A Question of Modern Warships and Navies

A few questions for my Navy friends regarding naval history and future possibilities, with regard to the announcement of the Trump-class warship.

1. Why would anyone call a ship with just a single 4-inch rail gun, two 5-inch guns, a "battleship"? The USS Texas boasted 10, 14-inch guns, and the USS Missouri (BB-63) had 9, 16-inch guns—what’s the basis for such a label? 2. The displacement of the "Trump Class battleship” nearly matches that of the old USS Arizona (BB-39), which was 600 ft long with a 97 ft beam. Yet, it’ll be about the same length and beam as the USS Missouri (BB-63)—which displaced 58 tons—only this new vessel will be very lightly armored, roughly the size of HMS Queen Mary but with much smaller guns. While it will feature missiles (not present on the Queen Mary), this design suggests a long, light, and fast ship, powered by diesel and with minimal armor. 3. POTUS SAID this would be the first "battleship" built since 1994. Am I mistaken in believing that the last U.S. battleship was the USS Wisconsin (BB-64), launched in December 1943? From what I gather, the last warship class to end construction in 1994 was the Ticonderoga Class Cruiser —the USS Port Royal (CG-73), a guided missile cruiser with two 5-inch guns—not a battleship. I support a strong navy—our national security depends on it. Yet, with systems like Israel’s "Sea Dome," a naval adaptation of the "Iron Dome," missile defense has become increasingly effective, limiting the threat from aircraft and missile attacks. Historically, the advent of aircraft carriers, along with historic battles at Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and the sinking of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales, prompted the decline of the actual battleship. Today, we’re seeing ships equipped mainly with small guns, while missile can now be intercepted. So I wonder: could a return to large-caliber guns—like 16-inch, 3,000-pound shells fired from 25-30 miles away—be more relevant now? Could such rounds be stopped? Are we entering an era where bigger, more powerful naval artillery makes a comeback? The U.S. Army and Marines still believe in artillery larger than 5 inches. Perhaps it’s time for a new kind of warship—an 800-900 ft long ship with a 110-ft beam, armed with three turrets of three 16-inch guns capable of firing 30 miles with standard shells and 150 miles with sabot rounds. Nuclear-powered, fast enough to match Ford-class carriers, perhaps with less armor than an old battleship —but designed for devastating firepower rather than direct confrontation. Should we be building a new class of warship—a true battleship, a BBN? Or maybe resurrecting the USS Alaska (CB-1)

class as a CBN-1—an imposing, heavily armed vessel designed to dominate the seas and support Marines from the water’s edge. The question is: is it time for the U.S. Navy to craft a modern nuclear battleship or even nuclear battlecruiser - something formidable, fast, and heavily armed—to secure our maritime future?

A Question of Modern Warships and Navies

The Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Without a Country

There are times I feel compelled to write of injustices - especially when those injustices can be rectified. This is one such time.

This is the story of a Marine and Recipient of the Medal of Honor- Lance Corporal Jose “JoJo” Francisco Jiménez, who was killed in action in Vietnam in 1969. His story is one of valor, but also one of injustice that deserves our attention.

When LCpl Jiménez was in elementary school, his mother

served as consular staff for the Mexican Consulate in Arizona. Growing up, Jose attended grade school and high school in Arizona. As his high school years neared their end, Jose witnessed friends and classmates being drafted to fight in Vietnam. As the son of a consular official, he had diplomatic immunity and was exempt from the draft—yet, rather than avoiding Vietnam, he chose to enlist in the US Marine Corps. He felt duty-bound to repay opportunities the US had given him.

Jose saw his service as an honor. Mexico, however, saw his service differently. Despite Mexico's neutrality, the government openly sympathized with the Viet Cong. Jose was considered a mercenary by the government. Others branded his actions as near treasonous. Any Mexican citizen fighting for the U.S. would be disavowed by Mexico if captured. Mexico would do nothing to help them or secure their release.

On August 28, 1969, serving as Fire Team Leader with Company K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, LCpl Jiménez charged a North Vietnamese Army gun emplacement, neutralizing an anti-aircraft gun and machine gun nest. After which, he courageously drew enemy fire away from his fellow Marines, giving what Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion.”

After his death, Jose's remains were returned to his hometown of Morelia, Mexico, where his family had hoped to return once his mother left consulate service.

However, his internment was devoid of honor. The Mexican government opposed the placement of a headstone that honored him as a Medal of Honor recipient and Marine. Instead of being honored, he was seen as a disgrace and a traitor.

In 1987, through the efforts of Marines, veterans, and the Reagan Administration, a granite headstone acknowledging his bravery was finally placed on Jose's grave in Mexico. Protests marred this event, and military honors were not permitted.

The Jiménez family chose not to return to Mexico; they settled in Phoenix and became U.S. citizens. Before she died, Jose’s mother expressed a poignant wish: that he could rest beside her in the country he chose to serve with such loyalty and love.

On January 17, 2017, I had the profound honor of attending the re-internment and memorial service for LCpl Jiménez in Glendale, AZ. This time, a flag was present, and four F-35s from the USMC flew over the cemetery. As one jet peeled away, creating the “missing man formation,” it brought tears to many eyes. We watched as seven young Marines, none of whom were born when LCpl Jimenez died, give a 21-gun salute, followed by the haunting notes of Echo Taps filling the air on that chilly morning.

As I stood there, reflecting upon the Medal of Honor and speaking with Jose’s family, a startling realization struck me: we had just laid to rest a hero who, in many ways, was a man without a country. He wasn’t a U.S. citizen, nor did Mexico claim him.

I was compelled to act. There are currently eight Honorary U.S. Citizens, such as Winston Churchill and the Marquis de Lafayette. Why shouldn’t LCpl Jiménez, a man who gave his life in service, be the ninth?

Over the years, I have reached out to Senators and Representatives to champion this cause, but thus far, no resolutions have been initiated.

I’m asking for your help. Help raise awareness of Jose’s story. I’m not asking for money—just for your voice in sharing his story.

This young man gave everything for the U.S; its time we honor him with Honorary Citizenship in return.

Please Share. 

The Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Without a Country

Now They Are Attacking US Heroes

 Sometimes, something so egregious happens that one must speak out. 

Friday, August 8, 2025, Captain Florent Groberg, recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, was told he did not deserve recognition by the U.S. Army. 

On August 8, 2012, Capt. Groberg was in command of a security detachment in Afghanistan escorting two brigade commanders, two battalion commanders and two command sargents major, on foot to a meeting with other senior commanders. Capt Groberg noticed a man wearing what turned out to be a vest covered with explosives. With complete disregard for his own life, Capt Groberg put himself between the bomber and the people he was escorting. As he shoved the bomber away from his protectees, the bomber detonated the explosives he was wearing. Four died in the blast. Captain Florent Groberg received horrific injuries. But for his courage and actions many others would have died. He was awarded the Medal of Honor on November 12, 2015. 

