Advertisements
Home

Pope Francis Says You’re NOT Christian if You Support Gun Manufactures

2 Comments

This is from AmmoLand.

If guns are so bad, why does the Pope have armed guards?

Pope Frnacis complained about the Allies during World War II allowing Christians and Jews to be murdered yet the Vatican helped Nazi’s escape Germany.

Italy – -(Ammoland.com)- Pope Francis spoke with a group of young people at a rally of thousands at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

Francis started by attacking the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as well as accusing the allies during World War Two of being complicit in the killing of Jews, Christians and homosexuals.

Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry, saying.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of … people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries (gun owners), saying “duplicity is the currency of today … they say one thing and do another.”

Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second world wars.

He spoke of the “tragedy of the Shoah,” using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

“The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb (the railway lines)?”

It is surely an upside down world when the representative of G* on earth disparages the right to self defense and accuses the Greatest Generation of being complicit in Hitler’s genocide and the destruction of Europe and Russia.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/pope-francis-says-youre-not-christian-if-you-own-a-gun/#ixzz3nJMtitep
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

 

Advertisements

Police Say this Texas Man did “What Every Homeowner” would do to Protect His Family

2 Comments

This is from Freedom OutPost.

I have a feeling such shootings will happen more and more.

I do not think it was wise of the homeowner to exit his house.

 

Imagine yourself waking at 4 am by the sound of your doorbell ringing and an unknown man on the other side of your door demanding to be let in. That’s exactly what happened to a Texas man on Friday morning and it resulted in the unknown man taking a bullet to the chest as the man defended his family against the intruder.

WFAA reports:

A man who repeatedly rang a doorbell and knocked on a front door was fatally shot Friday morning by the homeowner after the two fought in a yard, authorities said Friday.

Before he was shot to death, the man repeatedly demanded to be let in the house, said Wise County Sheriff David Walker on Friday.


“The homeowner armed himself and went outside,” Walker said. “That’s when he saw a man trying to jump a fence that was between his house and his neighbor’s home.”

Walker said the homeowner called police to report someone was trying to break into his home before the shooting. The sheriff said investigators are reviewing the 911 tapes to see if the homeowner stayed on the phone throughout the entire confrontation and if the call caught the exchange between the homeowner and suspect leading up to shooting.

According to Walker the two began to fight while the man demanded to be let inside the home.

 Sometime during the fighting, the homeowner backed away from the man and warned him that he was armed and told him to stay on the ground. The man’s wife and 14-year-old daughter were inside the house at the time.When the unknown man would not listen and continued to approach and demand entrance to the house, the homeowner fired one round into his chest, killing him.

Police arrived to discover him dead on the front porch. They are now working to identify him.

According to the sheriff, a grand jury will convene to see if charges will be made against the homeowner. However, Walked said, “Right now, it just appears the homeowner was doing what every homeowner would do and protect their home and their family.”

Authorities are still unaware as to why the man was in the neighborhood and said there have been no break-ins or robberies. At this point they suspect the man was disoriented, but are unsure and are canvasing the neighborhood to see if they can discover any clue as to why the man would have been there.

When used lawfully, not only is the right to keep and bear arms to defend against government tyranny, but it’s also great for defending against those that may wish to do you or your family harm.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/police-say-texas-man-every-homeowner-protect-family/#vv99yEUcMRQ9vx64.99

Guarantees Of The Right To Arms In State Constitutions

Leave a comment

This is from The NRA/ILA.

What is or is not in your State’s Constitution?

 

Alabama

That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare…. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Ala. Const. art. I, § 26) (1819).

Alaska

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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. (Alaska Const. art. I, § 19) (1994; previous version 1959).

Arizona

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. (Ariz. Const. art. II, § 26) (1912).

Arkansas

The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. (Ark. Const. art. II, § 5) (1868; previous versions 1864, 1861, 1836).

California

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision.

