Americana Corner: Our Bill of Rights: 2nd Amendment

H/T Bryan County News.

How much will we see in the way of restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights from the Joe Pee Pads  Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris’ regime?

The Second Amendment: 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.

The Second Amendment is corollary to one of the most basic natural rights we have, that of self-defense. However, it has recently been the subject of great controversy. Becoming familiar with the history of this doctrine is critical to understanding it.

Today’s gun-control debate in America focuses on two questions. First, does the Second Amendment give citizens the right to keep and bear arms for personal reasons or did it only pertain to the militia? Second, if the right is granted to individuals, can it be restricted or is it unlimited in scope?

To find the answers, we must examine our Forefathers own words on this subject and understand how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in English law since 1689 when it was added to England’s Bill of Rights, the precursor to ours. The right was seen by many as a natural right for “self-preservation” and “to restrain the violence of oppression” by the government.

 

When the Founders created our Bill of Rights, they saw two primary reasons for the need to keep and bear arms. First, there was the inalienable right to self-defense that all people enjoy. Second, this right was deemed essential as a bulwark against oppression by the government.

Samuel Adams stated the Constitution should never be interpreted to “prevent the people from keeping their own arms”. Additionally, Theodore Sedgwick declared “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands” cannot be oppressed.

James Madison was also concerned about the threat a standing army posed to our democracy. In Federalist No. 46, he stated militias formed from an armed populace “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army and thwart any attempt by it to impose autocratic rule.

Thomas Jefferson added, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Anti-Federalists, worried about oppression from within, clearly saw the right to keep and bear arms as extending to all citizens for their personal use.

In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, a close 5-4 decision, that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense in their home. However, they also stated these guarantees come with some limitations regarding who could own a weapon and on “dangerous and unusual weapons”.

Not all agreed with this position. In his Heller dissent, Justice Paul Stevens stated the prefatory clause “a well-regulated militia” means “the right to keep and bear arms” only protects “a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia” but not for one’s personal use.

Since Heller, two more Supreme Court decisions, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), have further confirmed that the Second Amendment does grant individual citizens the right to possess and use firearms in their homes and not only in conjunction with a militia.

Based on these decisions and the words of our Founders, it seems clear Americans have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms and other weapons for self-defense and other personal reasons, but these rights are not unlimited.

WHY IT MATTERS So why should it matter to us today that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the government?

Nothing is more natural than securing oneself from harm. Whether that danger be a physical assault or oppression by a stronger force such as the government, owning and knowing how to use a firearm is a sound means of ensuring one’s well-being. The Founders recognized this as a fundamental right and made certain they guaranteed it to posterity.

SUGGESTED READING A superb anthology of some of America’s greatest works of literature, famous speeches, and patriotic songs is the book “What So Proudly We Hail”. Published in 2011, it contains excerpts from a wide array of subjects, everything from Theodore Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” to Washington’s Farewell Address to the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

PLACES TO VISIT If you are a gun enthusiast, you should visit Springfield Armory National Historical Site http://www. nps.gov/spar/index.htm in Springfield, Massachusetts. This National Park site includes the world’s largest collection of historic American firearms and several beautifully preserved buildings.

Until next time, may your motto be “Ducit Amor Patriae”, Love of country leads me.

Firearms Policy Coalition Statement on Incoming Biden Administration

H/T AmmoLand.

It is going to be a long dark time for gun owners under the Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris administration.

 

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition has released the following statement after Congress today affirmed the Electoral College vote for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris:

As we have said before, President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris represent a clear and present danger to liberty, freedom, the Constitution, and the values that have made America the greatest country in the world. Given the results of the Georgia runoff election, anti-rights politicians and bureaucrats are set to control the Congress, the White House, and the administrative state, including the rogue Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

 

Biden and Harris have made it clear that their dangerous agenda includes incredibly expansive and unconstitutional gun control policies, and that they expect Congress to pass many new laws restricting rights, conduct, and property. Indeed, since the 117th Congress was sworn in, many statist, anti-American gun control bills have already been introduced.

In the coming months and years, the attacks on our fundamental rights and liberty will likely be unprecedented, relentless, and lawless. From expanding categories of prohibited persons and “red flag” laws to “universal background checks,” bans on free speech and ‘3D’ printing technology, encryption bans, deplatforming, “Operation Choke Point” and banking restrictions, new prohibitions and restrictions on firearms, magazines, ammunition, and other constitutionally protected arms, expansion of the irrational National Firearms Act, laws to incarcerate thousands more people every year, and, sadly, much, much more. It is not hyperbole to say that the Biden-Harris era may be the most challenging of our lifetimes.