Fast forward to Friday, August 8, 2025. Laura Loomer, the well known un-official advisor to the White House, who has been instrumental in the termination of several members of the current administration for “disloyalty,” and who has been praised by POTUS for her “great” work, as well as having direct access to the President,  called out the Secretary of the Army for highlighting Capt. Groberg’s bravery, valor and sacrifice on the US Army website. 

Loomer stated there were “probably so many people who the Army could honor who have received the Medal of Honor.” Loomer stated that Groberg should not have been honored because Groberg was a Democrat, he supported Hillary, he had been praised by Obama, and was an immigrant.  

Because he was an immigrant…

“They had to find an immigrant who voted for Hillary Clinton and spoke at the DNC as Obama’s guest?” Loomer wrote

Capt. Groberg is, and has been, a Republican. He medically retired from the Army due to his injuries. Capt Groberg was invited to speak for 60 seconds at the DNC about duty, service, and sacrifice. His words were apolitical.

Captain Groberg was born in France and became a naturalized citizen in 2001. 

Ms. Loomer would CERTAINLY benefit from remedial US History.  Perhaps she is unaware of the incredible role played by a 20-year-old young man from France in the fight for Independence. To this day, an American Flag flies over the tomb of US Army Major General Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette, Marquis de La Fayette.  George Washington treated La Fayette as a son. Eleven cities and 150 other locations (parks, counties etc.) in the US are named for Major General La Fayette.  When La Fayette died in 1834, his son, George Washington La Fayette poured dirt gathered from Bunker Hill into his grave, so that the Marquis would be buried in both French AND American soil.   In 2002, the United States Congress passed a resolution making the Marquis De La Fayette an honorary US Citizen.

The fact that Laura Loomer would attack a man who volunteered to serve THIS country, whose bravery and valor in combat compelled the US Congress to award him the Medal of Honor, just because he was born in France, and spoke about duty and honor as a private citizen, after leaving the military, shows just how far out of touch Ms. Loomed is. 

From the Washington Post:

“In an interview Saturday, Loomer defended her criticism of Driscoll and Groberg, telling The Post that no one from the White House or Hegseth’s office had contacted her and asked her to take down her posts. She said the Army’s choice to recognize Groberg was ideologically at odds with the Trump administration.

“It is very important that the secretary of the Army does not push out Democratic propaganda.””

Honoring a recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions in combat is not political propaganda.

Now They Are Attacking US Heroes

What Happended to Common Sense, Mr. Secretary?

On Sunday, July 20, 2025, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was in Phoenix with his son, Finn Kennedy. They chose to climb Camelback Mountain, a popular destination within the Phoenix Mountain Preserve. The Secretary even shared a photo of their adventure atop the mountain on his X account.

However, this outing sends a troubling message: “It’s fine to brave the heat and conquer a mountain in the sweltering Phoenix summer.” 

This is simply not true.

Let’s be crystal clear: hiking Camelback Mountain in July is incredibly dangerous. I sincerely hope that any water the Secretary and his son had was just out of sight in the photo and that they were fully prepared for the extreme conditions.

Every year, countless tourists flock to Phoenix, mistakenly believing that a cool morning makes for an easy hike. The grim reality? Phoenix Fire conducts over 200 mountain rescue operations annually in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, and approximately 70 individuals tragically lose their lives each summer while attempting to hike these mountains, particularly during the scorching months.

This message transcends politics. Regardless of Secretary Kennedy's position or beliefs, the harsh truth remains: if you plan to visit Phoenix from mid-April to mid-October, DO NOT attempt to climb any of the Phoenix Mountains.

If you must undertake this challenge, PLEASE ensure you carry at least a gallon of water. In the unforgiving Arizona desert, remember this crucial rule: If you’re not feeling the urge to pee, you’re not drinking enough.

Moreover, make sure to carry some form of identification. This simple step will aid Phoenix Fire in notifying your next-of-kin, in the unfortunate event of a tragedy due to heatstroke or dehydration.

The Phoenix Mountain Preserve is breathtaking. The view of the “Valley of the Sun” from any mountain peak is stunning. I have cherished many hikes in this area since my childhood. 

Nevertheless, the mountains of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve are perilous to navigate in the summer. They claim lives year after year. The mountains show no mercy. They care not if you are a Cabinet Member, a seasoned hiker, or someone unfamiliar with the terrain. They do not discriminate. They do not care about your background or if you embark on your ascent with little water.

The Phoenix Mountains do not show compassion. Attempting to climb them in the summer without ample hydration could very well be a death sentence.

So how can you stay alive? Drink plenty of water, keep your distance, and savor the majestic beauty of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve from afar. Your life depends on it.

What Happended to Common Sense, Mr. Secretary?

Law Must Be Enforced. Really?

Today, we witnessed a striking event as another Democrat lawmaker—the Comptroller of NYC and a candidate for Mayor—was arrested by ICE immediately after leaving a courtroom. This Mayoral Candidate had taken a stand as an advocate for an individual facing deportation. 

In response, many politicians supporting President Trump proclaimed, “We are a Nation of Law. Laws must be enforced. We can’t pick and choose!”

This raises a critical question: How many pot dispensaries are currently operational in Arizona, California, Colorado, and other states that have chosen to decriminalize marijuana? 

This isn't just a rhetorical question; it gets to the heart of the matter: Why are these establishments allowed to thrive while openly violating federal law? Where is the DEA? How are they operating in defiance of federal regulations?

I often hear the retort, “That’s different; it’s a ‘states' rights issue.’ If arrests happen, the Courts would intervene…”

However, we must confront the reality that the Supreme Court of the United States already addressed this matter in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). In that ruling, the Justices unequivocally rejected the states' rights argument, asserting that federal law takes precedence over state law in this case.

So, how can these dispensaries continue to operate? The answer is clear: we are indeed a nation of laws, but those laws are not enforced uniformly. The U.S. government selectively chooses which laws to uphold. Presently, pot dispensaries persist because of Presidential memoranda and orders directing the Justice Department not to enforce specific drug laws.

The next time you hear about opposition politicians and officials being arrested, and someone insists, “Laws must be enforced,” remember this: U.S. law is not consistently enforced, and significant discretion is given to prosecutors and the Justice Department regarding when and how they choose to enforce the law. The reality is, enforcement is often a matter of choice, not obligation.

Law Must Be Enforced. Really?

Demise of a Republic?

We are witnessing a repeated troubling pattern: Congress is abdicating its responsibilities and recklessly delegating its powers to the President under the guise of “National Emergencies,” thereby granting the President sweeping “emergency powers.”

History shows us the consequences of such decisions. Once, another Senate in a different Republic made the grave mistake of saying, “In emergencies, we should grant emergency powers to one leader.” Initially, this power was limited to six months, but it quickly morphed into multi-year grants—subject to annual review by the Senate. Eventually, this unchecked authority culminated in one man receiving emergency powers for life. This all came to a head on March 15, 44 BCE.

