Federal Judge Upholds Florida Law Barring Gun Sales To Under-21s

H/T Bearing Arms.

These same young men and women that are forbidden by law to purchase a firearm for personal protection can be trained by the military to use all types of automatic weapons.

Hopefully these moronic laws will be over turned.

After the 2018 murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the state legislature approved a new restriction on the Second Amendment rights of residents in the state; a ban on purchasing firearms for those under the age of 21.


The National Rifle Association quickly filed a lawsuit (called NRA v. Swearingen) challenging the constitutionality of the new law, and on Thursday U.S. District Judge Mark Walker upheld the law; not necessarily on the merits, but because the judge said he was bound by existing Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals precedent.

In his decision, Walker noted that bans on those under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms date back to the mid-19th century, and that by 1900 “roughly 41% of states had restrictions involving 18-to-20-year-olds and firearms.” Those restrictions predate most prohibitions on felons and those adjudicated by courts as mentally ill from possessing firearms, which Walker reasoned makes bans on guns for under-21s “longstanding” laws that, under the Eleventh Circuit’s previous guidance, must be upheld.

Still, Walker makes it clear that he has real concerns about the precedent set by the Eleventh Circuit and the damage that it can do to the Second Amendment rights of young adults.

After Florida suffered one of the worst school shootings in our nation’s history, its Legislature faced a colossal challenge, forced to make difficult decisions while under tremendous time pressure. This Court does not envy the difficult balance the Legislature had to strike.

That said, this Court has grave concerns about the balance the Legislature struck. While the Act appears broad on its face, as Defendant argues, many 18-to-20-year-olds who wish to obtain a firearm will be able to do so through parents or other relatives. Whether this is an effective check on rash decision-making, this Court cannot say. But it is clear that this law will have little impact on many, if not most, 18-to-20-year-old Floridians. In short, then, it is not clear how much the Act does to prevent tragedies like the one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Equally troubling to this Court is that, as Plaintiffs point out, “to those 18-to20-year-olds who do not have parents or legal guardians . . . or do not otherwise have anyone willing to gift or loan a firearm to them,” the Act functions as a total ban. Worse still, it is likely that these particular 18-to-20-yearolds are the ones who actually need firearms to defend themselves: they are likely independent, likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods, and likely to have families and children of their own. Why should the 20-year-old single mother living on her own be unable to obtain a firearm for self-defense when a 20-year-old living with their parents can easily obtain one?

It’s a good question, and it’s not the only concern raised by Walker.

In addition to its concerns over who suffers the burdens imposed by the Act, this Court has grave doubts about a Second Amendment framework that finds certain persons or activities either protected or entirely unprotected.

For example, although “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). This Court sees no reason why the Second Amendment, unlike other fundamental rights, should be an all or nothing affair.

Finally, while this Court agrees that Florida can enact gun control legislation, perhaps even sweeping and categorical legislation, when the state designates entire classes of persons as too irresponsible to exercise their rights, it “must be able to justify its designation.” Kanter, 919 F.3d at 465–64 (Barrett, J., dissenting). Under the Eleventh Circuit’s current body of caselaw, Florida escapes that responsibility altogether. If this Court were writing on a “blankish” slate—accepting Heller, as it must—it would subject the Act to a more searching inquiry.

But these concerns presuppose that the Second Amendment applies at all. And given the Eleventh Circuit has found restrictions with much less historical support longstanding, this Court must conclude that restrictions on the purchase of firearms by 18-to-20-year-olds are also longstanding. And because the Eleventh Circuit has held that longstanding prohibitions categorically fall outside the Second Amendment, this Court holds that the Second Amendment does not apply to the purchase of firearms by 18-to-20-year-olds.

The case will undoubtably be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but given the appellate court’s precedent, it’s almost a given that Florida’s ban on gun sales to under-21s will be upheld there as well. Eventually this case will reach the Supreme Court, however, and I found it interesting that Judge Walker chose to cite Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dissent in Kanter v. Barr as evidence that the Eleventh Circuit precedent is allowing Florida to ban an entire class of adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights without having to justify the decision.

For a ruling that went against the plaintiffs, it’s actually not a horrible opinion. Judge Walker gave the NRA plenty of legal ammunition to choose going forward, and in the meantime other Second Amendment organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are bringing suit against similar bans in states like Minnesota. It may some time for these cases to reach the Supreme Court, but sooner or later justices will have a chance to weigh in on whether or not the Second Amendment rights of the People can be denied to people under the age of 21.


In the Harris-Biden Admin: “Domestic Terrorist” Refers To All Americans Who Own Guns

H/T AmmoLand.

It used to be said that American liberty rested on four boxes:
– The soap box;
-The ballot box;
-The jury box;
-The cartridge box.
It was also said that they ought to be employed in that order.

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Gun Owners; Trump Supporters; Anti-Marxists; Anti-Globalists—Are These The Harris-Biden “Domestic Terrorists?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.

But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?

Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.

But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.

But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

With A Radical Democrat Party-Controlled Government And A Beleaguered, Besieged, Weak Republican Contingent In Congress, American People Have Been Boxed Into A Corner And Must Take Matters Into Their Own Hands To Regain Control Of Their Country?

The secretive powers operating in the Harris-Biden Administration, along with the Democrat Party have forced Americans into a tight corner. The forces that have boxed in Americans know this to be true. They did this intentionally. They have thrown down their gauntlet. They fully expect a backlash. And they fully intend to counter it.

The forces that crush have instituted a comprehensive and insidious program designed to contain and constrain dissenting Americans.

Their program must have taken shape during the early days of the transition of Government in 2021. And it is now available for all to see. The PROGRAM—really a POGROM—targeting Americans who refuse to get on board with the game plan is contained in a lengthy document, titled: National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”

This Document, recently made available to the public,  serves a dual purpose for the Harris-Biden Administration. It operates, one, as a Declaration setting forth the raison d’être for a Marxist Counterrevolution in this Country to overturn the American Revolution of 1776, and, operates,  two, as an express and brazen threat to the autonomy of the American citizen. Never before in American History has the Federal Government professed to declare war on its own citizens. In that regard, the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” goes much further than even the infamous U.S. Patriot Act, in presenting a direct threat to an American citizen’s fundamental Rights and Liberties. See also the article on the U.S. Patriot Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But who are these “Domestic Terrorists” that the Harris-Biden Administration has declared war against? In the broadest sense, a “Domestic Terrorist” is any American who professes disagreement with the Globalist/Marxist agenda.

