepping and Politics: Part Two Bobby Akart “Prepping For Tomorrow” On this week’s episode of the Prepping for Tomorrow program with Author Bobby Akart, we continue the subject of politics, from a prepper’s perspective. Last week, we had an excellent conversation with Tom Martin, founder and owner of the American Preppers Network. We only scratched … Continue reading Prepping and Politics: Part Two
May 9th, 2016
Video courtesy of AmeriGEDDON
Find a theater near you: http://amerigeddonthemovie.com/theaters
Second Amendment rights could suffer a major defeat this fall if Hillary Clinton is elected, as demonstrated in a pro-gun control opinion piece she wrote recently for The New York Daily News.
“If the NRA thinks you’re doing a good job, that’s a pretty good indication that something’s very wrong,” Clinton wrote in the March 27 column, which spotlighted gun violence but also outlined her plans to restrict access to guns
Clinton detailed what she called three “common sense steps” she wants to take on gun control if elected.
“First, we need to repeal the law that gives the gun industry sweeping liability protections, so companies that make and sell guns can be held accountable when their products kill people,” she wrote. “When the NRA pushed that misguided law through Congress, they said that preventing lawsuits was their top legislative priority. Now it’s making it harder for families who lost children in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, to sue Bushmaster for marketing its AR-15 assault rifle to civilians. As President, I’ll stand with the families victimized by guns, not the corporations that profit from them.”
Secondly, Clinton said, she wants to “implement comprehensive background checks.”
“President Obama recently issued several executive orders designed to strengthen this federal system,” she wrote. “Surveys have shown that even 85% of gun owners favor these checks. And it’s hard to believe that we still allow people on the no-fly list to purchase firearms. I think it’s pretty simple: If it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed on an airplane, it’s too dangerous for you to own a gun.”
Thirdly, Clinton wrote that she wants to close the “so-called ‘Charleston loophole.’”
“Right now, a person with an arrest record can walk into a gun store to buy a gun, and if their background check isn’t completed within three business days, they can walk out with a firearm. It makes absolutely no sense.”
Author and talk show host Dana Loesch asserted that on each point, Clinton was promoting policies that either would infringe on Second Amendment rights or would not work – or both.
“Gun manufacturers can be sued the same as auto manufacturers, appliance makers, etc., etc., if the product is defective and/or doesn’t operate as advertised,” Loesch wrote, referencing Clinton’s first point. “The only exception in which a gun manufacturer or store front can be sued is if they knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor or criminal. Gun makers don’t make guns for prohibited possessors or criminals and criminal usage of a legal object isn’t the fault of the manufacturer. This does nothing to curb gun violence but it is a boon for trial lawyers.”
“Comprehensive” background checks, Loesch wrote, “didn’t stop the San Bernardino terrorists from enacting their atrocity in California, despite such laws already in existence.”
“They also didn’t prevent the illegal usage of firearms on innocent groups in Oregon, Washington, Colorado or all of the other states which saw such criminal acts despite having ‘comprehensive background checks.’ This is because criminals ignore laws.” Loesch wrote.
Referencing Clinton’s third point, Loesch said there is no such thing as a Charleston loophole.
“Dylann Roof would have and should have failed a background check. FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI ‘flawed’ in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof,” Loesch wrote. “… Clinton’s proposals are nothing but collections of word salad that do nothing to address the real problems (like criminal justice reform) and everything to boost trial lawyers’ salaries.”
Do you fear what Clinton would do to gun rights? Share your thoughts in the section below:
The US Supreme Court has vacated a Massachusetts court ruling that had declared stun guns and other non-lethal weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.
The high court’s ruling was a win for owners of such weapons, although the court – technically — did not overturn the law.
The case involved Massachusetts resident Jaime Caetano, a single mother who started carrying a stun gun for protection after her ex-boyfriend injured her so badly she ended up in the hospital. When police discovered that Caetano was carrying the weapon, she was arrested for violating a state law that bans private ownership. Her attorneys filed a lawsuit and when they lost at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, they took their case to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued a page and a half unanimous ruling calling the Massachusetts court’s decision “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s Heller decision protecting individual gun rights. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Massachusetts court for “further proceedings.”