However, the Senate never regained its authority to govern the Republic. By repeatedly abdicating their role, they set a dangerous precedent that allowed for the appointment of a 19-year-old Gaius Octavian Caesar as Consul of Rome, despite him being too young to even serve as a Senator.

The Roman Republic perished, paving the way for the Roman Empire. Gaius Octavian was honored with the title of Augustus and became Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome.

Today, we find ourselves with a Congress that has similarly relinquished its role and powers, officiously handing them over to the President under claims of “national emergencies.”

Since January 20, we have witnessed multiple national emergencies at both borders due to the fentanyl crisis. There are national emergencies related to illegal immigration at the southern border. Additionally, we are facing a supposed national emergency because a gang in South America has “invaded” our nation. Not to mention the national emergency regarding our U.S. oil supply, despite the fact that America has been a net exporter of oil since 2019.

Since January 20, six national emergencies have been declared, bringing the total to 49 National Emergencies currently in effect. Many of these were initiated by previous administrations, yet each has been continually renewed by the sitting President.

These so-called “national emergencies” have facilitated an alarming concentration of power in the Office of the President.

As a result of these emergencies, individuals have been deported without due process. There exists an Executive Order that aims to distort the established meaning of the 14th Amendment. Legal residents of the U.S. have faced deportation simply for exercising their right to protest.  

Now, the President is speaking seriously of a third term. 

This is an unacceptable trajectory that must be challenged, or soon, our Republic may experience the same fate as the Republic of Rome

Demise of a Republic?

Enough Said

 

Enough Said

So What if Elon Gave to Charity

There are several posts floating around Facebook pointing out what a great human being Elon Musk is for having made a $5 + billion donation to charity in 2022.

If Elon Musk wishes to engage in charitable works with his own money, that's his prerogative. Praise him if you like. 

However, let's be crystal clear: he is NOT a member of the Cabinet. He has NOT been confirmed by Congress. The Administration is actively resisting all efforts for transparency regarding his actions. He is NOT accountable to Congress, as outlined by the President of the United States.

We operate as a REPUBLIC—derived from the Latin Res Publica, meaning "for the People." We have three CO-EQUAL branches of Government, each designed to serve as a check and balance on the others.

Musk's "move fast and break things" approach, combined with a glaring lack of accountability and secrecy surrounding his operations, raises serious red flags. His blatant disregard for the checks imposed by the Judicial Branch cannot be overlooked, no matter how much he contributes to charity.

Let’s not forget that Al Capone ran a soup kitchen in Chicago during the late 1920s, costing him $300 a day. Stalin implemented a social welfare system and state-sponsored charity. Both Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il were also known for their charitable donations.

History has taught us that some of the world’s most notorious figures have used philanthropy to polish their public image. It’s important to remember that true generosity often goes unnoticed, much like the "Widow's Mite," which was said to be of greater value than grand displays of wealth.

So What if Elon Gave to Charity

Goodbye to the VOA

For those who did not live through the Cold War and only know about it from “American History” classes, it’s crucial to understand that one of the United States' most potent weapons was Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. RFE/VOA boldly broadcast news from “the West” behind the Iron Curtain.

VOA/RFE and their sister stations, such as Radio Free Asia, were (and still are) despised by Communist regimes. In fact, listening to their broadcasts was considered a crime punishable by death. In a shocking example of this, a North Korean fisherman was publicly executed in 2020 for listening to Radio Free Asia while at sea.

Yesterday, former political candidate and two-time looser Kari Lake suspended over 1,000 employees of VOA and its sister stations— all of which are federally funded—effectively shutting them down.

The official Communist Party “news” outlet in Shanghai hailed this move as “EXCELLENT NEWS," proclaiming that Radio Free Asia is “one of the US's most insidious anti-China propaganda outlets." This action has pleased not only Beijing but also Moscow, Budapest, Tehran, and other anti-American regimes.

Were there problems at VOA? Yes, there were issues and controversies. However, it’s essential to recognize that VOA has enjoyed bipartisan support from Congress and the White House for generations, except during the Trump administration.

ANY US government action that is praised by the governments in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, Tehran, and Kabul—along with other anti-US tyrannies—should NOT be welcomed by American citizens, regardless of their political affiliation.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/15/nx-s1-5329244/bloody-saturday-voiceofamerica-radio-free-asia-europe-trump-kari-lake

 

Goodbye to the VOA

Time For Republicans To Make a Choice

We are now deep into January 2024, and it is time for me to get off the bench.   

It is no secret that I have always posted about politics, and I have always shared my opinions.  That will not stop.   With New Hampshire’s primary days away, I am compelled to give my opinion.  

Former President Donald Trump MUST NOT be the Republican Nominee for President.   

I was against then candidate Trump in the 2016 primaries and in the general election, I voted AGAINST Secretary of State Clinton, more than I voted in favor of President Trump.   I was hopeful that President Trump would grow into the job.  But I became gravely concerned as the obnoxious Tweeting continued and for the first time we had a President who in no way, shape or form brought any dignity to the office and whose “policy by tweeting” caused untold damage to foreign policy and our relationships with our allies.   

Like MANY Republicans in Arizona, I refused to vote for President Trump in 2020 despite the consequences of putting President Biden into office.  I believe that President Biden was the lesser of two evils and therefore I voted for the Libertarian candidate.   

For the first time since at least 1964, no one in our family (with the exception of my dad, who would die of complications of dementia less than 50 days of the election) voted for the Republican presidential candidate.   I was grateful that Dad did not live to see the abomination that was January 6, 2021. 

I WILL NOT VOTE TO RE-ELECT DONALD TRUMP.   

The time has come for Republicans to make a choice.   We can return to being the Party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln or we can destroy the party with anarchy and chaos.  

It is time for Republicans to get behind Ambassador Nikki Haley.    It is time for the Grand Ole’ Party to nominate our First Woman Candidate for President and first Asian Candidate.  Ambassador Haley IS a Republican in the mold of the Republican “greats of old.”    Governor DeSantis’ campaign has imploded.  He is polling in single digits in New Hampshire and South Carolina.   As of this mornings polls in New Hampshire, Ambassador Haley is tied/within the margin with President Trump.   She is the former Governor of South Carolina.  She is beating President Biden in head to head polling.   

Republicans need to make a choice.   A primary vote for President Trump is a General Election vote FOR President Biden.  

President Trump got one thing partially right after the 2020 elections.   President Biden did not “win” the election.  What President Trump did not understand- and will never understand- is that PRESIDENT TRUMP LOST THE ELECTION.   Republicans did NOT vote for Biden - We voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP- and a HUGE number of us (not to mention independents) WILL DO SO AGAIN.

Time For Republicans To Make a Choice

Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen

Today’s hearing by the Court is literally one of the BIG cases of this year that WILL affect everyone in the US.  