Attempts At Obfuscation Do Not Disguise The Fact That “Domestic Terrorist” Refers To All Americans Who Actively Disagree With And Who Dissent From The Harris-Biden Agenda.

The expression “Domestic Terrorist” drags in a sizable portion of the American citizenry, at least a third of the Country, that cherishes the Nation’s founding, formative Documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Articles, and the Bill of Rights—and takes them at face value, in accordance with the plain meaning of the language therein.

And, what do these Documents proclaim and prescribe? They proclaim and prescribe the preeminence of liberty and personal autonomy and of the existence of natural, God-given rights that exist intrinsically in each person; rights that precede the formation of nations and of governments and make clear that the American people, themselves, and not the Government they happen to form, are the Sole Sovereign of their Nation, and that they alone have the God-given right to control their own destiny.

This presents a conundrum for the Harris-Biden Administration, which is to say, a profound dilemma for those secretive, powerful insiders who are orchestrating and choreographing the Administration’s every move.

One thing is clear: Those elements presently in control of the reins of the Federal Government do not perceive themselves as servants of the people but, rather, as master over them.

The Harris-Biden Administration, the Democrat Party controlled Congress, the Bureaucratic Deep State, the Legacy Press, and the major social media and technology monopolies have dismissed the founding, formative documents of our Country, out-of-hand, and, in so doing, have effectively declared war on the American people.

Not since the Nation’s inception in 1776, have the Obstructors of the Country come so close transforming it from a free Republic into an Authoritarian State—made all the easier through the use of information technology: technology that is capable of exerting vast control over content creation and dissemination of information, and the censure of it; technology that makes possible, the surreptitious, collection of private information and omnipresent surveillance of the Nation’s citizenry.

With Freedom From Unreasonable Searches And Seizures Essentially Eradicated, And Freedom Of Speech Under Continuous, Ruinous, Harassing Assault, Only Freedom To Own And Possess Guns Remains, Obstinately Resistant To Government Attempts To Constrain Exercise Of The Right.

Only the right of the people to keep and bear arms effectively resists systematic and debilitating attempts by Progressive and Marxist influences to annihilate the exercise of this fundamental Right. But why is that? The reasons are plain. First, Americans recognize that no other Right defines them or the Country they are sovereign masters of, as the Right to own and possess firearms. So, Americans furiously defend that Right—more so than any other. Second, firearms are after all tangible implements, not intangible, digital objects, like words. It is not so easy for Government to purloin away one’s firearms as they have purloined away Americans’ private conversations and private documents and as they have systematically whittled away at the right of free discourse and free association among Americans of like kind.

It’s impossible to take physical control over a citizen’s firearms surreptitiously. A person either has possession of them or he does not. And he will not so easily part with them. This angers the would-be Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic to no end.

How does one effectively separate a person from his firearms without causing a bloodbath in the Nation? This isn’t simply a matter of academic exercise for the Destroyers of our Country. They are well aware that the presence of—the continued existence of—armed citizens poses a direct, imminent threat to the installment of a Marxist totalitarian State and submergence of the remains of a free Republic in a Globalist Marxist new world order. But they also know that any attempt at a wholesale round-up of firearms would result in revolt—that is to say, armed revolt!

The question is: Now that Americans know the extent to which a free Constitutional Republic is in the crosshairs for destruction, and that the Federal Government has essentially declared war on its own citizens’ sacred Rights and Liberties, what are Americans going to do to safeguard their Bill of Rights and their sovereignty over Government?

Biden Admin Walks Back U.S. Recognition of Golan Heights as Israeli Territory

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

In spite of what Joe Pee Pads Biden and his stooges say and think the Golan Heights and the West Bank belongs to Israel.

They are part of Israel as promised to Abraham by God.

State Department pushes back on signature Trump admin foreign policy decision.

The Biden administration is walking back the United States’ historic recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights region along Israel’s northern border, a significant blow to the Jewish state and one of the Trump administration’s signature foreign policy decisions.

The Trump administration declared the territory—seized by Israel from Syria in 1967 and later annexed by the country—to be wholly part of the Jewish state in 2019. Then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo took a trip to the area in 2020 and reaffirmed that America formally abandoned a decades-long policy of considering the area occupied.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken first raised questions about the Biden administration’s view on the matter in February, when he would not say if his State Department continues to abide by the former administration’s decision. At the time, Blinken would only say the Golan Heights “remains of real importance to Israel’s security,” but that its formal status remains unclear. Pressed on the issue by the Washington Free Beacon, a State Department official said the territory belongs to no one and control could change depending on the region’s ever-shifting dynamics.

The shift in policy is already causing outrage among Republican lawmakers who backed the Trump administration’s decision and hoped to see it continue. It is also likely to rankle Israeli leaders of all political stripes, the plurality of whom say the Golan Heights is absolutely vital to Israel’s security in light of persistent threats from the Iran-backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon and other militant forces stationed in war-torn Syria.

“The secretary was clear that, as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” a State Department official told the Free Beacon. “As long as [Bashar al-Assad] is in power in Syria, as long as Iran is present in Syria, militia groups backed by Iran, the Assad regime itself—all of these pose a significant security threat to Israel, and as a practical matter, the control of the Golan remains of real importance to Israel’s security.”

Recognizing Israel’s control as a “practical matter,” however, falls far short of the formal policy change ordered by the Trump administration, which became the first government to recognize Israel’s complete control over the territory. As it stands now, U.S. policy on the matter is unclear, at best.

Pompeo, who was central to formulating and advancing the Trump administration’s decision on the Golan Heights, told the Free Beacon that the current administration is jeopardizing Israel’s security at a time when Iran-backed militants continue to plot attacks on the country’s northern cities.

“The Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel, they are a part of it. The Israelis have a right to it as sovereign land,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “To suggest that these lands should be returned to Syria, even if conditioned on changes in the Syrian regime, is inconsistent with both Israeli security and the international law.”

The State Department’s “suggestion that if Assad falls and the Iranians leave Syria, the Golan Heights should be given to Syria misreads history and misreads the eternal security needs of the state of Israel,” Pompeo said.

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.), who introduced a bill earlier this year to lock in the U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, told the Free Beacon that it is now incumbent on GOP leaders in Congress to stop the Biden administration from reversing the recognition.

“These comments [from the State Department] should serve as a call to action,” Gallagher said. “It’s time to pass legislation I’ve introduced with Senator [Ted] Cruz [(R., Texas)] that ensures that the U.S. will continue to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, regardless of who is in the White House.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), who pressed United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on the Golan issue during a congressional hearing on June 16, said the Biden administration is being intentionally vague about its policy, generating pressing questions on the international stage.