However, as we have explained before, our fundamental rights do not come from the government, the people, or even the Constitution itself. Our right to keep and bear arms exists with or without official legal recognition of it, with or without judicial enforcement of it, and with or without a desire for them to be exercised or respected.

FPC and our Grassroots Army members are resolved to aggressively counter these unconstitutional and immoral proposed policies and unforgivable infringements of our natural, human rights. Our FPC Law team is steeled and prepared to take on important issues and many new lawsuits. And we are confident that, if we hold fast and work together, the right to keep and bear arms—and our Republic—will endure. FPC will continue to fiercely execute our advancement strategy, fight forward based on philosophy and principles, defend and restore the rights and liberty of the People, and create a world of maximal individual liberty.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts. FPC is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization.

NOTICE — POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS NEEDED!

FPC is urgently seeking individual and FFL plaintiffs for a number of lawsuits that are being prepared to challenge laws and policies that infringe on fundamental rights, including (but not limited to):

  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from purchasing and/or possessing so-called “assault weapons” (semi-automatic firearms with standard characteristics) and “high-capacity” magazines (standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds)
  • Laws and policies that prevent adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 from purchasing handguns from FFLs
  • Laws and policies that prevent adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 from carrying loaded handguns and other arms outside of their home
  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring and/or possessing handguns and other arms without first acquiring a “purchase permit”
  • Laws and policies that prevent individuals from acquiring or possessing firearms due to a conviction for a non-violent crime, or mental health adjudication that did not involve an involuntary commitment
  • Laws that prevent honorably discharged veterans from acquiring or possessing firearms because they have been classified as “a mental defective” due to the agency’s determination that they “lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs” because they need assistance managing VA benefits and have a fiduciary

If someone you know meets the criteria above, or if you would be interested in participating in litigation as a supporting FFL, please contact us:

  • On the web at www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline
  • By email at potentialplaintiffs[at]fpchq.org
  • By phone at (855) 252-4510 (FPC Legal Action Hotline available 24/7/365)

If you would like to support FPC’s many pro-Second Amendment lawsuits, legal action, and research, please chip in $5, $10, $25, or whatever you can at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/donate or Join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

As Dems Retake Government, Standoff With Party’s Left Flank Looms

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

It is going to be interesting seeing the DemocRats at war with each other.

It will be interesting to see how far to the left AOC and the squad can make the party go.

Will Joe Pee Pads Biden allow the hard left lurch or will he quit and all Kalama Knee Pads Harris to oversee the leftward lurch?

We need to fasten our seatbelts as it is going to be a long hard and bumpy four years.

First Dem-controlled gov’t in a decade means fights over filibuster, court packing, socialist agenda

Victory in Georgia has guaranteed Democratic control of the White House and Congress, giving President-elect Joe Biden expanded options but also denying him cover from the demands of his party’s radical left wing.

Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff’s surprise double triumph on Tuesday makes possible many of Biden’s more expansive legislative priorities, such as his promised revisions to Obamacare or his $2 trillion climate plan. But it also means that he has lost the convenient excuse of a Republican-controlled Senate, which would have allowed him to refuse the more revolutionary changes endorsed by members of his party.

Instead, progressive groups are already agitating for proposals such as ending the Senate’s filibuster. Eli Zupnick, spokesman for the left-leaning Fix Our Senate, responded to the news of Warnock and Ossoff’s victory with bluntness: “What does this election mean? The filibuster is dead.”

Similar calls will soon emerge from other corners, pushing for court packing, the addition of new states, radical appointees, and the agenda of the House’s socialist “squad” caucus. Paradoxically, Biden’s victory in the Senate may have set up an even greater battle: not against Republicans, but across the ever-growing fault lines which divide his party.

As much is particularly true due to the razor-thin margin by which Democrats control government. They will hold the Senate only through the grace of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, while Republicans chipped away at their already narrow control of the House in the November election.

That margin will come into play over a likely contentious debate over the filibuster. Democrats’ sub-60-vote position means that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) can still stall much of Biden’s agenda, as he did in the latter days of the Obama administration. Recognizing this, soon-to-be majority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has repeatedly signaled an openness to ending the practice.