This case may well decide the issue of “What does the Constitution mean when it says the ‘the right to 

keep and BEAR arms hall not be infringed’  (capitalization added).”  While most people may think this is a question that was decided 100 or 200 years ago, the fact is, the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on the issue.  

Amazingly, only recently has the Supreme Court decided what the 2nd Amendments means.  Until 2008 the Court had never said what it means to KEEP arms.  The issue of KEEPING arms was not actually ruled by the court to be an individual right until District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).  Until 2008 there where many that said the 2nd Amendment meant the only right to keep and bear arms was for those in the Militia or National Guard. 

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the States? Or does it only apply to the Federal Government?  That question was not decided until 2010 in Mc Donald v Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) when the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual states because of the 14th Amendment. 

The Heller decision DID say the 2nd Amendment meant Americans had the right to arm themselves for Self Defense.  However, the Heller Decision did not specifically state when, where or under what conditions allowed an individual to be armed for Self Defense.  

Generally, the Heller Decision DID say a person had the right to carry a firearm for self defense.  There are two ways to carry a firearm- open carry, where the firearm is visible or concealed- where the firearm is not visible.  

At issue in NYSRPA v Bruen is the New York concealed carry license system.   New York prohibits open carry or “non-concealed” carrying of firearms.  For Concealed Carry, under  NY law, a person must be of good character, must have certain training and meet other requirements in order to get a concealed carry permit that would allow the individual to carry a concealed weapon in most places.  

Additionally, the person must show CAUSE;  the individual must show a specific and SPECIAL need for self defense that significantly differentiates the individual from the general public.  Saying “I travel through high crime areas” is NOT a reason for a permit.  Saying “there have been several muggings in my neighborhood” is not sufficient.  Saying “I go to this specific area on these specific nights and have received this specific threat” MIGHT be sufficient.  But as we see in this case, that could mean you get a permit that allows you to carry to that ONE location- but no where else.   Largely, in New York, your right to carry a weapon, may just depend on WHO you are and WHERE you live.   

New York’s system is NOT unique- but it is rare.     The “exceptional cause” or “good cause” rule exists in seven states- California, Hawaii, New York, California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey.   In the remaining 43 states, there are SHALL ISSUE laws.  If a person meets the legal requirements- whatever they are- a carry permit MUST be issued.  In the SEVEN jurisdictions with “good cause” laws, it doesn’t matter if you meet ALL requirements, have all the training, and live your life as an angel.  The the hearing officer or sheriff or whoever the licensing person is MAY CHOOSE to reject your application.   

For example, in 1956 Alabama was a “may issue” jurisdiction- just like New York is today.  In 1956, A black minister applied for a concealed carry permit because he had gotten threats against his life.  His concealed carry permit was denied - even though he met EVERY requirement under Alabama law.   Because Alabama had a MAY issue law that allowed the Sheriff or local official to decide if they “wanted” to issue the permit, the permit was denied.  In the past, many states passed “may issue” and “good cause” laws, so they could refuse to allow blacks, immigrants, union organizers and other “undesirables” their right to carry a gun.    If the state said “you can only carry with a license” and the state was a “may issue” state, they could deny the right to self defense- the Second Amendment- to anyone the ruling people did not like.   The black minister denied a concealed carry permit was a person that many in 1956 Alabama hated.  His name was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Today, 43 States in the United States are SHALL ISSUE States.   If you meant all the rules, have a clean background , take the right classes and pay the fees, you SHALL be issued a concealed carry permit or license.   It doesn’t matter your race, sex, religion or any other factor; if you meet the requirements, you must be issued a permit or license.   

In the case before the Court, the NYSRPA and it’s members argue that since there is NO open carry of firearms allowed, the only option is to carry concealed.  The state of New York agrees.    The State of New York says they  issue concealed carry licenses to anyone that has good cause, so we are not violating the Second Amendment at all.   NYSRPA and its members say you should NOT have to prove you have “good cause” to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights.  They say since it is so rare that permits are issued, the state is denying 2nd Amendment rights to almost everyone in New York. 

In the case heard today, one specific exchange between Supreme Court Justice Alito and New York Attorney General Underwood distilled the issues to their core: 

(From the Transcript of Oral Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen on November 3, 2021):

JUSTICE ALITO: Could I -- could I -- could I explore what that means for ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense? So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has a criminal record. They're all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has told -- has said I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right?

MS. UNDERWOOD: That is in general right, yes. If there's nothing particular to them, that's right.

JUSTICE ALITO: How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?

MS. UNDERWOOD: Because the core right to self-defense doesn't -- as -- as this Court said, doesn't allow for all to -- to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.

JUSTICE ALITO: No, it doesn't, but does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves?

MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, if that ordinary person -- Mr. Nash had a -- a concern about his parking lot, and he got a permit. I think the extra problem in Manhattan is that you – your hypothetical quite appropriately entailed the subways, entailed public transit, and there are lots of people on the subways even at midnight, as I can say from personal experience, and the particular specter of a lot of armed people in an enclosed space --

JUSTICE ALITO: There are -- there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren't there?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't know that there are a lot of armed people-

JUSTICE ALITO: No?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I think there are people --

JUSTICE ALITO: How many -- how many--

MS. UNDERWOOD: -- there are people with illegal guns if that's what you're --

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

MS. UNDERWOOD: -- referring to. Yeah.

JUSTICE ALITO: How many illegal guns were seized by the -- by the New York Police Department last year? Do you -- do you have any idea?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't have that number, but I'm sure there's a -- it's a substantial number.

JUSTICE ALITO: But the people -- all -- all these people with illegal guns, they're on the subway --

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't -- I don't --

JUSTICE ALITO: -- they're walking around the streets, but the ordinary hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can't be armed?

Justice Alito really brought this case into tight focus.  This case is REALLY about one issue - Does the Second Amendment mean ALL law abiding citizens have the right to carry for self defense? Or does it mean that only the select few, who a New York official feels are worthy, have the right to carry for self defense. 

Do we, as a people, live in a Country where a Constitutional Right can be conditioned upon Special Need?   We certainly never would say “you must show you have a ‘special need’ or ‘good cause’ to give a speech.  We would never say, “you must show a ‘special need’ to require the police to have a warrant to search your home.  

This case addresses that issue.  We will find out the decision, when the Court announces its ruling - mostly likely in June 2022.  

Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen

To Boldly Go…

There are a few completely modern movie and TV phrases which have become a permanent part of our culture; phrases which one can say which anyone in the US would immediately recognize.   “I’ll be back,” “Make my day,” “Here’s looking at you, kid,” and “we’re not in Kansas anymore” are a few.  

But there is a phrase, or verse, that is known not just in the United States, or the English speaking world, but globally, that a very large percentage would know; and it was heard for the first time some 55 years ago today. 

“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!”

Star Trek first premiered on September 8, 1966 on NBC.  The show was canceled after only three seasons and seventy-nine aired episodes.  