“I pressed UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing about the administration’s position on recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and she acknowledged that the Trump administration policy recognizing Israeli sovereignty is unchanged as of now,” Zeldin said after reviewing the State Department’s most recent comments on the matter. “However, Secretary Blinken and the Biden Administration need to stop beating around the bush, and unambiguously commit to maintain recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights permanently.”

Former U.S. diplomats who worked on the Golan Heights issue also expressed concern over the Biden administration’s comments to the Free Beacon. David Milstein, former special assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Israel under Trump, said walking back U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the area signals “an unconscionable betrayal of our close ally Israel.”

“Our allies depend upon the United States keeping its commitments,” Milstein told the Free Beacon. “But now Secretary Blinken has re-injected the dangerous and delusional idea the U.S. could support pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights in the future.”

“In one of the most dangerous regions that can go from bad to worse in an instant, the Golan Heights is crucial for Israel’s security, providing a strategically necessary defensible border to help Israel counter threats to its north,” Milstein said. “This is why there is clear support across Israel’s political spectrum for Israel forever maintaining sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”

Open Carry: A Right or a Fashion Statement?


In Indiana open carry is a right as Indiana law is mute on the subject of either open or concealed carry so open carry is not a problem.

In Young v Hawaii a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals concluded:

“[E]ven though [the Ninth Circuit] has read these cases to exclude concealed carry from the Second Amendment’s protections, see Peruta II, … the same cases command that the Second Amendment must encompass a right to open carry. “[emphases in original]

When reconsidered en banc, the Ninth Circuit decided that there really was no right to carry whatsoever. Young has appealed to the Supreme Court. It seems likely that the Court will grant certiorari. This prediction is founded on the observation that Young’s prayer for relief is modest: he wants only to be issued a permit to openly carry. Moreover, there is ample precedent from 19th Century cases that open carry – i.e. ‘in full open view’ which places men upon an equality – “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States … “It would be a small step for the Supremes to go so little a way to begin to discover “the Right” to “bear” “arms”.

Young comes in the shadow of NYSRPA v Corlett which SCOTUS has already agreed to hear in its 2021/22 term. There, the Court will decide: “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” Substitute “concealed” with “open” and you have Young.

The title of this was going to be “Where is Joan Rivers Now That We Really Need Her?” Before her untimely demise, Ms. Rivers presided over her court of “Fashion Police” propounding the fashion faux pas of the day, dictating de rigueur in accessorizing. Should the Supremes dig diligently into the history of concealed carry they might be puzzled and begin to wonder whether the distinction between concealed and open carry is more of a fashion statement than a legitimate distinction of law.

The Constitutional method of “original meaning” compels a court to find the meaning of a right to be what was held by the public ratifiers at the time of adoption, i.e., 1789-1791. What was the “original meaning” of the phrase “bear arms” in that era? In the absence of recovered documents specifically speaking to the distinction between concealed and open carry, students of history are left to draw inferences from other evidence.

It’s difficult to say with any confidence much about 18th century public sentiment toward concealed carry. That era’s handguns were characterized as: horse pistols, belt pistols and pocket pistols. The literature on handgun gunsmithing is replete with mentions of the latter class, albeit clearly a minority of production. The “coat pocket pistol” was a subtype somewhat more popular than the diminutive “pocket pistol” but still more concealable than the belt pistol.

We should wonder why there was a public market for a class of readily concealed pistols if there were no recognized right in the public mind to bear such arms. It is likely that anyone who could afford a brace of pocket pistols would have been a gentleman – and, as such, would be considered at liberty to accessorize as he saw fit. That would imply the right to carry openly, concealed, or not at all.

The first states to ban concealed carry were Kentucky and Louisiana, in 1813, 22 years after the founding generation ratified the Second Amendment. Things get muddier when the 1833 case Barron v Baltimore established the Federalism principle that the Bill of Rights did not constrain state legislatures. That rule was substantially reversed by the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of “incorporation” culminating in the 2010 Second Amendment case of McDonald v Chicago. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, there was no Second Amendment right to arms that Federal courts would enforce upon the states. But since 2010, there is evidently some right to bear arms that the Supremes should now be duty bound to discover, declare and enforce upon the states.

Wrenn v District of Columbia stands for the proposition that there is a right for the “average” citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit. The three judge panel in Young v Hawaii endorsed the right to be issued an open carry permit. The Ninth Circuit en banc then found in Young no right to carry whatsoever. That Circuit ducked the open-carry issue in its decision in Peruta II, for which the Supreme Court denied cert. Having denied Peruta’s claim to a right to a concealed carry permit, the Ninth Circuit was cornered. Sitting en banc, it found against Young’s right to an open carry permit, ruling out any practical claim to a Second Amendment right to bear arms within its jurisdiction. This places it (with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits) in conflict with the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits, which have found a right to a concealed-carry permit.

Generally speaking, sentiment concerning the practice of open vs concealed carry has essentially reversed over time from the 19th to 20th century. By the close of the 19th century, some states permitted both open and concealed carry, others only one or the other. Where carry was common but concealed carry prohibited (or regulated), open carry was an accepted practice. Where carry was common and concealed carry permitted (or lightly regulated), concealed-carry superseded open-carry in popularity. In the 20th and now the 21st centuries, open carry has been generally (but not universally) legal, but not commonly practiced. Concealed carry became the predominantly preferred mode of carry.

What happened? Did “the law” of the Second Amendment’s “right” to “bear arms” change from the 18th and 19th to the 20th and 21st centuries? How did this occur? There were no Supreme Court cases on mode of carry adjudicated at any time throughout this period. Cases adjudicated in several state supreme courts concerning state constitutional rights may be persuasive, but they are not nationally binding. The U.S. Supreme Court will not be searching for the meaning of the right to bear arms found in Hawaii’s constitution; it will be called upon to define “the right” defined by the Federal Constitution.

Arguably, the 19th Century laws of Kentucky, Louisiana and so many others which followed, may be characterized as “longstanding”. But does “longstanding” mean “since the founding era”; “since the antebellum era”; “since the turn of the 20th Century”; or some other prominent milestone of constitutional history? State laws banning or regulating concealed carry were not all adopted and upheld in the first quarter of the 19th Century. Generally, this development played out between 1813 and the middle of the 19th Century; again, under respective state constitutions rather than the Federal Second Amendment. Do any of these laws illuminate the understanding of “the right” circa 1790?