Colorado

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. (Colo. Const. art. II, § 13) (1876).

Connecticut

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Conn. Const. art. I, § 15) (1818).

Delaware

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (Del. Const. art. I, § 20) (1987).

Florida

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (Fla. Const. art. I, § 8, [a]) (1990; previous versions 1968, 1885, 1868, 1838). (Note that subsection (b) imposes a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law are exempted.)

Georgia

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. (Ga. Const. art. I, § 1, para. VIII) (1982; previous versions 1877, 1868, 1865).

Hawaii

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. (Haw. Const. art. I, § 17) (1978).

Idaho

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. (Idaho Const. art. I, § 11) (1978; previous version 1889).

Illinois

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Ill. Const. art. I, § 22) (1970).

Indiana

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. (Ind. Const. art. I, § 32) (1851; previous version, 1816).

Iowa

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision.

Kansas

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. (Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 4) (2010; previous version 1861).

Kentucky

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … [t]he right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (Ky. Const. § 1) (1891; previous versions 1850, 1799).

Louisiana

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. (La. Const. art. I, § 11) (enacted 2012; previous versions 1974, 1879).

Maine

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. (Me. Const. art. I, § 16) (1987; previous version 1819).

Maryland

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision.

Massachusetts

The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. (Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII) (1780).

Michigan

Every person has a right to keep or bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. (Mich. Const. art. I, § 6) (1963; previous versions 1850, 1835).

Minnesota

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision.

Mississippi

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. (Miss. Const. art. III, § 12) (1890; previous versions 1868, 1817).

Missouri

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. (Mo. Const. art. I, § 23) (1945; previous versions 1875, 1865, 1820).

Montana

The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (Mont. Const. art. II, § 12).

Militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those excepted by law. (Mont. Const. art. VI, § 13) (1889).

Nebraska

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. (Neb. Const. art. I, § 1) (1988) (previous version 1875).

Nevada

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. (Nev. Const. art. I, § 11 (1)) (1982).

New Hampshire

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. (N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 2-a) (1982).

No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto. (N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 13) (1982).

New Jersey

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision.

New Mexico

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (N.M. Const. art. II, § 6) (1986; previous versions 1971, 1912).

New York

No “right to keep and bear arms” provision

North Carolina

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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. (N.C. Const. art. I, § 30) (1971; previous versions 1876, 1868, 1776).

North Dakota

All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. (N.D. Const. art. I, § 1) (1984).

Ohio

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. (Ohio Const. art. I, § 4) (1851; previous version 1802).

Oklahoma

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. (Okla. Const. art. II, § 26) (1907).

Oregon

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] (Or. Const. art. I, § 27) (1857).

Pennsylvania

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (Pa. Const. art. I, § 21) (1790).

Rhode Island

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (R.I. Const. art. I, § 22) (1842).

South Carolina

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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. (S.C. Const. art. I, § 20) (1895; previous version 1868).

South Dakota

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. (S.D. Const. art. VI, § 24) (1889).

Tennessee

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. (Tenn. Const. art. I, § 26) (1870; previous versions 1834, 1796).

Texas

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. (Tex. Const. art. I, § 23) (1876; previous versions 1868, 1845)

Note: The Texas Declaration of Independence stated that “[The Mexican government] has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense—the rightful property of freemen—and formidable only to tyrannical governments.” The Republic of Texas Constitution of 1836 also protected Texans` right to arms:  Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.”

Utah

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. (Utah Const. art. I, § 6) (1984; previous version 1895).

Vermont

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. (Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 16) (1777).

Virginia

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (Va. Const. art. I, § 13) (1971; previous version 1776).

Washington

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. (Wash. Const. art. I, § 24) (1889).

West Virginia

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. (W.Va. Const. art. III, § 22) (1986).

Wisconsin

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. (Wisc. Const. art. 1, § 25) (1998).

Note also: The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. (Wisc. Const. art. 1, § 26) (2003).