The show would not disappear from the airwaves, as many others would.  It would eventually give birth to 13 major motion pictures, 7 television and streaming series of 755 episodes and counting, 3 animated series, and well over 1000 authorized books.

But, the importance of Star Trek is not its television, streaming, theater, and literary success.  The importance of Star Trek is how it has changed, and continues to change, the world we live in.   

There is no doubt that other works have made major impacts on the world.   Jules Verne's Captain Nemo and the Nautilus inspired generations of submarine designers, oceanographers and explorers.  Upon Sinclair's "The Jungle" has been credited with the drive for food safety regulations in the US.  Admittedly, not all of these changes have been positive; the 1915 film "Birth of a Nation" was the inspiration for the birth of the modern KKK.

Yet it can be argued that no other modern dramatic work, no other work of science fiction, no other television show, has changed the world as much as Star Trek.  

All it takes to see Star Trek's impact is for one to look at their mobile phone.   Or perhaps take a look at a tablet computer. Kirk and Spock had and used both.  Touch screens, 3-D Printers, Smart Watches, have proliferated across the planet; all were seen, years- decades even- before their time, being used by the crew of the Enterprise.  Lt. Uhura and Cdr. Spock's single-ear, wireless earphones are certainly not much different than the Bluetooth headsets millions use. According to Jeff Bezos, the voice of Alexa was inspired by the voice of the computer on the Enterprise 1701-D (voiced by Majel Barrett-Roddenberry).   Private space transport is here, and there is a $10 million X-Prize for the development of the "Medical Tricorder."  The Autonomous Vehicles used to explore everywhere from under the oceans to space are not much different than the probes launched from Enterprise.  Even tractor-beams and transporter technology have moved from the theoretical and are currently under development.

Beyond the inspiration for new technology, Star Trek as certainly been an inspiration for exploring "strange new worlds" and seeking out "new life and new civilizations."   NASA and the ESA are filled with scientist, engineers and technicians who freely state that watching Star Trek inspired them to join NASA or the ESA.   And for those that may not be old enough to remember, the test vehicle of the Space Shuttle Program- an actual space shuttle, without rocket engines aboard- in which manned test flights were flown, was named Enterprise; a name demanded by a letter writing campaign of Trekker's in the 1970's to then US President Gerald Ford.  Enterprise (OV-101) was supposed to be refitted after the drop tests to fly in space, but structural changes during construction of Columbia (OV-102) made it cheaper to build Challenger (OV-099) from scratch.  A refit of Enterprise was considered once more, after the 1986 Challenger disaster, but again, the cost of refit made building Endeavour (OV-105) the better option.

Perhaps the both the greatest impact, and the least easy to measure, is the incredible social impact Star Trek has made.  In 1966, the racial diversity of the lead actors in the show was unheard of in American Television.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. told Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek was one of the only shows he would allow his children to watch.  When Nichelle told Dr. King she was planning to leave Star Trek for Broadway, she said he told her that was not acceptable. Dr. King said she couldn’t leave because she was a role model for millions of young girls and women – the only African-American on TV in a role worth having.

The social impact goes beyond just the first interracial kiss on American Television (between Kirk and Uhura).  Star Trek used problems on alien worlds as parallels and parables for issues we were facing when the show aired.   Issues like racism, the risks and dangers of war, eugenics, genetic engineering, and the dangers of unbridled automation were addressed in the original series.  When Star Trek returned to the television screen, they continued to address social issues, such as apartheid, colonialism, terrorism, drug addictions, aging, the right to live, as well as continuing to address themes that mankind struggled with when the show began in 1966.   Above all, Star Trek presented a world of hope, a world that could be, where the social issues of today were no more.

The world has changed and science has advanced since the first broadcast of Star Trek, the night of September 8, 1966.   We landed on the moon.  Mankind has sent space craft to explore every planet in our solar system and even a "planet" that was demoted to a dwarf-planet while the space craft was  in route (Pluto).   We have landed a spacecraft on the moon Titan, orbiting Saturn.  We have sent space craft out into deep space, beyond the reaches of our solar system.  We can communicate around the globe electronically, and there is practically nowhere on Earth where we cannot maintain communication with our friends, family and home.

Technology has advanced, and we have in the 21st Century, many of the things Star Trek set in the world of the 23rd Century- although I am still waiting for the food station I can just talk to and tell what I want for dinner, and have it beam right in.  

Despite all our advances, and maybe because of them, the dream Gene Roddenberry showed us in Star Trek 55 years ago, remains:  The dream of a better world for all, as well as the goal and mission, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

To Boldly Go…

Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?

The White House is expressing frustration about what it terms “misinformation” about COVID and vaccines on Social Media.  Expressing frustration is one thing,  but directing the suppression of statements the White House believes are wrong is quite another.   

The White House is very close to an old, historical precedent: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

I wish this was unbelievable- but it is not.    I do not care if individuals are saying the Earth and Moon are flat and that dancing naked in Times Square will cure cancer, the White House has NO BUSINESS restricting, flagging, correcting or doing ANYTHING to ANY US Citizen or Resident’s Facebook Posts (or the statements of anyone protected you the Constitution).    

I do not care WHO is in the White House- the White House MAY NOT direct, decide or even influence the statements of anyone but themselves!!!    

Once the Government gets involved with saying content should or should not be allowed, they have crossed the line.    This is a plain and simple free speech and free press issue. 

To make matters worse, the White House is actively trying to make sure if a user is banned on one social platform they are banned on others.   THIS IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to have the White House use Social Media Platforms as a stalking horse!!!!  

While Facebook itself is NOT bound by the First Amendment, the White House is- and if Facebook is acting at the direction of the White House, then Facebook is acting as an agent of the Government.  Just as the The White House cannot directly censor individuals, it may not use a third party, acting at the White House’s direction, to violate the First Amendment either.   

Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?

Living In A Changing World, or Time For A New Atlas?

When I was a kid, I was taught there were certain constants, like there being Nine Planets in our Solar System, and there were Four Oceans on our planet.   

Well, Pluto got demoted, and I have to consciously remember there are only 8 planets in the solar system along with scores and scores of dwarf planets - and that while planetary moons can be satellites, our moon is not a satellite of earth.  There is some argument that the Earth and Moon actually are a binary planet system  because the same rule that demoted Pluto, actually established that the Moon meets the 3 criteria to be a Planet! (So technically we may be back to nine planets).  

If that all were not confusing enough,  according to National Geographic, we now have 5 Oceans instead of 4.   National Geographic will now update its Atlases and maps to show the Southern Ocean - which surrounds the continent of Antarctica.  

We lost a planet (maybe) but gained an Ocean.  

Now I have to buy a new National Geographic Atlas .  ok, to be fair, the old atlas shows a big country that crosses from Europe into Asia- The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics- and of all the countries in Europe I had to memorize the names and locations of for a test, probably less than half still exist- of course they are all still in that atlas - so maybe I am due for a new one anyway!

Living In A Changing World, or Time For A New Atlas?

A GOOD Ruling from A California Court

I must again praise US District Judge Roger Benitez of the District Court of Southern California.  This praise is for his opinion in Miller v Bonta which was released on Friday.   At issue is the so called “Assault Weapons” Ban imposed by the People’s Republic of California.  Not only did Judge Benitez, in no uncertain terms, strike down the ban; he also addressed in the introduction of his ruling, the misconception that AR-15’s (etc) are used in a high percentage of homicides. 

From the introduction:

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter. Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15.2 A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle.3 In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle.4 The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”

Unfortunately, although Judge Benitez imposed a permanent injunction upon California enforcement of the ban, the State of California will appeal, and that appeal will go to the 9th Circuit.   If historical precedent holds, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit will hear the case.  If the three judge panel agrees with Judge Benitez (they have previously on 2nd Amendment cases such as Duncan v Becerra) - the case will be heard by the ENTIRE 9th Circuit- which will of course strike down any case that holds in favor of the 2nd Amendment as a matter of course, just as they did in Peruta v San Diego and 

Young v Hawaii. 

A GOOD Ruling from A California Court

A Television Show That Has Saved Lives

Forty-four years ago (May 28, 1977)  the last episode of “Emergency!” ran on NBC.  The show was certainly the most “realistic” medical show of the 1970’s- probably the most realistic until ER debuted.   From the beginning, the show presented the fire crew wearing SCBA’s,  protecting accident victims with full C-Spine precautions (backboards and cervical collars) and using a defibrillator in cardiac arrest- all of which were “cutting edge” at the time.  They even went so far as to show the “right” cardiac rhythm  for what the said a patient had, on the cardiac monitor- as well as following the correct protocols that were in place at the time.  Part of the reason the show was so “realistic” was that the shows lead actors, Randolph Mantooth (Johnny) and Kevin Tighe (Roy) actually went through paramedic training (they did not sit for the board exams) and did extensive “ride-a-longs” with LA County Fire.  The character of Mike Stoker - the engineer on the fire truck crew - was played by “real-life” firefighter/engineer Mike Stoker, and the dispatcher (seen in a couple episodes - but mostly just the “voice” of LA County Fire Dispatch) was played by LA County Fire Dispatcher Samuel Lanier 

The show was created by the legendary Jack Webb and there were multiple  crossover episodes with ADAM-12 (Officers Reed and Malloy showing up at Rampart General etc).

Maybe the most significant aspect of Emergency! was that it inspired a generation to become firefighters or medics.   I am willing to bet there are very few firefighters/paramedics/EMT’s who are older than 45, that do not know who are unfamiliar with “Johnny and Roy.”    To this day, Banner Hospital emergency rooms in Phoenix play the “Station 51 tones”  overhead as an alert when an ambulance crew is radioing the hospital.  (Tones are the alert sounds that are transmitted by fire department dispatch before a fire/EMS call and are unique to each station/unit in a department).   

A 2007 article in “University of Baltimore Law Review” credited the show with the rapid expansion of laws in a large number of states that officially created paramedics and paramedic licensing. Prior to the early 70’s ambulance crews barely had first-aid training and few people understood what a paramedic was or did.  Just before the show premiered, there were only TWELVE paramedic programs in the United States.    “Emergency!” helped to change that.   In 1977,  Newsweek credited the show for “ creat[ing] a national demand for [EMS/pre-hospital care] services." 

Some television shows are considered great because of ratings.   Some because they manage to address tough social issues, while still maintaining an audience (Star Trek immediately comes to mind).  Emergency! should be considered great because of the tangible effect of the show- the public demand for EMS services and the laws that authorized paramedics around the US- that can be witnessed and felt by every one of us today. Knowing you can pick up the phone in a medical emergency, dial 911 and have qualified help in minutes, is at least partially thanks to this show.  

If you have never seen Emergency! (Or want to see it again), it is streaming currently on Hulu.  

This is Carden Chronicles, signing off, KMG365.  

A Television Show That Has Saved Lives

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

A juror in the Derek Chauvin trial has spoken to the press about his time on the jury, and some of what he says should frighten us all.  

Brandon Mitchell was Juror 52.   He is quoted in a CNN story as saying, 

“During the opening statements, I was curious or find out what the defense was going to bring to the table and convince us jurors. I didn't see any avenues to which they could go."

At the beginning of the trial, during opening statements, before a single witness is sworn or a single scrap of evidence is presented this juror is wondering what the DEFENSE is going to bring to convince the jurors that Chauvin was not guilty?  HOLY CRAP!!!!   In our system of jurisprudence, we are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. At the beginning of a trial a juror should NEVER be wondering how the DEFENSE is going to prove it’s case.  The ONLY side that must PROVE anything is the Prosecution!   The Prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.    

The statement by this juror that he wondered how the DEFENSE was going to prove their case, along with the jurors written statement in his juror questionnaire that he wanted to be on the jury “because of all the protests and everything that happened after the event” he felt the trial was historic and he want to be part of that- says this juror was exposed to the case in advance, and that he did not go into the trial with an open mind.    

In this country, we are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, based upon the preponderance of the evidence.   Jurors are supposed to understand that, and a guilty verdict MUST be one that is arrived at through a process such that when the verdict is delivered, no one should be able to point out obvious flaws and errors.  

In this case, based on the published statements of this juror, there is HUGE concern that Chauvin did not get a fair trial.  At least one juror felt Chauvin was guilty going in, or at least that the defense needed to PROVE Chauvin innocent.  

This should frighten ALL of us.   Every one of us should have absolute faith that our judicial system will treat us fairly and that if accused of a crime, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.   All of us should be afraid that if ever taken to court, we might have a Juror 52 who goes into the trial, wondering how the defense is going to prove us innocent.  

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

BREAKING - SCOTUS to hear NYSRPA v Corlett

BREAKING NEWS- From this morning’s orders list issued by the Supreme Court- the Supreme Court WILL hear New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett sometime this fall (October 2021 Term).  The question before the Court will deal with “good cause carry”- a scheme in place in seven states (NY, NJ, MA, MD, DE, CA & HI) that limit carrying a firearm for self defense to those that show “good cause”- meaning a specific threat to them that is well beyond that which is experienced by the general public which includes even the threat of domestic violence.   This will be the first case since McDonald where the Court will hear a question which goes to the CORE of the Second Amendment.  Does the individual have the right to BEAR arms outside the home for self-defense. 

Case documents for NYSRPA v Corlett (20-843) may be found here.

BREAKING - SCOTUS to hear NYSRPA v Corlett

How Gun Control Advocates and Media Are Making Things Worse

This morning, I heard two [deceptive] “facts” on the “news.”  Some 40,000 people are killed a year in what was termed as “gun violence” and there have been 54 “mass shootings” so far this MONTH.   Perhaps, a better way to state what was heard was that it was propaganda, being spread by the mass media.  This propaganda being spread by gun control groups and the media is making matters worse, when it comes to violence with firearms.   

Is there gun violence in the US? Of course there is. Is any innocent life taken or any injury to an innocent person horrific and a tragedy? Absolutely.  Do we, as a nation need solutions to the problems? Again, of course we do.  However, the alleged “facts” [actually propaganda] being pushed by people like David Hogg, Michael Bloomberg, former Rep Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Senator Mark Kelly are at best distorting the truth. More likely, the propaganda they are spreading  will cause harm and make matters worse.  

The numbers the gun control crowd throw around (and the same numbers the media repeat without question) do not tell the full story.   When the gun control crowd and the media say there have been 54 mass shootings this MONTH, they paint a picture for the general public of 54 “Columbines” or 54 events like we just saw in Indianapolis.  The public would be surprised to learn that the “54” includes gang drive-by’s where multiple people are wounded.  This number includes a felon in a stand-off with police in his home, where the felon wounded a couple police officers and was then killed by officers returning fire.  The number includes a parent who killed their family and then themselves (a family annihilator).  In fact, the number includes any situation where a gun is fired and three or more persons are wounded, including the shooter. This however is NOT the definition used by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS definition is “a multitude homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms -not including the offenders- within one event...in public locations... not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity.”   By using the CRS definition, there have been about 8 mass shooting incidents per year between 2017-2020 and 3 this year.  Although even one event is abhorrent, there CERTAINLY a were NOT 54 THIS MONTH!  

The other big number thrown around is 40,000 people killed in gun violence.  HOWEVER, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program database homicide data for the last fully reported year (2019),  there were 10,258 homicides with firearms, down from a five year period high of 11,014 in 2017.  Why the huge disparity?  The gun control groups (and media who are repeating these numbers) are including every accidental firearm discharge as well as suicides and LAWFUL firearm usage- or in other words, self defense and lawful use of force.  

Why does it matter what numbers are used? For gun control groups, the use of these numbers is intended to portray to the public a much larger problem than what actually exists to push through their agenda.  The gun control groups are not technically lying, but they are spinning deceptive numbers to try to convince the public - through inference at minimum- that their proposed solutions are the ones that should be implemented.   They want to ban so-called “assault rifles,” despite the fact that true assault rifles are almost NEVER used in a crime (finding the exact date an assault rifle - one capable of bursts of fully automatic fire at minimum- was used in a crime is difficult/next to impossible).  Homicides with ANY type of rifle accounted for 364 homicides in 2019.   On average over the last five years, there have been 315 homicides a year with ALL rifles.  An “assault weapons ban” would have a negligible effect on homicide, since over the last five years, rifles accounted for less than 2.2% of homicides   

Further, by lumping suicide, accidents and homicides together, the gun control groups and media distract from the REAL problems and REAL solutions that may found, in favor of the illusions of expanded background checks, weapon bans, etc.   Suicide is a mental health issue- NOT a firearm issue.   Japan has an incredibly high suicide rate, despite banning firearms since the 1970’s.  They CLEARLY prove that a person does not need a gun to commit suicide, AND prove that a person who definitely wants to commit suicide WILL find a way - even without a gun.   Therefore the solution is in mental health, not in gun control.  

Gang violence will also not be solved by any type of weapons ban or increased background checks.  Criminal gangs get their firearms by theft, and background checks do not stop theft.  Gang problems occur because of drugs and poverty, and no gun control proposal addresses those issues.   

Firearms deaths from accidents are very often preventable.  Firearms Safety Education goes a very long way to helping reduce accidents.   Instead of banning guns, we should be teaching how to handle them safely.  

There are real solutions to violence- regardless of the weapon used.  But those solutions will NEVER be found with gun control groups and the media spreading propaganda that distracts from the real problems.    We NEED mental health care reform in this country.   We NEED to better address the poverty and other issues that drive gangs and drugs.  We NEED Firearms Safety Education- like the classes the NRA has been providing for decades and decades.   But as long as we allow the media and gun control groups to keep push propaganda for the sake of an agenda, people will needlessly die, because the public has been distracted from the real problems and real solutions.  

How Gun Control Advocates and Media Are Making Things Worse

If You Want to Save Lives- Ban Cars Not Guns

There are "constants" in the Universe. Gravity is a "constant" in the universe.  The speed of light is a "constant" in the universe.  Unfortunately, "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals and arguments after a mass shooting event are also "constants."  Within the scope of "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals,  there are other "constants" as well.  One of those "constants" is that eventually someone will argue, "we make people get licenses and insurance for cars, why shouldn't we make people get a license and liability insurance before they can own a gun?"

The fact is, the vast majority of those that push for increased gun control have no idea of what current laws already exist, the extent of those laws or how they apply to gun ownership, or what the process is for purchasing a firearm. A number of those that are "pro-gun control" believe that anyone can go to a store and buy "fully automatic" firearms over the counter, or that one can go to a website, pick out a gun, type in their credit card number, and the gun will just be mailed to them. Many gun control advocates give the impression that a gun show is a "free-for-all," full of individuals who could never pass a federal firearm background check and intend to go on a shooting rampage the moment they leave the show.  If one listens to some gun-control advocates, gun shows exist solely to provide a location to avoid back-ground checks for firearm purchases.

Sadly, there are a great many people who listen to these "pro-gun control" advocates, despite the fact that many of those who are "pro-gun control" have limited knowledge of guns at best.  The public hear phrases like "background checks," "keep military weapons out of civilian hands," or "assault weapons ban" and cannot help but think the proposals are reasonable.

Perhaps the best way to show why some of these proposals are unreasonable is to compare guns and automobiles.  Let's take current gun control proposals and laws and see what they look like when applied to automobile ownership, operation and licensing:

1. We must ban all Jeeps and Hummers- they have a military appearance and we can't have that.  A military appearance makes things more dangerous.  Suburbans and other quasi-military looking vehicles also should be restricted.

Firearms reality: Many so called "assault weapons bans" restrict the sale and ownership of a firearm simply because of the "looks" of the gun. These laws may ban one firearm but say another is a "common hunting firearm" and therefore permissible to own in the view of some gun control advocates. This despite the fact that both of the firearms use the same caliber of round (bullets) and both are semi-automatic.  It should not be a valid reason to ban a firearm because it "looks scary"

2. All vehicles must be limited to a tank quantity of less than 10 gallons.  That way you can't drive as much.   You must stop to reload (the tank) more often.

Firearms reality: A constant proposal from gun control advocates is limiting the size of firearm magazines (incorrectly often referred to as "clips").  If I am in a situation where I have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of another, I don't want to run out of ammunition (personally, I am a decent shot, so I might not run out of ammo, but there may be others who don't shoot as well).  Another reason why a person may wish to have a high-capacity magazine may be that a person might not want to spend all their time at the shooting range re-loading.  The "gun-control advocate" view is that no one needs more than eight to ten rounds of ammo.  That view is false.