The easiest step forward for the Supremes would seem to be to discover a right to open-carry that may not be denied by a state. That would open the way for state legislatures to be compelled to adopt a Shall Issue Open Carry permit law, affecting Hawaii, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Florida. But this impact would be very limited. And this scenario won’t unfold unless SCOTUS grants cert to Young and joins it with Corlett. A more likely scenario is that Young is held until Corlett is decided, with the Corlett decision apt to render the en banc Young decision moot.

A likely response would be that state legislatures would adopt carry permit laws that do not differentiate between open vs. concealed carry. The legislators might hope that their residents would opt for concealed-carry over open-carry, so that their constituents would not suddenly see openly armed civilians all over public places.

Another possible scenario is that SCOTUS would declare that the states may ban open-carry or concealed-carry, but not both. Such a move would bring Hawaii, California, Maryland and New Jersey into conformance with Illinois and Florida. The “Gunshine” state is peculiar in forbidding open carry except while camping, hunting or fishing. Presumably, gators are preying on Floridians engaging in such activities who must therefore have more ready access to their handguns. Should the Supreme Court take this route, they will enshrine in Federal Constitutional law a “checkerboard” treatment of the right to bear arms. As the interstate traveler crosses state lines s/he will be obliged to take care to conceal or display her handgun to conform to local law.

In that case, state legislatures will sit – perhaps under the heavenly supervision of Ms. Rivers – to declare whether open carry or concealed carry is the fashion faux pas of their respective jurisdictions. Hawaiians may wear grass skirts, but they must bear arms openly? Californians must conceal their weapons? Floridians may bear their arms bare only while fishing or wearing bikinis? In Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, anything goes!

The hoplophobes would be appeased in concealed carry only states, whereas in open carry only states those horrified by the practice of secreting arms will be comforted by the knowledge that those openly carrying are properly vetted. Excepting for those states which have adopted Constitutional Carry. The only uniform aspect of open arms bearing throughout the nation will be the fact that Black Lives Matter sympathizers will still have to endure the sight of police carrying guns on their belts. What will the children think?

To answer this last question, I offer the following. When I lived in New Jersey, I patronized a Dunkin Donuts not far from the Catholic girls’ high school from which my daughter graduated. I was routinely surrounded by a gaggle of giggling girls dressed in their uniform kilts, and occasionally observed a middled-aged lady in street clothes accessorized by a revolver on her hip.

No one paid the least bit of attention to her except the counter clerk when taking her order. Eventually, I asked her if she were a cop; she replied in the affirmative. As captain of the obvious I remarked that she was not in uniform, to which she replied that she was a detective. Apparently, the nuns had failed to inculcate a proper sense of hoplophobia in their students, who just didn’t care.

What’s at stake here in Young? And in Corlett? And the two together? We ought to be thinking about this now as briefs are being written for Corlett; especially amicus briefs. The litigants are constrained to speak narrowly to the question certified, which is concealed carry. Amici might have greater latitude to slip in something about open carry and the bigger picture. Three points:

First, experience tells us that states which disparage carry will use concealed-carry only statues to harass gun owners who might inadvertently and briefly “flash” a bit of butt. We must avoid this vulnerability. A right to open carry is a bright-line solution. An allowance for “inadvertence” and “brief” leaves the cop, prosecutor and court ample opportunity to harass. No allowance would be ruinous. The conscientious concealed carrier must produce sufficient evidence to refute the charge of consciousness and long duration of exposure. He might beat the rap but not the ride.

Second, the “longstanding” dicta in District of Columbia v Heller is at stake. What is longstanding? 1813, antebellum or Reconstruction, 1911’s Sullivan Law? Is the original meaning doctrine based on the date of ratification? Corlett and Young represent the best opportunity for SCOTUS to discount the precedential weight of any state gun control laws adjudicated after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Third, nailing down McDonald’s incorporation of the Second Amendment upon the states. What is the right to arms contemplated by the Second Amendment for the nation, never mind any state constitution or laws, for what arms? Corlett and Young represent our best opportunities for the Court to make clear that state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are superseded by the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution. Before ratification of the 14th Amendment there may have been no recourse to Federal Courts for a state infringement of a Constitutional right. That right was finally corrected for the Second Amendment by McDonald.

This discussion about the Constitutional distinction between open and concealed carry is a rare opportunity to ridicule gun control on a plane with fashion control. Should SCOTUS choose to allow states to distinguish open from concealed carry then it should expect to raise Joan Rivers from her grave to adjudicate many approaches to carry:

– purse vs. belt vs. shoulder;

– inside vs. outside the waistband;

– appendix vs. 3:00 o’clock vs. 6:00 o’clock; and, ultimately,

– a FlashBang holster clipped to a citizen’s bra?

We suggest that it would be prudent to subject such fashion statement laws to strict scrutiny.

—’MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.
All DRGO articles by ‘MarkPA’

Legendary MoH Marine Hershel W. Williams Welcomes Great-Grandson Into The Corps

H/T War History OnLine.

Semper Fi  Pfc. Cedar Ross.

Pfc. Cedar Ross, left, exchanged a challenge coin with his great-grandfather, retired Marine Hershel ''Woody'' Williams, right, the last living recipient of the Medal of Honor from World War II, after Ross graduated from Marine Corps boot camp Friday, June 18, 2021, in Parris Island, S.C.

Pfc. Cedar Ross, left, exchanged a challenge coin with his great-grandfather, retired Marine Hershel ”Woody” Williams, right, the last living recipient of the Medal of Honor from World War II, after Ross graduated from Marine Corps boot camp Friday, June 18, 2021, in Parris Island, S.C. (Brent Casey)

The great-grandson of legendary U.S. Marine Hershel Woodrow “Woody” Williams has been welcomed into the Corps by his granddad. Williams was awarded the Medal of Honor for extreme heroism during the vicious Battle of Iwo Jima and is now the last living Medal of Honor recipient from WWII.


Williams’ great-grandson, Pfc. Cedar Ross, has recently graduated from the Marine Corps boot camp and has been given some useful words of advice from his decorated family member. Williams said, “The only advice I think I gave him was to do the very best that he could and then do a little more.”

The graduation ceremony is the first that family members have been able to attend since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing Williams to watch his great-grandson and 350 fresh Marines cross the parade area at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island.

Hershel W. Williams

Williams was once in Ross’s shoes back in 1943, when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He first attempted to enlist in 1942, motivated by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but he was turned down for being too short (5 foot 6). In 1943, the U.S. reduced the height limit and he successfully enlisted in the Marine Corps. He was trained in demolitions and using the flamethrower.

On February 21, 1945, Williams arrived on the beaches of Iwo Jima, an island that was host to one of the most brutal battles of the entire war.