In this, Schumer has been joined by progressive members of his caucus such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), as well as former president Barack Obama. But blue dog senators have been hostile: Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W. Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), and Jon Tester (D., Mont.) are all opposed, while Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) has dodged the question. So too has Warnock, while Ossoff offered only a “maybe” when asked.

Abolishing the filibuster would be a prerequisite for another major change Schumer has been eyeing—granting statehood to the District of Columbia and possibly Puerto Rico, guaranteeing two to four more Democrats in the upper chamber. But it would not be necessary to add further justices to the Supreme Court, a move many Democrats agitated for in the wake of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment. Biden has remained conspicuously silent on the issue of court packing, which would require his involvement but would see the ostensible moderate yielding to progressives over the majority of Americans.

Such major changes are not the only place Democratic control could be a headache for Biden. McConnell’s control of the Senate was expected to moderate Biden’s selection for top posts, and the president-elect has leaned toward the center in many of his taps.

But a Democrat-controlled Senate will allow more controversial choices, like the inflammatory OMB pick Neera Tanden, a serious hearing Biden may not have expected. And it could give new life to appointment priorities from the left, like the list of 100 foreign policy progressives that until Tuesday appeared dead on arrival.

A similar headache may await House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), as a smaller caucus gives more power to the growing “squad” of Democratic socialists in her chamber. A cadre of online progressives spent the days leading up to the vote for speaker agitating for Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), and others to withhold their votes unless Pelosi agreed to allow a vote on Medicare for All. Ocasio-Cortez shot down the idea but acknowledged it—indicating future pressure efforts may be more fruitful.

Pelosi, in other words, could experience a redux of the standoffs that defined the relationship between former speaker John Boehner and the House Freedom Caucus, which ended with Boehner’s resignation. Biden, similarly, risks his agenda being hijacked—not by obstreperous Republicans, as expected, but by members of his own party eager to seize power.

 

Kamala Harris Vows To Rescind Travel Ban Give Amnesty to Illegals in First 100 Days

H/T Western Journal.

Was there any doubt that Kamala Knee Pads Harris and Joe Pee Pads Biden were going to do this and more.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California promised that a Joe Biden administration would rescind President Donald Trump’s travel ban directed at foreign nationals from countries considered to pose a security threat.

Harris also said Biden, as president, would reinstate the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, which allows the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.

“These last four years have been heartbreaking and difficult ones,” the Democratic senator said in a recorded address to this week’s virtual National Immigrant Integration Conference. “Children have been separated from their families. Those fleeing persecution have been denied the ability to even apply for refuge.”

She vowed that in a Biden administration’s “first 100 days, we will send an immigration bill to Congress, reinstate DACA, repeal harmful and discriminatory policies like the Muslim ban.

“And during our administration, we will repeal indiscriminate enforcement policies that tear families apart and make us less safe.”

For the record, Trump did not impose a “Muslim ban”: The executive orders did not even impact most Muslim majority countries.

The original 2017 ban included Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea.

Chad has since come off the list, while Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania have been added.

These are countries that either export terror, are known to harbor ill will toward the U.S. or lack a government functioning to the point that our State Department can safely vet foreign nationals from them.

The ban is not absolute, but the restrictions are significantly greater.

It seems like a wise policy, and the Trump years have been characterized by very few terror incidents on U.S. soil compared with the previous two administrations.

The Supreme Court upheld the ban, noting that relevant federal law gave the president “ample power” to impose restrictions on who enters the country based on security concerns or other factors.

Also for the record, children were “separated from their families” when Biden was serving as vice president in the administration of President Barack Obama.

As to DACA, notice that Harris said a Biden administration would “reinstate DACA” and send an immigration bill to Congress.

In 2010, President Barack Obama conceded he did not have the legal authority to change immigration law, but he did so anyway.

“I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen,” Obama said when asked about the topic during a Univision interview.

As a side note, the Democrats held both houses of Congress — including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — during Obama’s first two years in office yet did nothing to address immigration despite calls from Hispanic leaders to do so.

When Obama enacted DACA in 2012 during the heat of his re-election campaign, he described the program as “a temporary stopgap measure.”

And here we are eight years and many court cases later with the program still alive and now likely to grow significantly.