Wyoming

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. (Wyo. Const. art. I, § 24) (1889).

 

Other States

As noted, California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York do not have “right to keep and bear arms” provisions in their state constitutions.

Two of these states have general provisions that protect a right to defend life and liberty:

Iowa – Iowa`s constitution states: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” (Iowa Const. art. I, § 1) (1998).

New Jersey – New Jersey`s constitution reads: “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety, and happiness.” (N.J. Const. art. I, § 1) (1947).

 

Gun worshiper wins semiautomatic weapon at church raffle in upstate NY

Leave a comment

This from the New York Daily News.

No bias in this article from the New York Daily News none what so ever.

Gun worshiper,gun nut, Second Amendment zealot no bias here.

Then there is the scare tactic using the name of Sandy Hook.

 

 

Ron Stafford, 42, an avid hunter and single father of two from Schenectady, traveled 25 miles and sat through a three-hour service for a chance to win the gun from Grace Baptist Church on Sunday. The assault rifle is similar to the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre.

An upstate gun nut went to church Sunday and walked out the winner of a high-powered assault rifle similar to the one used to slaughter 26 innocent people at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But Ron Stafford, 42, an avid hunter and single father of two from Schenectady, said he didn’t see what’s wrong about owning a gun or a church giving away an AR-15 rifle.

“I believe it’s the right of the individual, I believe the church and our God-given rights and our rights to follow the Constitution go hand in hand,” said Stafford, who doesn’t even belong to Grace Baptist Church in upstate Lansingburgh, but made the 25-mile trek from his home for the gun drawing.

“I like to shoot,” said the Second Amendment zealot. “I believe that this shows the will of the people and what this country is all about.”

Stafford was so determined to win, he sat through the entire three-hour service — a requirement demanded by the church’s pastor, the Rev. John Koletas.

While the overall message at Sunday’s service was about God and guns, Stafford refused to ponder the question of whether he could imagine Jesus packing heat.

“I can’t answer that question,” said Stafford. “I’m not Jesus. I believe in my personal thoughts and to speak for him wouldn’t be very Christian of me.”

However, he castigated the media for “demonizing” gun owners and the government for “trampling” on Second Amendment rights.

“I’ve been around weapons my whole life, since I was probably around 4 or 5 years old,” he said. “And I believe it’s been portrayed illy by the media.”

While not a member of the church’s congregation, Stafford said he felt like he belonged.

“It felt great,” Stafford said after Koletas, who wore hip waders in the pulpit, pulled his name from a large basket. “It felt like I was home, and it felt like I was with the majority of all Americans.”

Stafford, a single dad with two teenage sons, must clear a FBI background check before collecting the rifle from Oakwood Trading Post, a Troy gun dealer that sponsored the event.

Three other names were picked from the basket in case Stafford failed to pass muster.

But Stafford, who refused to say how many guns he already owns, claimed his background is pure.

“I believe I’m representing them (gun owners) very well,” said Stafford, who state records show has no criminal history.

The prize was an M&P semiautomatic rifle, Smith & Wesson’s version of the AR-15 that Stafford valued at $800 to $1,200.

Koletas triggered criticism from neighboring pastors that he was sending the wrong message when he announced the gun giveaway earlier this month.

“This is not a protest for anything. … It’s only different because everybody else has turned against God and turned against the Bible that this is such a shock to people that don’t know the Bible,” Koletas said.

In fact, he’s doing it again Monday at 7 p.m.

Obama says

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Look in the hole on your end smile and wait for the flash.

 

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

New Glock commercial sure to infuriate liberals everywhere

Leave a comment

This is from Cain TV.

There is no doubt in my mind this commerical will

give the anti gunners apoplexy.

 

“Somebody picked the wrong girl.”

