Dangerous Opinion: Hawaii Second Amendment Knife Case

H/T  JPFO.

Hopefully the Ninth Circuit will over turn this ruling.

The Hawai’i Federal District Court has issued an opinion in Teter v. Connors that guts the Second Amendment. The opinion holds that even if butterfly or “balisong” knives are protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a state law banning any possession, manufacture or transport of such knives is constitutionally valid. From the opinion:

The popularity of an all-encompassing class of weapon (the knife, or even the folding knife)is immaterial when only one narrow subset of the class (the butterfly knife) is banned here.The Court declines to treat the ban on butterfly knives—a relatively obscure weapon—the same way the Heller Court viewed the ban on handguns—the “quintessential”self-defense weapon. Doing so would neglect the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the regulated weapon at issue—and by extension much of the Court’s reasoning that led to its ultimate holding. This case simply does not amount to the same level of “destruction of the [Second Amendment] right” as Heller.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

The District Court opinion shows how appeals courts hostile to the Second Amendment have been successfully salami slicing away Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has been deadlocked and unable or unwilling to protect the exercise of those rights. Without the election of Donald Trump and the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Second Amendment would be dead letter law across the United States. Instead, federal appeals courts in circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been using the lack of action to slice away most meaningful Second Amendment protections in several Circuits, notably the Ninth and the Second Circuits.

The first salami slice is the claim that Heller is a very narrow decision, only protecting the defense of self and others in the home with commonly available handguns.

The Supreme Court has not corrected this extreme position, allowing lower courts to claim Second Amendment protections do not extend outside the home; do not cover semi-automatic rifles; do not cover magazines; do not cover ammunition; do not cover the ability to sell guns, do not cover the ability to store unlocked firearms in the home, ready for use.

This is the core of the argument used in the Hawai’i District Court opinion.

In this extreme view, handguns in the home are the only “core” of protected Second Amendment rights.

In this view, knives are not mentioned in Heller, therefore the court is free to declare that certain knives are not as protected as handguns.

The particular Hawai’i law only bans a particular type of knife. The Court’s opinion in Teter v. Connors is the law is Constitutional because it does not ban all knives.

Heller rejected this view point with Caetano, unanimously clarifying the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms.

With the “salami” approach to the Second Amendment, laws banning all magazines which hold more that one round of ammunition, all ammunition of greater power than a .22 short, and all knives except for butter knives, could be banned, bit by bit, and pass Constitutional muster.

Laws that forbid the carry of weapons outside the home would be Constitutional.

Laws banning carry outside the home are already in effect in New York City and Hawai’i.

It is absurd. It shows the arrogance of the District Court, and its belief the Supreme Court will do nothing to prevent a wholesale ban of most weapons in most circumstances, as long as it is done salami slice by salami slice.

The District Court mentioned the Caetano decision, which makes clear knives are protected by the Second Amendment. The Hawai’i opinion defines the protection of the Second Amendment as so close to zero, in its view, as to be effectively meaningless.

The logic, as such, is this: even though butterfly knives are covered by the Second Amendment, they are not part of the “core” right: therefore they may be banned by the state.

The District Court goes on to say “intermediate scrutiny” applies; it cites appellate courts where “intermediate scrutiny” has devolved to mere rational basis.

The Court repeatedly cites the N.Y.State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of N.Y., N.Y., (N.Y.S.R.P.A.). N.Y.S.R.P.A.was so certain of being overturned by the Supreme Court, the City of New York and the State of New York changed their law and regulatory framework, to moot the case, so the Supreme Court would not hear it.

The opinion in Teter, from Hawai’i, cites N.Y.S.R.P.A. no less than nine times.

For those unfamiliar with the “scrutiny” framework, strict scrutiny means the court can deny the exercise of the right in only the most extreme circumstances. For example: The exercise of Second Amendment rights can be denied to a prisoner.

The next level is intermediate scrutiny. This is supposed to be a somewhat lower standard. The law or regulation being considered is supposed to effect the Constitutional right in a peripheral way. Intermediate scrutiny is supposed to require the government to prove the particular law serves an important government objective, and the law is substantially related to achieving that objective. In intermediate scrutiny, the government is to bear the burden of proof.