One thing seems clear: If Trump’s election legal challenges fall short and Biden and Harris take the reins of power next month, we can expect an America that is less secure and a government that is more lawless.

NSSF: Gun Control’s Playbook Calls the Shots for Biden

H/T AmmoLand.

If Pee Pads and Knee Pads get into office it is going to be a long hard four years for gun owners.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Voters roundly rejected gun control groups and their anti-Second Amendment schemes on Election Day. That hasn’t stopped these groups from searching for alternatives to advance their anti-gun agenda. Now failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s “news” site The Trace is giving former Vice President Joe Biden a playbook to use for executive actions, despite the will of the voters.

 

Executive Gun Control

While votes are still being tallied, a Biden-Harris administration is exactly what gun control groups wanted. Former Vice President Joe Biden let Everytown for Gun Safety run the traps on his selection of his vice presidential candidate, ultimately settling on U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The two comprised the most antigun presidential ticket in history.

Sen. Harris was forced to drop out due to a lack of support before her home state’s primary. She had campaigned on a promise to strongarm Congress on gun control. Biden derided Second Amendment supporters and has vowed to eliminate the firearm industry. Voters sent a different message, electing pro-Second Amendment policymakers to protect their rights in Congress. The Election Day rebuff isn’t stopping gun control.

Faux News

The Trace brands itself as an “independent non-partisan, non-profit news site,” but that’s hardly truthful. An exclusive report by Guns America Digest shows 70 percent of The Trace’s budget comes from Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and Everytown’s president John Feinblatt is listed as The Trace’s chief officer.

They’re now proffering a White House playbook full of executive actions, overreach, and ineffective attempts to reduce criminal misuse of firearms.

The Playbook

The Trace spoke with Chelsea Parsons of the far-left Center for American Progress and offered several actions Biden could take immediately. None are unfamiliar as voters already rejected these notions at the polls.

A potential Biden-Harris administration could immediately “reinvigorate” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by nominating a director who will “promote gun violence prevention values and prioritize a regulatory oversight mission,” Parsons said. The Biden campaign stated he’d use the ATF as an anvil to punish retailers for even minor clerical errors, threatening to revoke licenses and put them out of business. This option would require Senate confirmation of any nominee and for the time being, pro-gun rights senators hold a majority.

Parsons also suggested a possible Biden White House could use executive action to overhaul how the ATF classifies certain firearms according to the National Firearms Act. Taking such an action by fiat would instantly turn millions of lawful gun owners into criminals for possessing what was already legally purchased if they don’t fall in line. The alternative is confiscation.

Next on the list is cracking down on so-called “ghost guns,” unfinished firearms or unassembled firearm parts commonly used by gunsmiths and hobbyists since the nation’s founding. Some Democratic governors banned these firearms, but data on their use is already sparse.

Parsons added, “Ideally, we’d be able to pass legislation to take care of it. But in the absence of that, this is something that can certainly be addressed through rulemaking.”

Everytown is currently suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in federal court in New York City to force ATF to define casts and forgings as a firearm frame or receiver requiring serial numbers, record keeping, and a manufacturing license.

The last major suggestion Parsons offered was for the administration to ban importing so-called “assault weapons.” Parsons specifies that executive action could only ban importing these firearms and that legislative action would be needed for Biden’s preferred avenue of banning the sale and manufacture of these common firearms. New data shows there are nearly 20 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in circulation today.

For gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, a rock-ribbed pro-rights Senate is essential in backstopping against any future infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Biden Selects Deputy Chief of Staff Who Isn’t Shy About Wanting To Take Your Guns

H/T Western Journal.

I have a feeling that the Biden administration will let a genie out of the bottle with gun control that he would wish he could put back in the bottle.

If Joe Pee Pads Biden does become president I can foresee a rough four years for gun owners.

If Kamala Knee Pads Harris helps remove Pee Pads under the 25th Amendment it will be harder for gun owners.

Sic Semper Tryannis.

Since the day major media outlets projected former Vice President Joe Biden as the winner of the election, the Biden transition team has been busy making personnel decisions for their new administration.

Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who managed the Biden campaign, has been selected to serve as the White House deputy chief of staff.

Second Amendment advocates are understandably worried about this choice because O’Malley Dillon has been a vocal supporter of mandatory gun buybacks.

Prior to joining Team Biden, O’Malley Dillon managed the campaign of gun control zealot Beto (Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15) O’Rourke. And, according to Fox News, she shares her former boss’ radical views.

In the October 2019 video below, after indoctrinating her twin daughters with the knowledge that Mommy is working hard to stop Donald Trump because “he’s bad,” she addresses O’Rourke’s participation in a forum on gun reform in Las Vegas.

“We are actually the only campaign with a plan … that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war. An assault weapon ban is very, very important, and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there. And I think there’s 15 or 16 million.”

It’s never a good sign when a politician refers to firearms as weapons of war.

O’Malley Dillon picks up a report prepared by the group March for Our Lives called “A Peace Plan for a Safer America.” She emphasizes a passage where the group calls for “a federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as well as a national gun buyback and disposal program.”

Her strong personal support of O’Rourke’s positions on gun reform are unmistakable as she animatedly promotes the campaign’s then-forthcoming event, “Weekend of Action.”

O’Malley Dillon’s views on mandatory buybacks of assault weapons are hardly unique among members of Biden’s inner circle, or for that matter, among many members of the Democratic Party.

During the 2020 Democratic primaries, California Sen. Kamala Harris advocated for a mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” albeit a lesser version of it. Fox News wrote that Harris “estimated her version of such a program would impact only about 2 million weapons.”

The Fox article reminded us that “Biden’s campaign has called for giving owners of ‘assault weapons or high-capacity magazines’ the option to either sell their weapons to the government or register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under an expansion of the National Firearms Act.”

Remarkably, Fox even pointed out that progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders has “criticized the idea of mandatory buybacks … calling them ‘unconstitutional.’” I am amazed Sanders possesses the clarity to realize that. It’s unfortunate that so many Democrats miss it.

Suffice it to say that very few members of “a Biden administration” will be standing up for our Second Amendment rights or even our First Amendment rights.

Rather, I believe we will witness a government power grab like nothing that has come before.

I will close by sharing a tweet from an “elected DNC member” that stopped me in my tracks:

 

Atkins’ musings fly in the face of former Vice President Joe Biden’s call for unity delivered shortly after the media declared him the new president-elect. Biden told Americans, “I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but to unify … Now, let’s give each other a chance. It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, see each other again, listen to each other again. This is the time to heal in America,” according to The Washington Post.

Biden’s words, as lovely as they were, believe the reality that liberals have no intention of unifying with Trump’s supporters. Honest debate and compromise are not part of their plan. Their objective is to “eliminate” dissent, one way or another.

I realize that Atkins’ ideas sound radical and alarming and they are. But the truth is that most liberals’ thinking is more closely aligned with Atkins than with the lofty ideals Biden expressed in his “acceptance speech.”

Liberals do not seek unity with conservatives, they want us to abandon our principles and embrace their world views. They want to control us.

I assure you that the left has one goal; above all else, they want as much power as possible and they will do whatever is necessary to maintain it.

If Republicans fail to win at least one of the Georgia Senate runoff elections in January, Democrats will be free to pass their radical agenda

And coming after our firearms will be a top priority.

CNN Panel Says Harris Could Be Democrat Nominee For President In 2024

H/T Conservative Brief.

If Biden wins after all of the court challenges are over I do not look for Kalama Knee Pads Harris to wait on 2024 to backstab Joe Pee Pads Biden.

I look for Knee Pads Harris to work behind the scenes to have Pee Pads removed under the 25th Amendment.

Many people believed it, many people speculated about it, but now even the media is saying they believe it will be the case that Sen. Kamala Harris will vie for the presidency.

CNN host Anderson Cooper and guest David Axelrod speculated that, due to President-elect Joe Biden’s age, Vice President-elect Harris will attempt to become president in 2024, Mediaite reported.

Less than 12 hours after their network declared former Vice President Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 presidential race, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and David Axelrod openly speculated about the possibility that he won’t run for reelection.

During CNN’s election coverage Saturday night, Cooper referenced the age gap between Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. (Biden will be 78 when he takes the Oath of Office in January, while Harris is 56.), The CNN anchor then introduced the possibility that Biden’s age would limit his time as commander in chief.

“I mean her age, Joe Biden’s age, the potential that he may only serve one term,” Cooper said before Axlerod interrupted.

Axelrod, who was former President Obama’s campaign manager, said that Harris is in the best position to win the Democrat nomination in 2024, even after her abysmal performance in the 2020 Democratic primaries.