You’d think the party that claims to support strong, independent women would love her. OK, no you wouldn’t. Because they don’t. The party in question loves a woman who knows where to go to get government benefits. A woman like this is doing it all wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo

dramatic and intense than you might have expected. Every time she goes back to the couch (what is she watching, by the way?) and sits down, only to hear that ominous knock on the door once again, you’re really starting to get concerned that the perp might get in before she’s armed and ready.

The first time I watched (spoiler if you haven’t already hit play), I was actually expecting her to shoot him dead. Now that would have been attention-getting, but it is a commercial after all, and I don’t suppose that’s really the association Glock is looking for. It’s about protecting yourself, not about killing someone. Granted, without the threat of the latter you can’t really do the former, but I do think it’s accurate that in the circumstances envisioned here, it would not be necessary to ever pull the trigger the vast majority of the time. The perp is either going to run or put his hands on his head and give up.

A lynchpin of the liberal argument against gun rights is that the average gun-toting citizen is more likely to get shot by his/her own gun than to use in successfully in self-protection. This ad really exposes the thinking that drives that argument. The left simply doesn’t believe that a young woman like this could handle herself in the situation depicted. In their minds, there is no way she’s pointing the gun at the door when the bad guy gets it open – poised and ready. And that goes for a 40-year-old dad looking to protect his family too. These dopes would just end up getting shot by their own gun, so they’re better off not being allowed to own it in the first place. That’s the argument.

I will say this: If I’m her, I’m not waiting until the third time I hear the noise to get the gun. The first time I might write it off as something harmless, but the second time I’m getting the Glock. Why does she wait so long? Just for the ad’s dramatic effect?

Anyway, if that’s the strongest criticism of the ad (and it would be mine), that’s not an anti-gun control argument. It’s an argument for getting that thing in your hands sooner.

 

 

Colleges can’t ban guns, rules Florida court in major 2nd Amendment victory

Leave a comment

This is from BizPac Review.

This is a big win for Florida College students.

This is a win for the Second Amendment.

The Florida appeals court ruling that the University of North Florida was violating state law when it prohibited a woman from storing a gun in her vehicle while she attended class will spill over to cities and counties statewide, an attorney said Wednesday.

And it’s one of many nationwide where anti-gun activists are trying to do at the local level what they can’t do in the statehouse – restrict Second Amendmentrights.

alexandrialainez1211

From University of North Florida student Alexandria Lainez’s Facebook page.

“This is a growing movement in a number of cases,” said Jacksonville attorney Eric Friday, who represents Florida Carry Inc. and UNF student Alexandria Lainez in the court fight.

Friday, who called the Lainez decision the biggest of its kind in Florida in 20 years, said the case “reaffirmed that the power to regulate firearms rests solely with the Legislature and not anywhere else.”

Florida Carry Inc. and  Alexandria Lainez vs. the University of North Florida centered around Lainez’s ability to store a gun in her vehicle while attending classes at UNF so she would have available for self-defense while traveling to and from campus.

Lainez is a young mother, Friday said, “and she takes seriously her responsibility to protect herself and her child.”

Lainez, who’s 24 and has had a concealed weapons permit for three years, said she takes firearms safety and training pretty seriously, too. A Jacksonville resident with a half-hour one-way commute to school, she said she’s working to get students at other schools interested in gun training, too.

“I think it’s pretty important to be able to protect myself and my son, especially with that long commute to and from school.”

And making that commute armed means storing the gun on UNF property.

UNF regulations prohibit weapons on campus. According to the student handbook printed in 2011 when the case was filed, expressly threatened that violators could be arrested.

“No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation, Friday said.

Lainez, a member of Florida Carry, sued UNF to change the regulation, but lost at trial to UNF’s argument that it could ban weapons because state law allowed school districts to do so. UNF argued that since it’s a school, it should be considered like a public school district.

In Tuesday’s decision, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled otherwise.

“From the beginning, the argument was an absurdity in my mind,” Friday said.

But the broader issue, Friday said, involved the powers of local governments – such as counties and cities – to violate gun rights through control ordinances that in effect in one part of the state but not another, putting gun owners at risk of arrest depending on the jurisdiction.