The lowest level of scrutiny is rational basis. Almost all laws pass this level. At this level, the plantiff, not the government, must prove the law is not related to any rational objective in any way. It is an almost impossible burden.

Several appellate court decisions have degraded intermediate scrutiny, as applied to the Second Amendment, to mere rational basis, which Heller explicitly forbids. The Circuit courts avoid the ban on the use of rational basis, by calling their rational basis scrutiny “intermediate scrutiny”.

An important government interest is safety. Safety has become a catchall reason in any Second Amendment case. No court has required the government to show whether safety is actually improved with a law infringing on the Second Amendment. As for whether the law is substantially related to achieving the objective of greater safety, the court simply takes the government’s word for it.

For infringements on the Second Amendment, no proof has been required.

In the Hawai’i case, the government did not show a single crime where a butterfly knife was used.

The opinion cites several appellate court cases to justify its definition of intermediate scrutiny as no more than a different name for rational basis.

If intermediate scrutiny were to have any actual “bite” in this case, the government would have to prove banning butterfly knives, while leaving the vast majority of knives unregulated, would have an actual effect on crime. The opinion does not require proof. It assumes the government knows best.

If these definitions are accepted as the correct way to determine what level of regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment, it is difficult to imagine what arms are forbidden for the government to ban. Perhaps we would be allowed five shot .22 revolvers, which would be required to be unloaded and locked up, separate from any ammunition, when not actually carried on our person, in our home.

These arguments make the Second Amendment dead letter law, by reducing the limits on government power to irrelevant and minuscule restrictions, which have little practical effect.

It is the long-running dispute between two philosophical views of the Constitution.

Originalists and textualists insist words mean things. The Constitution may only be altered by the amendment process.

Progressives state the Constitution is “living document”, the meaning of which is whatever a set of judges wants it to mean, at any given time. Words mean whatever they wish them to mean. In the view of Progressives, the Constitution is an impediment to government power, which can easily be “worked around” with sufficient legislative wordsmithing.

The corrosive effect of the Supreme Court refusing to correct obvious error by the lower courts is well illustrated by the opinion in Teter v. Connors, citing of the N.Y.S.R.P.A. case. All parties understood N.Y.S.R.P.A. was a terrible decision, obviously violating Second Amendment protections.

By refusing to hear the case after the City and State went to great lengths to make it moot, the case is now being cited to restrict and degrade Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit case in Hawaii.

The appellate courts showing open hostility to the Second Amendment must be corrected. Teter v. Connors may be a way for the court to correct them. The case involves knives, not guns. The court was willing to hear Caetano, which was about electric stun guns, not firearms.

It is possible a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit will reverse Teter.

Both avenues of redress become moot if President Trump loses the election. Supreme Court justices hostile to the Second Amendment will be added to the Supreme Court. The court will start hearing Second Amendment cases, in order to reverse Heller.

If the Senate is flipped to Democrat, the court will likely be packed with six more Progressive judges to bring the total to 15 justices. Both the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and the electoral college will be effectively destroyed.

Unfortunately, our liberties rest on the outcome of the election.

This is what happens when a philosophy hostile to the idea of limited government has been taught in the schools for three generations.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

Has Billionaire Bloomberg ‘Bought’ Biden with $100M Florida Effort?

H/T AmmoLand.

Joe Pee Pads Biden is owned body and soul by Bloomberg.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s weekend revelation that he will spend $100 million in Florida to secure a win for Democrat Joe Biden has set off alarm bells in the gun rights community, especially after the former vice president went full-bore with a gun control push in reaction to the vicious ambush of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies.

Biden’s Twitter rant demanding a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”—neither of which were apparently used in the Compton attack—is already taking heavy criticism.

 

And now the founder of one of the nation’s leading gun rights organizations is raising red flags about Bloomberg’s massive spending threat.

“Joe Biden is a perennial gun prohibitionist, and Michael Bloomberg is opening his wallet to essentially buy the Sunshine State vote on Biden’s behalf,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation. “It is clear to us the former New York mayor thinks the former vice president will do his bidding, otherwise he wouldn’t be making such an expensive investment.”