“This is a unique political situation,” he said. “Because never has a vice president entered office on the first day as the, kind of, presumed frontrunner for the nomination four years later. And because of the dynamic that we’ve been discussing here, because she is seen by many on the left of the party as sort of their person in the administration, the person who is going to bring different voices into the discussions, there’s also pressure associated with that. So it’s a really unique situation that she’s going to have to navigate.”

Cooper said that Harris is in a tough position because she has to keep her credibility with progressives as she works for a more moderate president in Biden.

“If she is thinking about the next step, if four years from now President-Elect Biden decided not to run, if she does not respond to the left of the party, that is going to harm her down the road. And yet, clearly if there is going to be a lot of compromises being done, there’s a lot of folks on the left of the party who are not going to be happy,” he said.

“She’s got to navigate through the primary,” Axelrod argued. “We’re getting way ahead of ourselves.”

You think? First of all, there are still expected to be court challenges to the win the media has declared for Biden, which it appears that the CNN personalities are ignoring.

There is also no reason to believe, right now, that Joe Biden would not seek to win another election, even at the age of 82.

But even if Biden survives the court challenges to his declared victory, there is every indication that he would govern in a more moderate fashion than Harris would want, and that many in the Democrat Party would want.

It could be an interesting Democrat primary in 2024

AZ Gun Store Owner: Biden Will Crush Our Business Erase Our Freedom

H/T Breitbart.

Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris will be the worst thing that could happen to gun owners,gun shop owners and the Second Amendment.

An Arizona gun store owner told Breitbart News that Joe Biden’s gun control proposals would crush small gun retailers and erase the Second Amendment freedoms Arizonans cherish and enjoy.

We talked with George Urmston, owner of Phoenix, Arizona’s Cave Creek Guns, and focused on Biden’s proposed taxes of $200 on AR-15 riflesand on any other rifle deemed an “assault weapon” by Democrats, as well as the $200 tax Biden is proposing for “high capacity” magazines.

What would these taxes mean for Arizona gun owners?

What would they mean for Arizona’s gun-friendly culture?

Urmston said first off, those taxes would make it impossible for small businesses like his to do business. He continued:

People are already paying an elevated price for guns and accessories, due to basic supply and demand. The demand for guns right now is through the roof and the supply is not sufficient to keep up with demand. So people are sometimes paying an astronomical price just to get the peace of mind the Second Amendment provides. Add a $200 tax to a rifle already in high demand and that would put an immediate damper on business.

He then stressed Biden’s proposed gun and magazine taxes, together with other proposed Biden controls, including a one-gun-a-month firearm purchase limit, universal background checks, and revived Social Security gun ban, would “erase Arizonans’ Second Amendment freedom.”

Urmston sounded the alarm along with a call to action, predicting those gun controls would erase Second Amendment rights. He added:

[It] would erase our freedoms and liberties, from the inside. Biden and his administration would hit us where it hurts, would constrict our ability to produce and supply Americans the freedom that they are allowed. And this is not like past elections, these people are getting smart. They are literally focusing their energies on taking away our freedom.

Urmston said 30 percent of gun purchases at his store this year have been made by first-time buyers.

And he draws confidence from those new gun owners, noting how gun ownership could transform voting habits and bring new gun voters to the polls next week.

 

He said, “As far as Arizona goes, we have this mass influx of people from California. They are coming here and they continue to vote the way they did to ruin their state. But what can change that is the fact that we have so many first time gun buyers flooding into our store. And when they come in, concerned over civil unrest, you can see this fear in their eyes. You see this look, like they’re fully exposed. So we not only sell them a gun, but we would send them with firearms instruction and information on instructors. They would come into the store a few weeks later and they exuded a confidence that you cannot believe, and that was from the peace of mind that they got from being able to protect their families.”

Urmston stressed purchasing and becoming comfortable with a firearm “changed the way they will live their lives,” and in many cases, the way they will vote.

 

 

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

H/T AmmoLand.

The left know that if the truth about Joe Pee Pads Biden gun grab extremism he could not be elected dog catcher.

Kalama Knee Pads Biden is as extreme as Joe is on gun grabbing.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- With Fall 2020 upon us it is time again for gun control advocates’ quadrennial tradition – dishonestly attempting to convince voters that a brazenly anti-gun presidential ticket does not pose a threat to gun owners. This year the deception is again being backed by longtime Massachusetts anti-gun advocate and wealthy businessman John Rosenthal. Despite both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s advocacy for gun confiscation and a host of other draconian gun measures, in a piece for Newsweek with the farcical title, “Individual Gun Ownership Is Not at Stake in This Election,” Rosenthal claimed “[p]rivate gun ownership for responsible citizens will remain unchanged” during a Biden presidency. The piece is in the same vein as others that have lied about the ticket’s anti-gun aims.

First, a little background is instructive. Rosenthal is the founder of Massachusetts-based gun control group Stop Handgun Violence. Founded in 1994, the group has worked to make the Bay State’s onerous gun control laws even more oppressive.

 

The organization is best known to the rest of the country for its billboard along a stretch of the Massachusetts Turnpike frequented by those who use Boston’s Logan Airport. At various times the billboard has called for the criminalization of private firearm transfers, a federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and attacked NRA.

Aimed at an out-of-state audience, the billboard has been used to chastise neighboring New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont for a perceived lack of gun control and to laud Massachusetts for its comparatively draconian measures. This tactic is peculiar, as FBI data shows that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest violent crime rates in the U.S. These states have enjoyed their peaceful existence without the gun controls Rosenthal demands and while recognizing their residents’ Right-to-Carry a firearm for self-defense without a permit (Vermont did criminalize private transfers and impose magazine restrictions in 2018, but enjoyed a similarly low crime rate prior to these laws). In contrast, Massachusetts has nearly double the violent crime rate of New Hampshire and Vermont and more than triple that of Maine.

Not content to harass the Bay State and its visitors, in 2005 Rosenthal helped found the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The now-defunct organization claimed that it was a group of gun owners “countering years of polarized debate and restoring pride in America’s hunting and shooting heritage.” In truth, the organization was a disguise for gun control activists seeking to undermine support for grassroots pro-gun groups like NRA and pro-gun candidates going into the 2006 and 2008 elections. When asked whether the AHSA was a front for the gun control lobby, fellow founder and paid expert for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Bob Ricker replied, “That perception would be out there, yes.”

Despite AHSA’s call for a less “polarized debate,” Rosenthal let his true feelings about NRA and the five million law-abiding gun owners it represents during a January 14, 2013 interview on the Ed Shultz Radio Show. Long before a certain state attorney general and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors made such smears fashionable, Rosenthal told Shultz that NRA “in my mind is a terrorist organization as far as I’m concerned.”

Rosenthal’s Newsweek item is merely the latest effort in his decades-long campaign to dupe gun owners.

As noted, in the piece Rosenthal claimed that “Private gun ownership for responsible citizens will remain unchanged” during a Biden presidency. The anti-gun advocate also contended that “a vote for Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress will… protect gun rights for law-abiding gun owners.” These are easily disprovable lies.

Biden has made clear that he intends to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

During an August 5, 2019 CNN interview, Biden had the following exchange with host Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation:

Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns. 

Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.

Given Biden’s repeated boasts about authoring the 1994 federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, it can be concluded that Biden’s definition of an “assault weapon” encompasses firearms covered under that legislation – including the AR-15. However, Biden has also made clear that he wants to ban 9mm pistols.

According to an article from the Seattle Times, during a November 2019 private fundraiser in Washington, Biden asked attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Harris also advocates gun confiscation.

At a campaign event in Londonderry, N.H. in early September, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

On the September 16 edition of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question and answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?

The candidate responded “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, the senator added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buyback and give people their value, the financial value.”

Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3 MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.

Contrary to what Rosenthal claimed, banning and confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms would be a major change for responsible citizens. Underscoring the severity of the change is the fact that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Moreover, in targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

Rosenthal also deceived readers about the state of the U.S. Supreme Court and Second Amendment jurisprudence to push the Biden ticket.

Rosenthal wrote, “enacting gun safety laws, such as… military-style assault weapon and large-capacity magazine bans, police discretion for licensing and consumer safety manufacturing regulations have been considered reasonable and legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.” In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to directly address these gun controls.

In an effort to suppress legitimate pro-gun concerns about the U.S. Supreme Court, the anti-gun advocate also claimed: “It is well-settled law that private firearm ownership is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t share this view.

Consider this passage from a July 2016 interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times:

[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done. 

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said. 

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

This was not the first time that Ginsburg shared her desire to overturn Heller. On December 17, 2009, Ginsburg delivered a lecture titled “The Role of Dissenting Opinions” to the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C., a version of which was later published in the Minnesota Law Review. In the lecture, Ginsburg described Stevens and Breyer’s dissents in Heller as “appealing to the intelligence of a future day.” Insultingly, Ginsburg listed the – in her view incorrect – Heller decision, which recognized a fundamental right, alongside the notorious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which extinguished the rights of African Americans.

Take Ginsburg’s word for it – the U.S. Supreme Court and the individual right to keep and bear arms are on the ballot in 2020.

Rosenthal’s piece is so at odds with reality that more is gained from contemplating the reason it was written than its content. Consider why a presidential ticket and its surrogates would advance such falsehoods.

Attempts to conceal and lie about Biden and Harris’s gun control positions are a tacit admission that the public does not want the gun control these candidates pursue. If such measures have the popularity their backers often pretend they do, there would be no need to obscure their goals. Rather, gun control advocates and politicians understand that they cannot succeed if they are forthright with the electorate about their extreme positions.

NRA members and other gun rights advocates are likely already aware of Biden and Harris’s radical plans for the Second Amendment and no amount of deception from gun control advocates or the press will divert them from the truth. However, Second Amendment advocates should work to inform more casual political observers of the singular danger the 2020 Democratic presidential ticket poses to their rights. Knowledgeable gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their family, friends, and other liberty-minded individuals do not succumb to Rosenthal and others’ flagrant misinformation.

Does Second Amendment’s Fate Hinge On This Election?

H/T Bearing Arms.

If Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris get elected kiss your Second Amendment Rights goodbye.

Gun control has been a significant issue this election cycle. From the earliest rumblings of the Democratic primaries, anti-gun candidates jockeyed for position as the person toughest on guns.

Despite it not working out for folks like Rep. Eric Swalwell and Beto O’Rourke, it was still a major factor for the rest of the candidates.

 

Eventual nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, also has his anti-gun bonafides in place, as does his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris. It’s clear that should they win, our guns are in jeopardy.

But is the fate of the Second Amendment at stake? Obviously, not everyone thinks it is.

However, others disagree.

Democrats will “confiscate your guns and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment,” President Trump warned in his recent acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination.

He’s right. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has promised to use executive orders to ban guns, and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to make former Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) his gun czar.

O’Rourke made a name for himself when he yelled, “Hell yeah, we’re going to take your AR-15.” He called them,”weapons of war, designed to kill people efficiently on a battlefield.”

If Democrats win control of both the Senate and the presidency, the legislation they will pass and the judges that they will appoint will eventually lead to guns being banned in the United States.

Gun control advocates will dismiss this as scaremongering, but things are different this time.

The author, John Lott, is right. Things are different. He’s also right that the Second Amendment is at stake.

See, Biden and Harris are pushing for an “assault weapon ban.” They have decided that these weapons are just too dangerous for you or me to own. They want to take them away, as has been clear from their own words and the declaration that Beto would be Biden’s point man on guns should he win.

As noted, Beto has made it clear he wants to come for our guns, so it seems reasonable to assume that Biden agrees with this assessment.

Yet in trying to do so, they’d have to essentially nullify the Heller decision.

One of the tests for a gun under Heller is whether or not a firearm is in common use. If it is, then it’s not constitutional to ban a firearm. Yet despite this test, anti-gun zealots have continued to push for assault weapon bans. In their minds, the AR-15 and similar rifles are still fair game.

However, the AR-15 is the most popular long gun type sold in this country. It’s more popular that bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns. If the most popular rifle in this country doesn’t pass the “in common use” test, then what firearm does?

Should Biden win and pass his assault weapon ban, it would fall to the Supreme Court to lower the boom. Yet despite two appointments by the Trump Administration, the Court has been pretty reticent about taking on a Second Amendment case. There’s no guarantee they’d even bother to look at a federal assault weapon ban.

That means that while so-called assault weapons are on the table right now, there’s no reason to believe a more emboldened Congress wouldn’t go after things like handguns as well. After all, handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals of all stripes. How long do you think it would take before they would try to go down that rabbit hole?

No, I don’t see the Second Amendment being formally repealed, but why bother with doing that when you can nullify it so that it’s nothing but words on a piece of paper? That’s what the anti-gunners want from this election, and why this one matters so very much.