But Justice Samuel Alito, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining him, said the court should have overturned the law. Their 10-page opinion raised the prospect that the law would have been overturned if Justice Antonin Scalia had not died. The court currently has only eight members.
“Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment,” Alito wrote.
Alito in his Monday opinion added that the Massachusetts court’s “reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as ‘bordering on the frivolous’ the argument ‘that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.’
“While stun guns were not in existence at the end of the 18th century, the same is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols,” Alito noted. “Revolvers were virtually unknown until well into the 19th century, and semiautomatic pistols were not invented until near the end of that century.”
Alito criticized the Massachusetts law for making it difficult for residents to protect themselves.
“By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent,” Alito and Thomas wrote. And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children.”
“Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal.”
Do you think stun guns should be banned from private ownership? Share your thoughts in the section below:
President Obama’s nominee to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the US Supreme Court would vote to limit Second Amendment rights if he is confirmed, observers contend.
Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace Scalia, who died last month on March 16, 2016.
Currently, the court’s makeup is tied, 4-4, on gun rights.
“Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Carrie Severino wrote in The National Review.
In 2007 Garland tried to undue a pro-gun federal court ruling that had overturned a Washington D.C. law that banned private ownership of handguns, Severino noted.
“A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court,” Severino wrote.
That law was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Heller, in which the justices ruled that the Second Amendment protects private gun ownership.
In an earlier case, Garland ruled that the Clinton administration had a right to retain records of gun buyers for six months, Severino noted. That violated a 1968 federal law in which Congress banned gun registration.
“Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things,” Severino wrote. “First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. That’s not so moderate, is it?”
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin wrote in a Washington Post column that “it is unlikely that Obama would have nominated Garland if he were not going to be a reliable liberal vote on most major issues that might come before the Supreme Court.”
Somin, a conservative, actually believes it might be a good idea for the US Senate to confirm Garland’s nomination. Somin fears that Hillary Clinton will win the election and try to appoint someone further to the left than Garland.
The National Rifle Association opposes Garland’s nomination.
“A basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” Chris W. Cox of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) said in a press release.
Cox noted that the court is currently evenly divided between pro-Second Amendment conservatives and pro-gun rights liberals.
“With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense,” Cox wrote. “Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not.”
Are you concerned about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Katie Claxton feared for her life when a man at a Springfield, Missouri gas station approached her car around 8 pm at a gas station last Sunday night.
Claxton’s husband pumped gas as she waited in their car with the couple’s four young kids when a stranger approached. In an attempt to lock the door, Claxton accidentally rolled the window down. The man then opened the door and brandished a long knife. Claxton yelled for her husband to grab his gun.
The man retreated at the mention of the weapon.
Via the Springfield News-Leader:
“He said ‘You’re lucky he has a gun,’” Claxton said. “And then he shut the door and started to back away.”
Claxton said her husband pointed his Beretta handgun at the man and called 911 as the man slowly walked away.
“Our Second Amendment right to carry is what saved our lives,” Claxton said. “If we didn’t have our right to carry, I feel like we wouldn’t be here today.”
After attempting to get into several people’s cars at a stoplight, the police arrived and the man was arrested shortly thereafter.
While the whole thing was over shortly, just imagine how your wife or girlfriend would react in this situation. While the Obama administration is busy chipping away at the Second Amendment in a bid to disarm everyone “for their safety,” these people would not have been more safe without their gun and if they waited for the police to protect them in a situation like this, they might be dead.
Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com: “Our Second Amendment Saved Our Lives”: Husband’s Gun Scared off Knife-Wielding Man at Gas Station
Filed under: News/ Current Events
By J. D. Heyes – Natural News
(NaturalNews) To hear the anti-Second Amendment Left tell it, carrying a firearm for protection – of one’s self and of the lives of those around him or her – is a myth perpetuated by the NRA and other gun rights groups and firearm manufacturers.