But Gottlieb threw down the gauntlet, promising “to challenge in court all of their unconstitutional anti-gun schemes” should Biden win in November.

SAF has become a powerhouse organization in the legal field. Its stated mission is to “win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.” It has won several court victories, including the landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which nullified that city’s 30-year-old handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.

The threat of a Biden presidency, especially one beholden to Bloomberg, is more than worrisome. If Bloomberg—the former New York City mayor-turned-gun prohibitionist, who launched Everytown for Gun Safety and supports the Moms Demand Action gun control lobbying group—is willing to spend a fortune just in Florida, conservatives and gun rights advocates wonder what he might be willing to spend on votes in other states?

“Biden and Bloomberg are anti-gun elitists who have always enjoyed armed protection while dismissing the needs of average citizens to protect themselves and their families,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. “Biden better get used to dancing on the ends of Bloomberg’s strings, because for this amount of money, the Delaware Democrat is going to be the Big Apple billionaire’s puppet. Biden plans to change the Bill of Rights, and Bloomberg plans to buy it.”

Biden’s rush to exploit the Los Angeles ambush that left two deputies wounded was not lost on the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group called Biden’s push for an “assault weapon” ban when a video of the attack clearly shows the would-be killer armed with a handgun a “disgusting attempt” to capitalize on a “cowardly act.”

Gottlieb, who also chairs CCRKBA, said Biden’s effort “illustrates the bankruptcy of the gun prohibition movement. They’ll use a horrific tragedy as a starting point to push their own agenda, which typically has no factual relation to the incident they’re exploiting.”

Although Biden initially called for prosecution of the perpetrator, his subsequent focus on gun control left Gottlieb suggesting the Democrat nominee “seems more interested in how he might use this tragedy to advance his anti-gun-rights agenda than he is about the lives of the two wounded deputies. We’re not sure what to call that, but it’s not moral leadership.”

One of the wounded deputies has been identified as Claudia Apolinar, 31. She was shot in the jaw yet in the aftermath images show her trying to help her 24-year-old male partner, who had not yet been identified. According to Fox News, Apolinar is a former librarian and mother of a 6-year-old. She applied for a job with the sheriff’s department in 2017. She is being called a “hero” for her actions.

As reported by the New York Times, Bloomberg’s big bucks promise “came as new polls showed a particularly tight race between Mr. Biden and President Trump in Florida, a key battleground state that carries 29 electoral votes.”

Electoral College votes gained a new importance for Democrats in 2016 when several key states went to Trump because he campaigned there and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to take those votes for granted. That’s not going to happen this year.

Bloomberg spent a fortune on his own short-lived campaign for the presidency, and when it failed, he quickly threw his financial support to Biden.

The former vice president has made no secret of his gun control agenda, which may be studied here. SAF calls the Biden plan “a repackaging of every cockeyed gun control scheme to come along during the past two decades.”

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, is also a devoted anti-gunner, and months ago during an event in Texas, Biden promised to make former Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke his point man on gun policy if he wins the presidency. O’Rourke infamously declared during a 2019 debate in Houston, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR15, your AK-47.”

“Considering Biden’s gun control agenda and his promise to pursue a restrictive gun grabbing crusade if he wins in November,” Gottlieb asserted, “there should be no doubt Joe is a 100 percent certified shill for Bloomberg and his gun prohibition lobbying groups, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action.”

Banning so-called “assault rifles” has been on the gun control wish list for several years, yet Gottlieb and other rights activists challenge the motive, since rifles of any kind are used in a fraction of all homicides in any given year, according to the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report. The agency’s report for 2019 should be released later this month.

MI Capitol Gun Ban Rejected By Capitol Commission

H/T Bearing Arms.

There may be hope for Michigan after all.

After armed protestors showed up to take issue with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s draconian lockdown regulations, it wasn’t surprising that talk immediately shifted to whether or not guns should be allowed in the capitol. It wasn’t like Whitmer or her cronies in the legislature would actually listen to the people.

Instead, they started talking about changing regulations.

 

Luckily, those discussions kind of stalled out. It wasn’t indefinite, though. Instead, debate was set to resume this week, but the Capitol Commission instead rejected the proposed gun in a series of votes on Monday morning.

During a Monday morning hearing in Lansing, which streamed live on house.mi.gov/htv.asp and misenate.viebit.com, commissioners rejected first a measure to ban guns in the Capitol and then one that would have banned specifically long guns.

The question arose after armed protesters who objected to the way Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has handled the coronavirus pandemic entered the Capitol in late April. Some entered the gallery above the state Senate chambers, alarming some lawmakers.

Among the obstacles to instituting a ban brought up by commissioners Monday was enforcement, specifically the lack of metal detectors, X-ray machines and security checkpoint staff. WLNS, WOOD TV8’s Lansing sister station, previously reported the cost of implementing a ban could run between $500,000 to $1.3 million.

In other words, they can’t just pass a rule, they also have to figure out how to actually enforce it. That will cost money, which creates other roadblocks.

Frankly, the commission made the right call here.

While I didn’t think those particular protestors should have shown up armed–I believe it detracted from their message because the media latched onto the guns and not what they were saying or why they were saying it–I don’t believe the rules should be changed for any reason. Americans have a right to be armed and that right does not and should not end at the doors of the legislature.

Private property owners can decide they don’t want guns on their premises, but the state isn’t a private property owner. They answer to the people; the very same people they’re trying to regulate.

To be sure, such measures aren’t about making anyone safer, either. It’s about trying to punish people they disagreed with. Today’s vote is a victory not only for the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment rights of Michigan residents as well.

 

The End of The Second Amendment?

H/T JPFO.

Vote is November like your Second Amendment Rights depend on it and they do.

Democrats Appear Set to End Public Gun
Ownership If They Gain Power in November

Bills to do it already written, introduced, await election, HR 5717, S 3254

Congressional Bills Would Disarm the Populace BUT:

Democrat-run cities tolerate or encourage
street rioting, catch and release violent perps

Defund and “stand down” police policies popular with
democrat city councils allow looting, arson, assault

Threat of “Black Lives Matter” retribution limits
punishment of instigators, Marxist revolutionaries

“Wokecabulary” distorts much of what the public is fed

“An armed, civilian population is our only safeguard, and some politicians are doing everything they can to eliminate it, deliberately turning America into a socialist third-world nightmare.” –JPFO

“Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.” –Craig Lindsay

“‘Critical race theory,’ which teaches America is evil and must be destroyed, is being forced upon federal officials and public schools. President Trump’s executive order to end it may be too little too late. The BLM and socialist activists, quietly implementing it caught us unawares, and are on the verge of beating us. Mass media, many of whom hate America and agree with vile elements of “critical race theory,” amplify the effects and feed it as a steady diet, either blatantly, or so subtly it slips through unconsciously, which is more destructive.”
–Alan Korwin, Author, JPFO Consultant, The Uninvited Ombudsman

An unfiltered view of recent events leads to a singularly dangerous conclusion. Left on the present course, gun ownership in America will end, the balancing force it presents to tyranny will be lost, and socialists making their play for control of America will succeed, gaining the levers of power.

Thus defeated, the sole linchpin of freedom on the planet, The United States as we know it, will be gone, and the masses of people who struggle to get here will have nowhere else to go to breathe free air. The American experiment in self-governance, free enterprise and liberty will have come to a crashing halt.

It all comes down to the vote in November. A blue sweep will end it all.

An unfortunate confluence of events led to this precipice—
•  The communist’s efforts to gain control of the school system and teachers’ unions;
•  Cultural and intellectual infiltration of the mass media;
•  Turning enough members of Congress receptive to embracing socialism;
•  A lethal plague released by communist China.

The body politic was hit with just enough fear and disinformation to exert control over the general public, and swing the tide to accomplish Comrade Khrushchev’s stated goal:
“Americans will hoist the communist flag themselves.” -1956.

If forces tied to the socialist/democrat party take both houses of Congress and the presidency, what little remains of free speech, right to assemble, a free press which these days means the Internet, the right to resist tyranny, which means an armed populace, due process of law and the other guarantees of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, will become memories of the past. The public recognizes that TV networks and print “news” are already compromised into a nearly total lockstep narrative.

JPFO says cling to your Bibles—and written copies of history. Most ubiquitous sources of information on the Internet are already warped almost beyond recognition, and are no longer stable. Constant riots in democrat-run cities are virtually absent from so-called mass “news” outlets and will be bleached from history going forward. Basic reference material is already re-written and sanitized on sensitive (i.e., freedom-oriented) subjects. “Fact-checking” has become synonymous with censorship of disfavored speech. Firearms subjects are practically verboten in the public square at this point in time. Read a newspaper from even a few years back, it’s hard to understand from its lack of wokecabulary.

JPFO says REMEMBER—“Never Again!” requires guns in people’s hands.

Public gun bans HR 5717 and S 3254 are prohibited by the Constitution and cannot be legally enacted. Search those phrases and read them.

Join Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Glimpse of Toy Gun in Student’s Home Prompts School Officials to Call out the Police

H/T NRA/ILA.

Even knowing the gun was a toy the school called the police any way.

I would check and see if an invasion of privacy suit against the school would be possible.

There is little “normal” about how students are returning to school this year, as online “distance learning” has replaced in-person instruction in many American localities. Yet at least one thing hasn’t changed: public school officials remain as determined as ever to harry and persecute any student who shows even the mildest interest in firearms, real or imagined.

An article in the Washington Post indicates the trouble arose on Aug. 27, the third day of distance learning at Grand Mountain School near Colorado Springs, Colo. Seventh grader Isaiah Elliott – whose parents say has been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – became distracted during an online art class and briefly handled a toy pistol, moving it from one end of the couch to the other. The gun “was obviously a toy,” according to the article, marked “Zombie Hunter” and equipped with a neon green slide and a protruding orange tip.

The art teacher, who acknowledged thinking the gun was fake, nevertheless relayed the incident to the school’s vice-principal. She also emailed Isaiah’s mother, Dani Elliott, who assured the teacher that the gun was a toy and that she would make sure Isaiah understood he could not have it out during class.

Nevertheless, unbeknownst to Isaiah’s parents, the vice-principal had already involved the police. Dani Elliott was at work when she received the shocking news that officers were en route to her house to investigate her son’s possible possession of a firearm during a school activity. 

police report of the incident obtained by local media indicated that an officer reviewed a tape of the online class and responded to the Elliotts’ residence, where he contacted Isaiah’s father, Curtis Elliott. Mr. Elliott confirmed the gun was a toy and allowed the officer to examine it for verification. Nevertheless, the police officer went on to admonish Isaiah that this was a serious matter and that he could face criminal charges if it happened again. 

Dani Elliott told the Post the experience was traumatizing for the family and left Isaiah himself in tears, fearful he could be taken away to jail. According to the Post article, she believed “calling the police actually put Isaiah’s life at risk.” Isaiah’s father agreed, telling Fox News: “He was just in tears. He was scared. We all were scared. I literally was scared for his life.’

Isaiah’s parents, who work for the military, were also upset that the class had been recorded without the knowledge or permission of the students’ parents, a circumstance the school attributed to its personnel having to familiarize themselves with the new digital platform used for distance learning. “It is not our current practice to record classes at this time,” the school stated. “Parents will be notified if that changes.”

The Elliotts shared their concerns the day after the incident in a meeting with a district superintendent, as well as the school’s principal and vice-principal. Nevertheless, the school went ahead with documenting the incident in Isaiah’s official record and imposing a five-day suspension. “Safety will always be number one for our students and staff,” the school insisted in a statement, denying that racism or discrimination had any part in its decision-making.

The Elliotts, however, remain unconvinced. “For them to go as extreme as suspending him for five days, sending the police out, having the police threaten to press charges against him because they want to compare the virtual environment to the actual in-school environment is insane,” Isaiah’s mother told Fox News. She added, “If her main concern was his safety, a two-minute phone call to me or my husband could easily have alleviated this whole situation to where I told them it was fake.”

The Post report noted the Elliotts have removed Isaiah from Ground Mountain School and have him on the waiting list for a charter school they hope will be able to better respond to his needs as a child with ADHD.

Isaiah, unfortunately, is not alone in being on the receiving end of a school’s heavy-handed overreaction to a student’s possession of a toy gun in the child’s own residence. We recently reported on a similar incident from the Cumberland Valley School District in Pennsylvania.

The practice of SWATTING – or deceiving police into responding to someone’s home based on a false report of a life-threatening emergency – is a crime in many jurisdictions, and for good reason. Police operating on vague or incomplete reports of a weapon could easily misinterpret a situation, with potentially lethal consequences for those on the scene.

With the advent of mass online schooling, the prying eyes of local bureaucrats now have an unprecedented glimpse into the private abodes of students and their families. Hopefully it will not take someone getting hurt for these same officials to put aside their own biases and politics in interpreting and reacting to the various types of lawful possessions Americans keep in their homes. 

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.

Albuqurque Gun Ban, used to Arrest Black New Mexico Movement Organizer

H/T AmmoLand.

 

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On Sunday morning, 19 July, 2020, a kindergarten teacher was organizing a Black New Mexico Movement protest at the Civic Plaza in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He had a firearm holstered across his chest. Police say he refused to disarm after they told him firearms were banned at the Plaza. A few minutes later they arrested him and two other armed men who were with him.

Grady complained that members of the New Mexico Civil Guard, who attended a Protest for Freedom rally at the Civic Plaza on Friday, July 17, and were armed, were not arrested.

From the abqjournal:

The 40-year-old kindergarten teacher was helping set the stage for a Black New Mexico Movement protest at Civic Plaza one Sunday morning in mid-July, his gun holstered across his chest.

A short time later, Francisco “Frankie” Grady was handcuffed and then cited for having a firearm on city property. He was subsequently charged with unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises, a fourth-degree felony that now follows him on his record, even though there is no school in sight at Civic Plaza.

A quick look at the video of the rally on the 17th of July did not show any openly armed people there. There are plenty of black people at the rally. The rally did not get much press. It looked to be pretty high energy.

The police said that the New Mexico Civil Guard had been warned to disarm, and they had done so.

As of 23 August, all of the charges against the trio of black men arrested on 19 July had been dropped.

The police spokesman said the three arrested on 19 July had been told to disarm, but had not done so.

Administrative instruction 5-20 was issued on 19 June, five days after the self-defense shooting at the Juan de Oñate confrontation. The order claims Albuquerque city parks and recreation centers are “school premises” under state law banning guns in schools.

The New Mexico Patriot Advocacy Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging such a broad interpretation of the law in Administrative Orders 5-19, in September of 2019. In Order 5-19, Mayor Keller claims all of the City’s Community Centers, Multi-generational Centers, and senior Centers fall under the definition of “school premises”.

Lisa Brenner And NM Patriot Advocacy Coalition File Suit Against Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller

Mayor Keller of Albuquerque acts as if he can ban firearms anywhere in the city he wishes to. Where, in the city, is a place where school children or university students banned? Under Mayor Keller’s interpretation, those are the only places the state law would not have effect.

It is difficult to know who will prevail in the New Mexico courts.

When you are dealing with people who do not acknowledge the existence of truth or objective reality, who are accustomed to changing the meaning of words to suit their political purposes, interpretation of the law to something they like, is almost reflexive.

If they do not like the right to bear arms, as protected by the United States Second Amendment and the New Mexico Constitution, the answer is simple: just declare most of your jurisdiction to be a school!

Biden Demands Gun Ban After LA Deputies Shot

H/T Bearing Arms.

After two L.A.County deputies get shot Joe Pee Pads Biden is doubling down on gun control and gun bans that never work.

The two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies shot in an ambush attack over the weekend are out of surgery and are thankfully expected to recover, according to Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and while the manhunt for the man who shot them at point blank range continues, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is using the attack to push his plan to ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines across the country.

 

 

According to surveillance footage released by the LA County Sheriff, the assailant in the attack used a handgun and only fired a few shots at the officer, so Biden’s call to ban “weapons of war” wouldn’t have prevented this attack. In fact, California has already banned so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Those laws had absolutely no impact on the ability of the shooter in Los Angeles to target deputies. Just like California’s laws, Biden’s own gun control plan cracks down on legal gun ownership in the hope that there’ll be some sort of trickle-down effect on criminals.

Of course, Biden’s “weapons of war” comment also ignores the fact that he’s actually calling for a ban on the most commonly sold rifles and magazines in the country, and doing so at a time when millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for the very first time. Biden’s plan to ban semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines would turn many of those new gun owners into criminals overnight if they didn’t hand over their firearms or pay a hefty fee to register them with the government.

Meanwhile, the media continues to provide cover for Biden’s gun control agenda through misleading “fact checks” like this one responding to an ad by the NRA that says Biden will take away our Second Amendment rights.

The voiceover says, “She’s got two kids and two jobs, but tonight she may not make it home. Every woman has a right to self-defense, a gun for protection.But Joe Biden would take her rights away.”

Biden has not said he wants to take away anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun, so this claim is false.

The ad also states, “For decades, Joe Biden has opposed your gun rights.”

This statement is misleading because Biden is not opposed to gun ownership. He claims he owns several weapons.

What nonsense. According to these fact-checkers, Joe Biden would actually have to announce “I’m taking away your Second Amendment rights” in order for it to be true that Biden would take our rights away. No candidate is stupid enough to do that, not even Biden. Instead, Biden’s own website declares that he believes the Second Amendment is “limited,” though he doesn’t go so far as to say what he thinks those limits are.

It’s also true and uncontroversial that Biden has opposed pro-Second Amendment legislation for decades. He was the primary author of the 1994 semi-auto ban and hasn’t backed any significant piece of pro-2A legislation since his vote in favor of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Even then, Biden only voted for the bill after helping to water it down. It’s worth noting what he said back then, as reported by NBC News.

“During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control,” he continued.

To say that the 2020 version of Joe Biden doesn’t agree with 1986’s Joe Biden is putting it mildly. Today’s Joe Biden has embraced gun control; from his ban on commonly-owned rifles and magazines to his push for red-flag laws, state-level gun licensing laws, an end to online sales of ammunition, universal background checks, and more.

Now that Biden has brought up his gun ban, it would be great if someone in the press would ask a critical question or two to the candidate on the issue. Instead, I suspect his supporters in the media will continue to argue that “there is no evidence, and subsequently no truth… that he wants to take away gun ownership rights,” even as some on the Left acknowledge that Biden’s agenda, if enacted, would reduce our Second Amendment rights into a privilege. The media is happy to provide cover for Biden on this issue. It’s up to gun owners to point out the truth about what Biden’s plans mean for our right to keep and bear arms.

 

 

Uh-Oh: COVID Cases Now Causing More Delays For Gun Buyers

H/T Bearing Arms.

Wake County Sheriff Baker sound like he is anti-Second Amendment and the voters need to replace him the next election cycle.

A crowd of people gathered outside of the Wake County Sheriff’s Office on Monday morning, not to protest, but to apply for their government-issued permission slip to own a firearm.

The would-be gun owners are responding to a report by Sheriff Gerald Baker over the weekend that checks for pistol purchase permits could be delayed after an employee in the sheriff’s gun permit office has tested positive for the coronavirus.

 

The sheriff said the gun permit department will be working on a modified crew and schedule to process the hundreds of appointments in the next few days.

Baker stressed to the public that the person who tested positive did not have direct contact with the public.

Officials said 24,119 permit applications were received from Jan. 1 to Sept 13. 2,785 applications were received in the same time frame in 2019.

According to the sheriff’s department, 32,700 purchase permits were approved and delivered from January to Sept. 13 in this year alone — a significant increase from 10,499 from that time period in 2019.

The office is currently processing permits for the week of Aug. 3 and has 4,045 still in need of processing.

Baker’s office has already been sued over the lengthy delays in processing the purchase permits, which according to state statutes are supposed to be completed within 14 days. As Baker acknowledged, the checks are taking more than a month right now, though he insists there’s not much he can do to speed up the process.

“You can sue me all day but those numbers tell you it’s going to be almost impossible to service that number of applications with the processes in place, the background checks that are required in the 14-day period,” said Sheriff Baker.

I understand that when there are nearly 10 times as many applications as last year, the sheriff’s staff may be a little overwhelmed. That doesn’t change the fact that the law mandates that these applications get processed within 14 days. If the sheriff’s staff can’t handle the demand, then the sheriff needs to bring on more employees. If the sheriff can’t afford to do that, then the Wake County government needs to provide the necessary funding. And if they can’t or won’t do that, then perhaps it’s time for the state’s pistol purchase permit law to be repealed.

Actually, that should have happened long ago. That requirement is a relic of the Jim Crow-era in North Carolina, where it was used to deprive black residents of their ability to purchase a handgun if the local sheriff deemed them unworthy. The law should have disappeared along with segregation, but instead it remains on the books as a reminder of the racist roots of gun control.

We’ve seen a lot of headlines over the past six months about record-high gun sales, but the flip side to that story is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans who want to purchase a firearm have been stuck in limbo thanks to ever-increasing delays in the processing of gun permit applications in several states. This isn’t just a problem in Wake County, North Carolina. Similar stories are already being reported from coast-to-coast.

Just a few days we reported here at Bearing Arms on the massive backlog in Illinois for folks that are applying for their Firearm Owner ID card (which is required in order to legally possess a firearm in the state), which the Illinois State Police blame on the surge in demand as well as a shortage of employees able to process the background checks.

These gun permit laws only add another layer of bureaucracy to the exercise of a constitutional right, and we’re witnessing their flaws firsthand at the moment. Violent criminals are illegally obtaining firearms without bothering to apply for a permit, but those would-be legal gun owners are left twiddling their thumbs while the sheriff tries to work through the backlog of thousands of applications.

From Oregon to  Michigan to New York City, where the NYPD is currently scheduling appointments to apply for a gun license in September of 2021, the massive delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to get far worse in the months ahead, and that means that many Americans who’ve embraced their right to keep and bear arms are going to have that right infringed thanks to these nonsensical gun control laws and the bureaucratic nightmare they’ve produced.

Below the Radar: Jaime’s Law

H/T AmmoLand.

There are links at the end of this article to contact your member of Congress to voice your opposition.

 

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- While we place a lot of the focus on defending against laws that target firearms, anti-Second Amendment extremists also target ammunition. In a way, this ammunition control can be worse – because those who exercise their Second Amendment rights need to purchase ammunition.

Now, those who exercise their Second Amendment rights will buy ammunition for any number of reasons: Actual use for personal protection or hunting, training and practice to ensure familiarity with the firearms that they might own, and even storing some for emergencies. These days, getting ammo is pretty easy, all things considered. In most states, you can either order online or pick it up at a local FFL.

 

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wants to change that, proposing S 1924, Jaime’s Law. A companion version, HR 1705, was introduced in the House by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This legislation would place background checks on any and all ammunition sales. It was also, like a number of anti-Second Amendment proposals, is also named for someone who was a victim of someone’s misuse of firearms, in this case Jaime Guttenberg, who was killed in the Parkland shooting.

Those living in California know what messes that the background checks can cause for law-abiding citizens who simply want to exercise their constitutional rights. It has been a host of red tape that these people have to deal with. Lucky ones can go across state lines to stock up, but it is often a big problem for people like Olympian Kim Rhode.

This legislation is particularly maddening for Second Amendment supporters. We know just how badly the bumbling cowards of Broward County botched the numerous chances they had to stop the Parkland shooting from happening at all. In fact, Scott Israel was rightly removed as Broward County Sheriff by Ron DeSantis. He’s trying to get his old job back – and hopefully, that run fails.

But Second Amendment supporters also know how the FBI fumbled at least one opportunity to stop it. Yet Blumenthal and Wasserman Schultz are instead punishing millions of Americans for this shooting – for a crime they did not commit. This is a clear example of an injustice being inflicted – and for what? It’s not about making the country safer.

The fact of the matter is that existing laws provide an opening to deal with prohibited persons who have even one round of ammunition in their possession. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose S 1924 and HR 1705.