Hershel Williams at the commissioning of the Navy warship USS Hershel "Woody" Williams
Photo Credit: Lance Cpl. Fernando Moreno / U.S. Marine Corps

During the battle, U.S. tanks were attempting to clear a way through the island’s defenses for the infantry, but came up against a series of Japanese bunkers unleashing deadly fire on the following troops. Williams was ordered to take his flamethrower and assist a fellow soldier armed with explosives to neutralize the Japanese bunkers. They would be covered by a group of riflemen.

All of the men with Williams were cut down by enemy fire before they could reach the bunkers. Williams remained unscathed, however, and made his way to a bunker, where he inserted his flamethrower into an opening of the bunker, killing the occupants inside.

Williams moved to another bunker and placed “the nozzle of his flamethrower through the air vent, killing the occupants, and silencing the gun,” as quoted from his Medal of Honor citation.

His citation also said that “he fought desperately for four hours under terrific enemy small-arms fire and repeatedly returned to his own lines to prepare demolition charges and obtain serviced flamethrowers, struggling back, frequently to the rear of hostile emplacements, to wipe out one position after another.”

Harry Truman, president of the United States, congratulates Hershel "Woody" Williams, a Marine reservist and survivor of the battle of Iwo Jima, on being awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the battle of Iwo Jima October 5, 1945 at the White House in Washington.
Harry S Truman congratulates Williams on being awarded the Medal of Honor. (Photo Credit: U.S. Marines)

For these actions, Williams was awarded the Medal of Honor personally by U.S. President Harry S. Truman and became a legend of the Marine Corps. The U.S. has since named a Navy vessel, a National Guard facility, and a VA Medical Center after him.

A tough legacy to beat

So, Ross certainly has big boots to fill. Until about halfway through boot camp, the drill instructors had no idea he was the great-grandson of the decorated Marine. During the tough 13-week training process the new Marines went through, Ross received a promotion to private first class.


Ross was interviewed beside Williams. “The chief drill instructor told me, ‘Ross, you’re going to have big shoes to fill,’” Ross said. “I said, ‘Yes, sir. Thankfully, I wear size 15.’”

At the ceremony, commanding officer of the 2nd Recruit Training Battalion Lt. Col. Robert M. Groceman, told the new Marines to take pride in their achievements, “but tomorrow is no longer about you,” he said. “Tomorrow is about those Marines who came before us, whose legacy you are now a part of. Tomorrow is about those Marines to your left and to your right who are depending on you.”

Felix Steiner: The SS General Who Turned Against Hitler

H/T  War History OnLine.

Felix Steiner lead an amazing life.

The Waffen-SS was a German military division that aided in the Nazi party’s domination of Europe WWII. Initially consisting of soldiers with little-to-no military training, it eventually became one of Germany’s most highly skilled combat units, thanks to the command of SS-Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner.

Steiner’s early military career

Felix Steiner enlisted in the German military in March 1914 as a cadet with the 5th Infantry Regiment von Bozen. When war broke out, the unit was sent to the Russian border. After recovering from injury, he was promoted to second lieutenant and posted to the Fortress Machine Gun Detachment 1. In 1916, he was transferred to the Lithuanian Front.

After battles around the Düna River and Riga, he was sent to the Western Front as company commander of the Machine Gun Sharpshooter Detachment Ober-Ost 46. There, he saw Germany’s assault troops, the Sturmtruppen, in action and was impressed with their level of skill and camaraderie.

Military portrait of Felix Steiner
Felix Steiner. (Photo Credit: Unknown Author / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 DE)

After the war ended, and having reached the rank of first lieutenant, Steiner joined the 1st Infantry Regiment of the Reichswehr. Upon making his way through the ranks, he retired in December 1933. He then became a training advisor, but found himself longing for a more challenging role.

The beginnings of the Waffen-SS

Steiner joined the SS-Verfügungstruppe (V-Truppe) on March 16, 1935, as Obersturmbannführer and appointed commander of the 3rd Battalion/SS-Standart “Deutschland.” With ex-Army officer Paul Hausser, he set out making his soldiers the finest in Europe, staging his training around the tactics of the Sturmtruppen.

Steiner’s training turned military tradition on its head. He focused on athleticism, as opposed to barracks square drills, and he abolished the class system. He also changed the weaponry, swapping out the Mauser rifle for lightweight weapons, such as sub-machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, and explosive charges.

German recruitment poster for the Waffen-SS
Recruitment poster. (Photo Credit: Galerie Bilderwelt / Getty Images)

The work put into the V-Truppe’s development paid off. Impressed with the unit, Adolf Hitler signed a decree making it a permanent force within the country’s military. Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler was impressed as well and saw the unit as a stabilizing force within the Nazi regime. Unfortunately for Himmler, Steiner wasn’t fond of him and spoke poorly of both him and the country’s regime.

War breaks out in Europe

The V-Truppe’s first foray into action occurred during the invasion of Poland in August 1939. Joined by the armored Kempf Division, it experienced three days of fighting in Mława and additional artillery fire at the Różan river crossing. With the aid of the 7th Panzer Regiment, they captured the crossing, leading to the capitulation of Modlin Fortress on September 28.

The Deutschland Division continued to hone its skills before being sent to Holland in May 1940. Along with General der Artillerie Albert Wodrig’s XXVI Armeekorps, Steiner’s men were able to breach the Wilhelmina Canal, resulting in the capture of Walcheren on May 17.

Waffen-SS soldiers riding in a truck during the Battle of France
Waffen-SS soldiers during the Battle of France, 1940. (Photo Credit: ullstein picture Dtl. / Getty Images)

Focus soon turned to France, where the German Army had to contend with fierce British resistance. In the Nieppe Forest, with the aid of Hausser’s unit and the 3rd Panzer Division, the Deutschland Division was able to breach enemy lines and reach Lys Canal. After establishing a bridgehead on the opposite side, Steiner made his division the sector’s leading unit.

On June 5, 1940, with the Allies retreating from Dunkirk, Steiner led his men through the Weygand Line and across the Aisne River and the Marne. Despite Paris capitulating on the 14th, the French still put up resistance. This led to a battle near Chatillon between June 16 and 18, for which Steiner was awarded the Knight’s Cross.

The Eastern Front

In November 1940, Himmler promoted Felix Steiner to SS Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS and tasked him with organizing a new unit made up of the NordlandGermania and Westland SS regiments. The vast majority of recruits were non-German volunteers from Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Holland.

Called SS division Wiking, the unit was transported to the Eastern Front, passing into Russia on June 22, 1941. Paired with Generaloberst Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist’s Panzergruppe 1, they moved across the River Dnieper toward Dnepropetrovsk. However, the Soviet Army pushed back with a strong winter offensive toward the end of the year.

Flemish Waffen-SS volunteers during a swearing in ceremony
Flemish Waffen-SS volunteers during a swearing-in ceremony. (Photo Credit: ullstein picture Dtl. / Getty Images)

Despite the Red Army’s efforts, Steiner’s men held strong and were eventually joined by Sturmbannführer Johannes-Rudolf Mühlenkamp’s panzer unit. In July 1942, they stormed Rostov before crossing to the Caucasus. By September, they’d made it to the land bridge with Asia and became embroiled in fighting along the Terek River.

A new corps and return to the Eastern Front

The success Steiner had with the Wiking Division resulted in him being awarded the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves. It also afforded him charge of a new unit, the III (Germanisches) SS Panzercorps, made up of Army and Luftwaffe personnel. Despite fighting exhaustion, Steiner molded them into a cohesive unit.

Steiner’s soldiers were sent to fight Yugoslavian partisans during the summer of 1943. Within a few months, in late November of that year, they were ordered to the Eastern Front. After making the trip north to the Orianenbaum Front of Heeresgruppe Nord, they were joined by ill-equipped Luftwaffe field divisions.

Waffen-SS soldiers travelling through the forest on the Eastern Front
Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front, 1941. (Photo Credit: ullstein picture Dtl. / Getty Images)

While initial plans were to train new members, the Soviets had other ideas. On January 13, 1944, they unleashed an artillery barrage on the Oranienbaum Pocket, followed by an attack by the Soviet 2nd Shock Army. At the same time, forces with the 42nd Red Army Infantry and nine tank corps attacked German forces in Leningrad.

Realizing Leningrad had fallen, Steiner led his forces across the river Narva and into the western part of the city. Establishing artillery and unit supports, they managed to survive the Battles of Narva and Tannenberg Line. However, the Soviets’ summer offensive against the Heeresgruppe Mitte ravaged the northern front and forced a retreat in late July 1944.

Attack against the 1st Belorussian Front

In January 1945, Felix Steiner was tasked with defending Pomerania with his newly formed 11th SS Panzer Army. The aim was to attack Marshal Georgy Zhukov‘s 1st Belorussian Front, which was making its way toward Germany, and to advance to Küstrin.

Steiner knew it was a suicide mission and suggested a smaller-scale attack to Generaloberst Heinz Guderian. The call ended with Steiner yelling, “Accept my plan or relieve me!” and Guderian responding, “Have it your own way!” The attack began on February 16 and saw two days of successful maneuvers by the 11th Army. However, the Russians pushed forward and forced them back to their original positions.

Georgi Zhukov sitting at his desk
Georgi Zhukov. (Photo Credit: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации / Wikimedia Commons CC BY 4.0)

The small victory gave Hitler hope, and Steiner remained in charge of the 11th Army until turning it over to Army General Walther Lucht in March 1945. On April 21, the Führer was listening to a report detailing the worsening conditions around Berlin. Steiner’s name was mentioned, inspiring Hitler to seat him at the helm of another attack against the Russians.

Steiner turns on Hitler

While hiding out in his bunker, Hitler planned for Steiner and his men, now called the Armeegruppe Steiner, to launch another attack on Zhukov’s forces in order to prevent them from surrounding General der Panzertruppe Hasso von Manteuffel’s 3rd Panzerarmee and advancing on Berlin.

Steiner heard the plan and immediately refused to participate. He’d begun to feel disillusioned with the Führer after a visit from his friend Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg. Anti-Nazi, von der Schulenburg discussed killing Hitler, a conversation that had initially troubled Steiner. Since then, he’d become involved in plans to arrest and kill the Führer, but they’d fallen through.

Waffen-SS soldiers battling in Pomerania
Waffen-SS defending Pomerania, 1945. (Photo Credit: ullstein bild Dtl. / Getty Images)

Staff informed Hitler of Steiner’s inaction. He sent Gotthard Heinrici and Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel to force him to attack, but their attempts failed and the Führer relieved him of his duties on April 27, 1945. Continuing his defiance, Steiner asked the man sent to relieve him if he could continue to serve, and he did so up until he surrendered to the Americans.

By this point, Hitler had conceded that Germany lost the war. A few days after relieving Steiner of his duties, he took his own life.

Steiner’s postwar life

Upon surrender, Felix Steiner was arrested. He faced charges at the Nuremberg Trials, but they were dropped and he was released on April 27, 1948. Five years later, he was recruited by the CIA to help start the Gesellschaft für Wehrkunde (Society for Defence Studies). It was used as a military think tank and propaganda tool for German rearmament.

Felix Steiner at a postwar Waffen-SS meeting with General Fallschirmjäger and Herbert Gille
Steiner at a postwar meeting of the Waffen-SS, 1952. (Photo Credit:
ullstein picture Dtl. / Getty Images)

Along with publishing books detailing his military experience, he also helped found the Waffen-SS Veteran’s Association, which campaigned for the legal, historical, and economic rehabilitation of the military organization. He was active in the group until May 16, 1966, when he passed away.


Why Do Democrats Keep Warning They’ll Unleash the Horrors of Nuclear War on American Citizens?

H/T Western Journal.

I think Joe Pee Pads Biden and Eric Swalwell would try to use nukes against gun owners.

The left has proven its ire for gun owners time and time again — that is no secret. But what can be said about President Joe Biden’s and California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s flirtations with the idea of taking on gun owners with nuclear force?

Biden’s adamant push for gun control measures has sparked intense debate around the nation, leading some state leaders to step up and enact their own legislation to uphold and defend the constitutional right to bear arms.

But gun-grabbing Democrats are well aware that their moves against the Second Amendment wouldn’t happen so easily. Instead of enacting their despotic plans all at once and throwing Americans into a pot of boiling water from which we would resist and jump out, they have opted to slowly turn up the heat instead.

And things just got another degree hotter.

During his more than three decades as a Delaware senator, his eight-year run as vice president and his 2020 presidential candidacy, Biden has championed gun restrictions without reserve. Now he does so from the Oval Office.

In response to a surge in murder and violence across the country over the past year, the president on Wednesday announced a “Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime.” Unsurprisingly, the focus of his plan is gun control.

Adding insult to injury during his Wednesday remarks on the new strategy, Biden took the opportunity to take a jab at Second Amendment advocates.

“Those who say the blood of, the blood of patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” he said. “Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that they’re never been — if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

The comment was a reference to Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote in 1787: “[W]hat country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

But Biden isn’t the only Democratic elected official declaring how utterly mismatched patriots would be if they decided to take up arms against a government that works to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights.

Swalwell also touted the idea in 2018.

Responding to a tweet from Infowars correspondent Joe Biggs — whose account has since been suspended — the California Democrat addressed concerns about mass gun confiscation with a sardonic approach.

“It would be a short war my friend,” Swalwell said. “The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.”


There is no common ground when the politicians on the left keep making threats, essentially telling us to comply or die.

Just as you can’t negotiate with terrorists, you can’t negotiate with tyrants.

The left has given us an ultimatum — surrender your most intrinsic right to self-defense, the sole right that guarantees all others the Constitution pledges, or face the consequences.

Right or left, this ultimatum should scare you into action rather than submission.

Many in the government already have forgotten they are servants of the people, but imagine how far this government can go when they grow so pompous as to think we serve them instead.

For the record, we’re not talking about a small-scale operation enacted against the people as in the Waco siege of 1993 — we’re talking about thermonuclear detonations with the capacity to wipe entire cities off the map.

That is the idea they’re touting to address our dissent.

Any official who remotely hints at the idea of exerting such force against political constituents for their refusal to “comply” is unfit for office, including Biden and Swalwell.

Can anyone safely say the world would be a safer place if arms were out of our possession and solely in the hands of those making these threats?

For those who defend the indefensible, the tyrannical notion of “obey or die” — it’s time to wake up.

No, NPR There Aren’t 400 2A Sanctuary Counties …. there are 1,930 & Growing!

H/T AmmoLand.

1,930 Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties and growing.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/hey-npr-there-are-1930-2a-sanctuary-counties/#ixzz6yrAaYR8D
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

No, NPR, There Aren’t 400 2A Sanctuary Counties …. there are 1,930 & Growing!

USA – Taxpayer-funded National Public Radio tries to downplay and trivialize the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, without letting the facts get in their way.

To be clear, there are 1,930 counties that have now become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, which is more than 61% of all the counties in the United States.

Of these counties, 1,137 made the decision to protect the Second Amendment on their own. The rest are located in the 15 states — the most recent being Texas — that declared themselves state-wide Second Amendment Sanctuaries, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com.

Davis has the most up-to-date maps and data available on the topic. He has tracked the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement since its inception in his home state of Virginia.

The fact more than 61% of the country has chosen to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens have largely been ignored by the legacy media. If they have bothered to do a story on sanctuaries at all, their goal has been to downplay if not belittle the movement. Of course, that, friends, is what we call spin.

Taxpayer subsidized National Public Radio is the latest to try to torpedo the movement momentum, which is growing every single day.

On NPR’s June 21 edition of “Here & Now,” the host falsely states there are only 400 counties that have become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, not 1,930.

This is a common error among legacy media. Davis has said it stems from a story originally published more than a year ago by Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory — The Trace — which keeps rebounding around the internet even though the numbers have increased significantly, because of lazy reporting and shoddy research.

This wasn’t NPR’s only attack on the grassroots movement.

The show’s guest, Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University’s School of Law, tore into the sanctuary movement even more.

“It’s a bit of political theater,” Anders said. “Their using language made popular during the Trump Presidency.”

Asked whether he believes the Biden/Harris administration will “crackdown” on the sanctuary movement, Anders said Biden has been “very savvy about not pushing issues that are going to generate an explosive backlash.”

“However, I think he has made it clear he does want to go after things like the AR-15.”

Anders said, adding that if the Democrats win the midterm elections, they will likely “reup the Assault Weapon Ban.”

The NPR host and the good professor then staged a bit of political theater of their own.

“What message does this bill send even if it is almost purely symbolic?” the host asked.

“I personally think is sends a losing message, which is: ‘We’re gonna double-down on opening up gun sales to everybody.’ I don’t think that is a good look for the NRA. It’s not a good look for gun owners. It makes them look irresponsible,” Anders said.

I sent an email to the “Here & Now” program alerting them to their missteps and asking when and how they intend to correct their errors. Although I received an automated acknowledgment that they received my email, I have not received an actual response.

Dead Scared Media ~Takeaways

Crybabys College Snowflakes
The Biden/Harris administration, the legacy media and the folks at The Trace, and other anti-rights groups are scared witless by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement. iStock

In my humble opinion, the Biden/Harris administration, the legacy media and the folks at The Trace, and other anti-rights groups are scared witless by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement,

More than 61% of the country has drawn a line in the sand — telling the federal government not to infringe upon their God-given and constitutional rights. The movement ceased being “symbolic” a long time ago.

Despite the good professor saying it’s not a “good look” for the NRA, neither the NRA nor any other civil rights organizations have anything to do with it. This is a pure grassroots movement. It’s organic. It’s hyper-local. It’s about citizens standing up to their government — period. No one person or organization is pulling any strings.

That NPR and other outdated members of the legacy media are now belittling and downplaying Second Amendment sanctuaries shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. They’re scared, after all, but not nearly as scared as the politicians. The movement positively terrifies them. It strikes at their very core. It tells them very plainly that we will not comply with their tyrannical edicts.

As the movement grows — and it is growing by leaps and bounds — we will see more attacks from politicians, which will then be parroted by their staunch supporters in the legacy media, assuming, that is, they can break a reporter loose from their hard-hitting, investigative coverage of Joe Biden’s ice cream cone du jour.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

Biden Reveals ‘Comprehensive Gun Crime Strategy’ – Same Old Same Old

H/T AmmoLand.

Gun owners need to be prepared for a long hard fight.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Joe Biden has released his “comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crime and ensure public safety,” and a careful read of the 4,481-word “fact sheet” is essentially the same thing Biden and the gun prohibition lobby has been selling for a long time, but with new packaging.

Key elements include Biden’s desire for Congress to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which anti-gunners despise because their goal is to sue the gun industry into bankruptcy.

He also wants to “Stem the flow of firearms used to commit violence, including by holding rogue firearms dealers accountable for violating federal laws.”

Biden will also “convene and support” a Community Violence Intervention Collaborative involving 15 jurisdictions. The cities, and King County, Washington, are nearly all headed by Democrat administrations.

The administration’s release comes as reports of surging homicides are plaguing several cities. According to the Washington Post, “In the first quarter of 2021, homicides were up over the same period last year in several cities including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Orlando, Pittsburgh and Tampa.”

AmmoLand did a quick check and found the mayors of all of these cities belong to one party: Democrat. Likewise, the story mentioned Philadelphia and New York City, both also run by Democrats. Does anyone see a correlation?