It’s a gun rights battle being fought in other states – where officials in places like libraries and bus companies try to make petty authority grounds for violating constitutional rights.

In Michigan in November, the state Supreme Court  refused to hear an appeal by a library district in Lansing that claimed it had a right to ban guns in a battle with Michigan Open Carry Inc. National Review’s headline called it a “victory for open carry advocates.”

In Wisconsin, the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry is suing the Madison Metro Transit Authority for trying to ban guns on city buses. That would make for stricter gun law than the ones passed by the state Legislature – which meets in Madison.

In Florida, a state law in 1987 prohibited local governments from passing local gun control ordinances stricter than those passed in Tallahassee, but included no way of enforcing it, Friday said.

That led to local governments – particularly in South Florida – “thumbing their noses at the Legislature,” Friday said.

In 2011, the Legislature passed another law containing a series of threatening local jurisdictions or agencies with fines against the agency heads, removal from office for elected officials and allowing for personal damages up to $100,000 for violations, Friday sad.

When that law passed, most local governments changed their laws to comply before it came into effect Oct 1, Friday said. UNF and some other agencies didn’t.

In an emailed statement Wednesday, UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris wrote that the university is still reviewing its options on whether to appeal the case. Until it makes that decision, she wrote, the university’s policy prohibiting weapons on campus will remain in effect.

Friday said that means the university intends to continue breaking the law.

“In other words, despite the express, well-reasoned opinion of this court, they intend to continue violating students’ rights until they have to comply,” he said.

Why this kind of obstinacy by officials at the local level when they can’t get their anti-Second Amendment way in state capitals?

“In some cases, it’s just a personal belief, or bias against firearms or the right of self-defense,” Friday said. “People in power don’t like it when their power is challenged.”

9th Circuit Issues Important Gun-Rights Decision

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

California-(Ammoland.com)- It took nearly two years but this morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision written by ninety year old judge Harry Pregerson which created a framework in the 9th Circuit for deciding Second Amendment cases.

The court of appeals adopted a “Two Step Inquiry” (1) If the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment then (2) courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

This is an important decision because when the US Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the cases involved bans. The High Court did not describe a framework for the courts to use to evaluate laws that fell short of outright bans as was the case in Heller and McDonald.

Until today, the cases decided in the 9th Circuit did not articulate a framework because they either involved persons the court said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., convicted felons) or “arms” which the court likewise said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., bombs) or persons using firearms to further their criminal enterprise (e.g, drug dealers), etc. In cases such as this, the court decided that it was not necessary to articulate a framework to use in deciding the cases. In other words, these were “Open and Shut” cases.

What This Portends for the Concealed Carry and Open Carry cases?

There are close to a dozen concealed carry cases either pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are currently being decided in the lower 9th Circuit District Courts. Unfortunately, the concealed carry cases have several insurmountable mountains to climb. First, the US Supreme Court said that its decision in Heller did not invalidate prohibitions on concealed carry and when the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald it also applied the Heller decision to the states. The US Supreme Court in Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So the concealed carry cases are unlikely to even reach, let alone pass, the first step of the “Two Step Inquiry.” For nearly two hundred years state courts have said that concealed carry is not a right. Two recent Supreme Court decisions say concealed carry is not a right as have every Federal Court of Appeals to decide the question. Since there are only two ways to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, that leaves the two Open Carry cases, Nichols V. Brown and Young v. Hawaii to be decided under the “Two Step Inquiry” framework.

“Step 1″ – Does the challenged law burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms and both California and Hawaii ban Open Carry. So both Open Carry cases pass “Step 1.”

“Step 2″ – Having passed “Step 1,” courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

There are three levels of scrutiny; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. “Rational Basis” basically means the government wins except in rare circumstances such as the law being “irrational” or “arbitrary.” The Supreme Court in Heller took rational basis off the table so that leaves intermediate and strict scrutiny.