3.  We must place an breathalyzer interlock on ALL cars and trucks- regardless of whether the person had ever had a DUI- they might try sometime even if they NEVER drink.

Firearms reality: I have lost track of the number of times when a certain firearm is used in a crime, and "gun-control advocates" immediately want to ban everyone from having that type firearm.  The criminal actions of a single individual should never dictate the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. 

4. All states should adopt "MAY ISSUE" laws instead of SHALL ISSUE.  It should be up to the whim of local sheriffs to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't.  With the Shall Issue law if a person passes the Drivers License test and has a clean record, the state MUST issue a drivers license.  Obviously this is bad.

Firearms reality: There are nine states with either strict or partial "may issue" concealed weapons permit laws.   The most egregious jurisdiction in the eyes of many is San Diego County.  It is nearly impossible to obtain a concealed weapons permit in San Diego County. The San Diego County Sheriff's website states that to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapon Permit you must demonstrate "a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply writing "self defense" or "personal protection" on an application does not provide the requisite proof of good cause." Other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia have been told by the United States Court of Appeals that a nearly identical "good cause" requirement is unconstitutional.   This issue has yet to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.  Rulings from the Court of Appeals only apply to those places where the individual court has jurisdiction.

5. One state should not be required to accept another's Drivers License.  Places like New York, California, DC etc should be allowed to ban drivers from other states from driving in their states.  To hell with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that interstate travel is a right.

Firearms reality: Although most states accept the Concealed Carry permit of other states, places like California do not.  In fact, because California does not allow for the open carry of firearms, and in California only a California resident may obtain a Concealed Carry permit, it is in effect illegal for a non-resident to carry a firearm.  The general belief of the public is the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.  Therefore, for now at least, in California, the Second Amendment does not apply to those who are from any of the other 49 states.

6.  All automobile purchasers should be required to have a background check-- UNIVERSAL Background Checks- even in the case of someone being willed grandfather's old car.  The person buying could have a background of speeding or DUI

Firearms reality: Every firearms sale through a firearms dealer requires a background check by Federal law.  The information from the purchaser is run through NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).  This also includes sales from dealers at gun shows, as well as so called internet sales.  The fact is "internet sales" don't really happen.  A person may go to a website, such as Gunbroker to purchase a firearm, but the firearm does not go to the purchaser directly.  The firearm gets transferred to a licensed firearm dealer.  That dealer then performs all required background checks as well as any required state checks.  This also is a check against violation of state law, in that if the firearm is illegal in the state of purchase, the transfer to the purchaser does not take place.  The gun control lobby seeks to expand background checks past this point.  Under the "pro-gun control" proposals, if I were to purchase a firearm as a gift for my spouse (I have done this on several occasions, and the "gift" is greatly appreciated) not only would a background check be performed on me as the purchaser, but then my spouse would have to go to the store and have a background check run as well.  This is an inconvenience with little gain.  Background checks do not stop crime.  Career criminals generally do not go to gun stores to purchase a gun before committing a crime- they get those guns on the street, or by theft.

7.  Ban the private sale or transfer of autos, and all internet sales. The person buying the car MUST have a background check.   This includes all "car shows" - OK so even though all car dealers at car shows may be licensed  dealers AND they would already do a background check, who cares.   You can buy parts at shows and that means a bad driver "could" get a hold of a car at a show.

Firearms reality: There are proposals to ban the private "transfer" of firearms.  This would include firearms transferred by Will and Testament.   As already discussed, these type checks do nothing to stop crime.  These checks are about tracking who owns what guns.

8.  Require a background check for the purchase of gasoline at the state level.  Allow for an "instant check" for those who have bought a car in the last year (will help speed up gasoline sales). However, individuals who have not purchased a car in the last year will have to wait until they are "in the system" before a gasoline purchase can be approved.  Additionally, out of state visitors will be unable to purchase gasoline.

Firearms reality: California has enacted a background check requirement ammunition purchases.  The only persons approved immediately are those who have purchased a firearm since the state started tracking purchases.  The state wants to be sure you only buy ammunition for a gun you personally own.  If you haven't made a recent firearm purchase, you must wait for processing to be completed on your application before the state will approve your ammunition purchase.  If you are not a California resident, you would not have a firearm purchase registered with the California system and therefore you would not be able to purchase ammunition.  For those who believe that people from outside of California would have no need to purchase ammunition, there are people who travel to California to compete in shooting competitions.  There are also those who travel to California to hunt.  Regardless of the reason, these restrictions are unreasonable and have been challenged in Federal Court.  To date, this law has yet to be reviewed by any court higher than Federal District Court- however, the Federal Judge has stated he believes these laws will be found to be unconstitutional, but there currently is no injunction in place, and the ammo purchase laws are in effect.

9.  We must limit AAA.   The problem is they are to powerful.  EVERY TIME a multiple vehicle accident occurs it is because of their members and the lobbying power they have.  If it wasn't for their political influence and stranglehold on Congress and State Legislative bodies there would not be such a problem.

Firearms reality: The media and politicians love to paint the National Rifle Association an enemy of civilization.  They paint the NRA as an organization that actively tries to recruit people to carry out mass murders.   The fact is the NRA has been around since the 1870's.  And while the NRA does lobby on behalf of gun owners for "reasonable" laws, the primary task the NRA performs is education.   The NRA provides safety training. The NRA provides training for Range Officers and provides standards for firing range safety.  Millions have been taught firearms safety through courses taught by the NRA, or using NRA approved curriculum.

10. A 5 day waiting period on all car sales.  

Firearms reality: As much as some politicians like to talk about how anyone can walk into a gun store, put down a credit card and walk out with a gun, every gun sale from a firearms dealer does require a background check that may end up requiring a waiting period.  Unless a firearms dealer is told to "proceed" with a firearms sale, and assuming there has not been a "denied" issued, a firearm sale is subject to a hold.

These are just a few examples of what gun control advocates call "reasonable" proposals.  However, the public would be furious if, for example, a drunk driver hit a school bus, killing several students, and then politicians started shouting that we need a law to require Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks on every single vehicle sold.  Rightfully the general public would be outraged and stress that just because one person got drunk and used their car to cause a tragedy, the rest of the driving population should not be punished.  However, the same general public is not concerned when politicians discuss banning a firearm from millions, because one "nut" decided to use that weapon in a murder.  The People would be outraged over restrictions to the purchases of automobiles, yet driving is not a Constitutional Right; keeping and bearing a firearm is.

**** To be sure you see the latest discussion and commentary, please follow Carden Chronicles on Facebook, Twitter (@CardenBlog) or subscribe to email or RSS Feed updates at The Carden Chronicles website.  ****

The Carden Chronicles is against the #GunControlNow Campaign

#2A, #NRA, #NRAILA, #GoodGuyWithGun

If You Want to Save Lives- Ban Cars Not Guns