The story noted 27 city mayors wrote to Biden “to demand that he press Congress for action on gun legislation, including background checks” in the aftermath of mass shootings in four cities all within hours of one another on June 11.

“But the mayors, all Democrats, also acknowledged that action was likely to be blocked by Republicans in Congress, who say that new restrictions infringe on Second Amendment rights,” the Washington Post said.

VOA News notes that Republicans “are blaming the surge in homicides and shootings on the progressives’ purported anti-police rhetoric as they press for a return to tough-on-crime policies.”

The aforementioned King County in Washington is home to Seattle, where anti-police rhetoric has been running at a fever pitch for a year, and some members of the city council have been in the forefront. Not surprisingly, they have been remarkably silent in recent days since a female Seattle police officer was killed while trying to assist at a traffic crash on I-5 ten minutes after going off-duty. The crash was allegedly caused by a suspect driving a stolen U-Haul, who then took the dead officer’s private vehicle with her uniform, badge and gun inside, and fled the scene. That man is now in jail.

The Washington Post reported that “Experts and law enforcement officials alike point first to the flood of guns on American streets.”

Under the Biden initiative, “The strategy will also address the direct link between gun violence and the rise in violent crime by taking immediate steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including by strengthening ATF’s efforts to stem the flow of firearms used in crimes, and by launching multijurisdictional firearms trafficking strike forces to stop illegal gun trafficking across state lines.” He also wants to crack down on so-called “rogue gun dealers.”

Biden wants Congress to “toughen regulations on ghost guns,” and confirm a permanent ATF director.

On the latter note, the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to vote on the nomination of David Chipman to head the federal gun regulation agency, but his background continues to be an issue.

Chipman has become an outspoken gun control advocate as an advisor to Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords gun prohibition lobbying group.

But now, according to Fox News, “several former and current members” of the ATF “are sounding the alarm against” Chipman.

Former ATF Director Michael Sullivan told Fox News, “I am concerned that somebody who has taken such a strong and hostile position against the Second Amendment, as well as gun owners and some of the most popular firearms in the United States, would be viewed as a political leader for an agency that, I think, has worked extremely hard to build the American public confidence in its handling of interpreting both the Gun Control Act and the various regulations around it.”

The story also noted, “The current and former ATF agents who spoke to Fox News described Chipman as an “activist” who is not right for the role of ATF director.”

Another controversy has arisen around Chipman—reported here by AmmoLand News—regarding allegations he lost a duty weapon while working as an ATF agent, an accusation Chipman has denied.

The president’s new gun control scheme and Chipman’s nomination controversy coincide with the signing of a new law in Missouri by Republican Gov. Mike Parson that “instructs local and state police not to enforce federal gun laws.”

While the Justice Department sent a letter to Parson advising against this new statute, the governor and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt are reportedly standing firm.

Schmitt, who is running to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Roy Blunt, told the Washington Times, “This is, in many ways, forward-looking — expecting a very aggressive action on the part of the Biden administration as it relates to the Second Amendment…We are not going to back down.”

This sets up what could be a confrontation between the state and the federal government, with overtones of states’ rights versus federal authority.

Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, told the Washington Times that federal law takes precedent over conflicting state statute. He noted the 2008 Heller ruling allowed for some reasonable regulation of Second Amendment rights. Opinions differ on what is a “reasonable” regulation.

With a long, hot summer on the horizon—when homicides often spike and violent crime might erupt, especially with funding cuts to some police agencies—Biden’s newly re-packaged “comprehensive” strategy to address guns and crime will be on the line.

Tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners are digging in for what could become a bitter battle setting the stage for an even tougher political fight leading up to next year’s mid-term elections.

The Feds can’t compel states to enforce restrictions on guns or immigrants

H/T The Chicago Sun Times.

The anti-commandeering principle serves causes favored by both the Right and the Left.

When state and local officials decline to help enforce federal firearm rules they view as unconstitutional, The New York Times says, they are adopting “a legally shaky but politically potent strategy” with racist roots.

But when state and local officials decline to help enforce federal immigration rules they view as “unjust, self-defeating and harmful to public safety,” the Times says, they should be “proud” of “choos[ing] not to participate in deportation crackdowns.”

That blatant double standard illustrates how policy preferences and partisan allegiances color people’s views of federalism, which they tend to endorse when it serves their purposes and reject when it doesn’t. But as Missouri Gov. Mike Parson and Attorney General Eric Schmitt recently observed while defending that state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, “you cannot have it both ways.”

Missouri’s law, which Parson signed last week, is part of a broader movement to resist federal gun control. It declares that some federal firearm policies — including bans, registration requirements, and taxes that have “a chilling effect” on purchases — “shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the state constitution.

The law says such rules “shall be invalid to this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state.” It authorizes injunctions against law enforcement agencies that violate this new policy, along with civil penalties of $50,000 “per occurrence.”

In response to anxious questions from the U.S. Justice Department, Parson and Schmitt said the law’s restrictions and remedies apply only to state and local officials. That means they do not interfere with federal enforcement of federal laws — the same point the Times made in defense of “sanctuary” cities and states.

The immediate impact of this law — which is similar in spirit to laws passed by 11 other states this year, although their details and practical significance vary widely — is likely to be minor. The restrictions do not apply to federal firearm offenses that are also crimes under Missouri law, and currently there is not much difference between those categories.

The main point of the law, according to its sponsors, is proactive. Should Congress pass the gun controls that President Joe Biden favors, such as a ban on the manufacture and unregistered possession of “assault weapons,” Missouri officials will be prohibited from assisting in their enforcement.

Contrary to what the Times reported, that policy is not “legally shaky.” It relies on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine, which says the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to enforce its criminal laws or regulatory schemes.

That doctrine is rooted in the basic design of our government, which limits Congress to a short list of specifically enumerated powers and leaves the rest to the states or the people, as the 10th Amendment makes clear. That division of powers gives states wide discretion to experiment with different policies, some of which are bound to offend the Times.

The paper suggests that defending state autonomy is disreputable, because that argument was “deployed in the past in the South to resist antislavery and civil rights laws.” But federalism does not give states a license to violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution or to flout laws authorized by it.

Although the Times tries to tar the anti-commandeering principle as racist, the same basic idea was a crucial weapon for Northern states that refused to help the federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Today that principle likewise means that state and local officials have no obligation to participate in the “deportation crackdowns” that the Times decries.

Similarly, the ongoing collapse of marijuana prohibition — a development the Times welcomes — would be impossible if states were obligated to participate in the federal war on weed. While both progressives and conservatives might wish that federalism could be limited to achieving results they like, that is not how constitutional principles work.