Intermediate Scrutiny – Sliding Scale

Intermediate Scrutiny is a sliding scale that courts apply to “regulations” of fundamental rights that fall short of a ban. For example, if you as an individual want to walk up and down the sidewalk wearing a t-shirt with some political or religious message then you are free to do so. If there were a local law requiring a permit for you to do so then it would likely be overturned even under the low end of “intermediate scrutiny.” However, If you and a hundred friends want to walk up and down the same sidewalk then you might have to comply with a law requiring you to get a permit and that law would normally be subject to the sliding scale of “intermediate scrutiny.” The greater the restrictions placed on getting a permit, the greater the burden on the government in justifying the law.

However, once a law passes a certain threshold then “strict scrutiny” applies and the restrictions on your fundamental rights have to be narrowly tailored and the government needs a very good reason to justify that restriction.

Under both intermediate and strict scrutiny the burden of proof is on the government to justify those restrictions.

There is an exception however, when the government bans a protected right, as does California and Hawaii which both ban the bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense, then it is unnecessary for the court to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. Bans on fundamental rights are always unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny.

The case decided today was US v. Chovan (11-50107). Mr. Chovan had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence which results in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under Federal law unless the conviction is expunged, pardoned or otherwise set-aside. In California, once the period of probation has expired, a person has the right to have his misdemeanor conviction expunged. Mr. Chovan did not have his conviction expunged and was therefore charged with possession of a firearm in violation of Federal law.

 

Charles Nichols is the President of California Right To Carry, a non-profit California association of Second Amendment advocates. Mr. Nichols filed a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/9th-circuit-issues-important-gun-rights-decision/#ixzz2l8G3hkGM 

 

Hey, Passive Gun-Owners: Shut Your Mouths and Turn in Your Fire Arms!

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

I can see Comrade Obama trying to do the same

making criticism of his regime illegal.  

anne_hutchinson

Sounds like something you might hear from Diane Feinstein or Mayor Bloomberg if they were caught with a hot microphone, but it’s not. It was the sentiment felt by legislators almost 400 years ago. History really does repeat.

We’ve all felt the ever tightening grip of our powers-that-be slowly restraining our freedom to bear arms. Many of us have had conversations as to what is the dream of the ant-gun folks? Is it really all guns being illegal? Would they really confiscate weapons from citizens? Many pro-gun folks think that could never happen here. Some scoff, no way in you-know-what would our government take our guns. It’s just a political argument to garner power, not a real possibilityreally?

What if I told you it’s already happened here? What if I told you it could easily happen again? This is not a new idea. The reason our founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution was they had historical precedence that governments most certainly do want to disarm their citizenry … that’s when they become subjects. Here’s a little Early-American history for you … these following events were part of what became known as the Anne Hutchinson Scandals…

On November 20, the year of our Lord, 1637, The Assembly of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony issued several new decrees. One decree stated that, verbal or written defamation of any Magistrate or Court or any of their acts or proceedings could be punishable with fine, imprisonment, banishment or hanging. Secondly, the Court issued a list of seventy-five citizens.

These people were accused of having been seduced by Anne Hutchinson and her opinions and revelations. Therefore, they were hereby notified to report to and surrender to the appropriate authorities, all pistols, guns, swords, powder and matches, and any other weapon of warfare not listed, immediately. Furthermore, those listed are instructed to refrain from purchasing and or borrowing any weapons to replace those surrendered.

Did you catch that? Just talking bad about the court or any leader might get you fined, jailed, banished, or even hanged! Then the benevolent Governor listed actual people from the citizenry to be singled out and disarmed. My ancestor, Philip Sherman was one of these citizens … he chose defiance. They did not surrender their weapons, but they were forced to flee and settled Rhode Island.