Writing in the Huffington Post, “cartoonist and blogger” Walker Bragman’s attempt to sully the truth and misrepresent the data was typical of a liberal hit job on the effect that guns really have in American society:
“John Lott Jr. and professor Gary Kleck, a criminologist, argue that guns are frequently used for self defense. These claims have also been debunked by peer review. A study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig titled ‘Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,’ found that Kleck’s defensive gun use numbers are ‘far too high’ to the point of suggesting bias, as are numbers by similar studies. The National Institute of Justice found that there is even an overestimation in Cook and Ludwig’s study. Another study by the Berkley Media Studies Group found similar discrepancies with Kleck’s and Lott’s defensive gun use claims. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center a gun in the home is more likely to be used to commit suicide or to threaten or kill an intimate than used to deter an attacker.”
By Mac Slavo – SHTFplan.com
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms. It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.
States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.
While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.
Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds.
And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.
Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.
This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.
If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.
SEC. 3.RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The bill was introduced in Congress on Decemeber 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.
We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.
The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.
As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Today the show is all about the second amendment. With the exceptions due to the power outage that occurred while recording. We talk about why so many people are trying to ban weapons. How is all boils down to fear and ignorance. Mankind has always feared what he does not understand. If you listen to anti gun liberals long enough you will realize they are completely ignorant of firearms and the second amendment. They have some pretty crazy notions on firearms. Ghost guns anyone?
We talk about how the second amendment and exercising your right to keep and bear arms empowers you. It forces you to take responsibility for your own safety. It forces to to become more responsible while carrying a weapon. You have to both avoid trouble but also be the one there when it is needed.
The police can not protect you all the time. In the best of cases getting to you in time is hard. If there is a disaster, like a riot, then help may not come. During the L.A riots the Korean shop owners with AK47’s were the ones not looted. They used their second amendment right to protect their livelihoods.
This week we debut the new Punk Song of the week closing music. This week is Defiance, Ohio with Expect the Worst. Check them out Here!
Subscribe to the show
Like this post Consider signing up for my email list here > Subscribe
Think this post was worth 20 cents? Consider joining The Survivalpunk Army and get access to exclusive
content and discounts!
(NaturalNews) It is now obvious to nearly everyone that the leftist mainstream media is actively working on the same team as ISIS. Not only has this media — the NYT, CNN, WashPost, etc. — deliberately covered up the real threat of ISIS and radical Islam in America; it is now demanding that all Americans be disarmed so that ISIS terrorists will meet no armed citizens whatsoever as they escalate their terrorism and mass murder across America.
CNN, for example, blacked out any mention of the word “Muslim” when covering the breaking news of the San Bernardino shooting. Every leftist media outlet in the nation has demanded the continuation of the absurd national policy of wholly unprotected borders that allow terrorists to easily enter the country. And now the New York Times is directly calling for the nationwide, government-run confiscation of firearms from all Americans.
Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!
Click widget below to listen.
This week our main topic is all about dealing with an ankle injury. What can seem to be a very minor issue, especially now, can be life threatening during a collapse. Making even the tiniest choir into a heavy burden.
I recently had my worst ankle injury. Coming down out of a tree I rolled it completely sideways. At first I thought it was not that bad since I limped inside. Now more than a week later it is still not completely healed. I employed many tactics to get it healed enough to walk. Even still I was completely incapacitated for almost 4 days.
If for some reason I had needed to bug out on foot during that time I would have been screwed. Using crutches wearing a pack is not something I care to do.
We briefly mention looking into mobility work to strengthen the feet to reduce the risk of rolled ankles. Prevention is the better option here. If you do suffer an ankle injury you WILL be down a few days. Period.
Have any suggestion drop them in the comments below.
Like this post Consider signing up for my email list here > Subscribe
Think this post was worth 20 cents? Consider joining The Survivalpunk Army and get access to exclusive
content and discounts!
Also please enter our Reader appreciation contest and help spread the word about our blog.
Looking for the best prices and best customer service in buying Silver and Gold online? Look no further than JM Bullion for all your precious metal needs!
Looking for Camping and Survival gear? Need to Stock up on Fish antibiotics? Head over to Camping Survival!
Looking for improve your morning cup of coffee? Check out Mai Thai Coffee and stock up on the most important Prep!