That sounds great. Good for him! Ra! Ra! The reality of it wasn’t fun for them. He had a very pregnant wife and two babies under two years old when they left their thriving business, their nice home, and many of their friends behind and were forced to live in holes they dug out of the ground for an entire winter. Oh, yeah, and a hurricane hit the Rhode Island shores at this time. No matter what century you live in, that is not a happy wife. It would’ve been much easier to just go along, turn in their guns, and live safely in Boston.

Will we be put in a situation that dire? I think, eventually, yes.

I guarantee present day gun owners are already on several lists. It’s just a matter of when will we be asked to “report and surrender” our weapons and recant our opinions? Will some new person become the pinnacle of scorn that will require drastic actions like Anne Hutchinson was back then? Maybe? She was just a trigger. We could have one.

It could be anyone who agitates or aggravates the men/women in power just a little too much. One man seems to be equally bothering to both sides of the aisle. Ted Cruz. Could it become known as the Cruz Scandals? I don’t know, but it was noted by a friend of mine that he wore a Gonzalez-Come and Take It lapel pin on his recent trip to Iowa.

I’m not saying that Ted Cruz will be our Anne Hutchinson, I’m just pointing out that it’s not all that “wacko-bird” to imagine a world where those of us on the outs with those in power are asked to submit. I think it is time for many Americans to realize the political winds have shifted in our lifetime. It’s not much further to go and we could be re-enacting 1637. Only one problem: unless Texas secedes, we have no Rhode Island to flee to.

So what do we do? Peacefully and arguably fight till our last breath. Vote for pro-gun candidates. Speak out against your local liberal trashing guns after every massacre. Stay engaged with your favorite gun group. Give them money or time. Most importantly, take your kid shooting or hunting, with real guns, not video games. They need to smell the gun powder and feel the recoil on the shoulder. This fight has been going on for 400 years, it will rage after we are gone. Train up another generation of freedom-loving patriots. Take someone shooting today! Stay active, engaged, and vigilant.

Otherwise, shut up and turn ‘em in.

S.C. Sherman’s newest book titled MERCY SHOT is set to release November 30th. This book will make a great 2A gift for Christmas. A story of what happens after the trigger is pulled. Hang onit’s a wild ride. Check it out at www.facebook.com/mercyshot Pre-ordered copies are all signed personally by S.C. Sherman. To order go to www.scsherman.com

Image: Courtesy of: https://weiszhistory7.wikispaces.com/9.+Settling+New+England

 

 

JUSTICE ALITO: SELF-DEFENSE IS ‘THE CENTRAL COMPONENT’ OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

1 Comment

This is from the Breitbarts Big Government.

These are words of wisdom from Justice Alito.

A man I feel should be Chief Justice.

We need  more justice like Justice Alito on the high court.

 

With the war against self-defense currently being waged via the Democrat-led attack on “Stand Your Ground” laws, it’s important to revisit Associate Justice Samuel Alito‘s words from McDonald v Chicago(2010): “Individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the 2nd Amendment right.”

McDonald v Chicago was a case brought by Otis McDonald against gun bans that prevented him from having a firearm with which to defend his life and property.

Alito wrote the majority opinion for the court on that decision, and in it he stressed how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense are two sides of the same coin in the 2nd Amendment.

He even went so far as to say that the most preferred weapon with which to defend oneself in America is a handgun, thus “[the court] concluded, ‘citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.'”

Because of the parameters of the case, Alito’s focus was on having a handgun in the home, but in December 2012 the 7th Circuit Court explained that the right to defense is applicable beyond the home and is actually “as important outside the home as inside.”

Alito bolstered the decision in McDonald v Chicago by pointing to how “the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense.” He looked at William Blackstone‘s “assessment” that King George III’s attempt to disarm colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep and bear arms.”

According to Alito, when the Bill of Rights were composed the federalists and anti-federalists alike “agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental to the newly formed government.”

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. And “self defense is ‘the central component'” of that right.

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: