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

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

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

SCOTUS Case of the Term: NYSRPA v NYC

Today the Supreme Court will hear what may be "THE CASE" of this term, and perhaps the case of the decade: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City.  The issue before the

The Right to Arm Bears

Court? What does the Second Amendment mean when it says the right to "bear arms?"  This question was not specifically addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) nor in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).  Without a doubt, this will be one of the "most watched" cases this year.

For those that do not have immediate recall of the exact text of the Second Amendment, the text reads,"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 Heller case specifically dealt with the question, "Does the Second Amendment 'right to keep and bear arms' only apply to the 'militia' (or National Guard)."   In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia went through the history of the "Right to Defend One's Self."  In summary, the majority opinion of the Court stated the Second Amendment did not only apply to the militia, but rather, the "militia" as it was understood at the time, meant "all" citizens who would be called to defend the state in time of war or extreme civil unrest.  It was also explained that in essence, the clause "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" in modern English (as opposed to 18th century English) meant "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   The ruling in this case however, only applied to the Federal Government, as the District of Columbia falls under Federal jurisdiction. 

In 2010, the McDonald case dealt with the question of whether the Second Amendment applied to the states.  This case specifically looked at whether the Second Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.   The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito stated that indeed, the Second Amendment did apply to the states.  In both Heller and McDonald the court stated that a state may not impose a ban on firearms, but that provisions such as banning felons from possessing firearms where Constitutional.

Since the Heller and McDonald rulings, there have been no other significant Second Amendment cases heard by the Supreme Court.   Further, the Heller and McDonald opinions have left a great deal of confusion and conflict on how Second Amendment challenges should be ruled on, leaving a patchwork of conflicting rulings from the Courts of Appeal.   Additionally, one phrase, written by Justice Scalia in the Heller majority opinion has created confusion on the scope of the Second Amendment. 

In his majority opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia wrote:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. 

Unfortunately, many in the media, the public and some of the lower courts have viewed the statement that "the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" means that the Second Amendment only applies to the home.  However, this is not what Justice Scalia stated.  He stated that the need was "most acute" in the home.  Justice Scalia was merely pointing out that because a person spends more time in the home, than in any other place, and because the home is the place where one expects to feel most relaxed and most secure, the need to be able to defend one's self in one's home is highest.  This, however, does not mean that the need to defend one's self in public, does not exist or is not important.  The "misreading" and "misinterpretation" of the Heller and McDonald cases, as well as the Court's failure to hear any substantive Second Amendment cases since 2010, caused Justice Thomas to write a scathing dissent on the Court's decision not to hear a challenge to a gun control law in California.  Justice Scalia went so far as to call the Second Amendment a Constitutional Orphan.

This brings us to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City  The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York City regulations that prohibit an individual, with a license to have a pistol in their home, from taking that firearm outside of the home.   The NYC regulations required that an individual with a home pistol license ONLY use one of SEVEN shooting ranges inside the limits of the City of New York.  The law further prohibited an individual from transporting a firearm licensed to a home in New York City from transporting that firearm to a second home (a vacation home on Long Island for example).  Finally the regulations even prohibited the individual from taking that firearm to a Gun Smith within the City of New York, without written permission from the Chief of Police.

On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the appeals court, using "intermediate scrutiny" ruled in favor of New York City, stating that the Governmental need to reduce crime and ensure public safety outweighed the individual's Second Amendment right.   There was no explanation on how a firearm that was locked in a gun case, and locked in an individual's vehicle truck away from any passengers and separated from any ammunition (requirements to transport a firearm from point A to point B by New York law) would increase crime or decrease public safety.  Further the Appeals Court stated that since the individual would be transporting the firearm outside the home, there was no "acute" need for self defense.

The NYSRPA appealed to the Supreme Court.   After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and well after all written arguments were presented to the Court, New York City and the State of New York both decided that the last thing they wanted was for the Supreme Court to hear this case.   This opinion was expressed by other states with strict gun control laws.   New York and other states are all in fear that the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to BEAR arms as well.

In an effort to keep the Supreme Court from hearing this case, in July 2019, NYC and New York both changed regulations to allow some transport of firearms outside the city limits of NYC.   The City of New York then sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking the Court to dismiss the case as moot.  The fear of a "pro-gun" ruling by the Supreme Court is so great, that Sen. Whitehouse (D- RI) filed a brief more or less "threatening" the Court if they did not dismiss this case as moot.   The Court did reject the NYC letter asking the case be dismissed, but did order both parties to be prepared to argue why this case is not moot, when the Court hears the case this morning.

There are three possible outcomes for this case.   The first possible outcome is that the case will be found to be "moot."   It is likely that Counsel for both sides will try to convince Chief Justice Roberts in particular on the issue of mootness.   The belief on both sides of the argument is that each has four Justices in their corners so to speak (although predicting what the Court will do is dangerous).  Each side believes that Chief Justice Roberts will be the deciding vote.  The other two outcomes are the apparent ones. If the Court decides the case is not moot, then the Court will have to decide what the Constitution means by "bear arms."   This will likely end up being a 5-4 ruling, regardless of the direction the Court takes.

Currently, there are several dozen cases that have been put on hold pending the outcome of this case, and this case may end up having an impact for generations to come. 

(The transcript from the oral arguments that were held this morning will be available by close of business today, and the audio recordings of the arguments will be available at end of this week.)

SCOTUS Case of the Term: NYSRPA v NYC

HR 1186 - IT REALLY WONT "Keep America Safe Act"

The naming of bills and laws has always amazed me.   Congress always seems to come up with such inspiring names or catchy acronyms:  HIPAA, PATRIOT Act, and now the "Keep America Safe Act."

Of course, sometimes the names are rather misleading- or they pro-port to do something that they really will never do.  HR 1186- the "Keep America Safe Act" is a perfect example.  The fact is this bill should be amended to title it the "It Really Won't Keep America Safe Act."

This act is of course a knee-jerk reaction to recent shootings. Unfortunately, this act is gaining traction in the Senate, with some GOP Senators now saying they would support this measure.

What the "[It Really Won't] Keep America Safe Act" Actually Says (in short), after this bill is passed it will be illegal to possess, make, sell, etc any firearm magazine that holds more than ten rounds.  But it will NOT be illegal to posses a large magazine (eleven rounds or greater) if that magazine was produced prior to the date of the bill passage.   Further, this law bans magazines larger than 10 rounds for .22 Rifles - unless that magazine is a tubular magazine affixed to the rifle (say goodbye to any large magazines for your Ruger 10-22 in the future if this were to pass).   The penalty for illegal possession will be 3-10 YEARS in prison (possibly longer depending on circumstances).

So why do I contend that this WILL NOT "Keep America Safe?"  Who will obey this law? As usual, people who are already predisposed to obey the law.   Further it will potentially make inadvertent criminals of some, as the law states its not illegal to posses a pre-passage magazine with more than ten rounds, it does not say it is legal to transfer a pre-passage magazine.   For example, a relative leaves an individual a World War II era M1-Carbine to an adult relative in their will.  A strict reading of this law would make that transfer illegal if it included the magazine.

Another reason this bill will not "Keep America Safe" is that it will limit law abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves against criminal intruders.    According to the FBI Extended Homicide Data, more than 400 times a year, a private citizen is forced to kill another human in self defense.  This does NOT include the number of times a private citizen is forced to fire in self defense but misses or only wounds a perpetrator.    As a law abiding citizen and gun owner, if I were ever forced into that situation, where I had to defend my home, my property and my loved ones, I would want to have MORE firepower than the "bad guy"- not be limited by the number of times I could fire in self-defense while the bad guy, who obviously is not going to obey the law (he just broke into my home, or threatened a family member with deadly force) uses a high capacity magazine and can wait until I have to thumb a magazine release, insert a new magazine, and close the action. There have been numerous situations over the years where a home owner has fired more than ten rounds to stop an assailant.   Adrenaline is high.  Hands are shaking.   Personally, I have received training on how to do this quickly with a speed loader (yes, with a revolver) or magazine, but that does not guarantee perfection in an extremely tense situation.   Not everyone has this training. 

With all the other things Congress COULD do to protect citizens (improving mental health care and services for one), this appears to be the route they want to take; a law that will make people "feel good" but actually does nothing- just like the 1994 Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazine Ban.

Then again, if Congress says no one gets more than ten rounds before they must reload, the bad guys will respect that right?

HR 1186 - IT REALLY WONT "Keep America Safe Act"

The RACISM of Gun Control

The Presidential Election year is fast approaching, and to be sure, Gun Control will be an issue.   At some point next year, the GOP will likely adopt a plank in the party platform will be adopted in support of the 2nd Amendment, Protecting Heller and McDonald, SHALL issue laws- basically a plank against arbitrary gun control.  The GOP took the position back in the late 1860's that the 2nd Amendment applied to ALL Americans and States could not interfere.  Why then? Because the GOP wanted freed slaves to be able to protect themselves and stay free.   

Next year at the Democratic Party Convention, the DNC will likely propose a plank supporting Gun Control.  Southern Democrats started passing gun control laws in the 1860's and 1870's to strip former slaves of their 2nd Amendment Rights- along with a host of others.   

Gun Control Laws, beginning with those passed by Democrat controlled state governments at the end of the Civil War, Gun Control, have an origin in Racist Ideology.    

"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge [ammo] box." -Frederick Douglass, 1867

It was because of the "black codes" passed after the Civil War that the 14th amendment  was proposed and then passed.   One of the stated goals of passage was to protect the right of African-Americans to possess and carry firearms for their own defense.  

'The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,' and that, until he does, 'the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.'"  -Frederick Douglass, May 10, 1965 

Now, according to  a Pew Research Study, 54% of African-Americans view gun ownership in a positive light.  It is also being viewed as a matter of Civil Rights 

Gun Control advocates continue to encourage MAY ISSUE Concealed Carry Laws. Under MAY ISSUE, if an individual meets all the criteria to qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit, authorities "may issue" the permit if they so choose.  Currently,  nine states are either completely or partially "MAY ISSUE" states. Six completely "may issue." They are: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts. New Jersey and New York.  The remaining three states- Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island- have laws that are partially "may issue."

"May Issue" laws are flawed.   "May Issue" laws allow the opinion of the issuer to enter into the decision of whether to issue a permit.  Racism has played a factor in this decision.  Dr Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama in 1956 after his home had been bombed.  At the time, Alabama was a "may issue" state.  Although Dr. King was otherwise qualified, his concealed carry permit application was denied.  The best argument for SHALL ISSUE laws is it helps remove human  factors- such as racism - from the process.   If you are old enough and meet the requirements, you cannot be denied- as Dr. King was.

It is well worth reading Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) on the Second Amendment, its history, and racism.   The Washington Post called it "...a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto..."  

(I am not going to cite MTV as a source here, but I am going to provide a link to an interesting article on MTV on the Racist origins of Gun Control).

The bottom line is Gun Control has origins in post-Civil War racism.  But, the Constitution, and our laws as American must and should be absolutely color-blind or there will never be real Freedom and Justice for all.

Reference Links:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2900230/the-really-really-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article89859017.html

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/1/28/freedom-fighters/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905329.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The RACISM of Gun Control

The Next Supreme Court Gun Case- Either a Landmark or Nothing

It is amazing how a subject can be incredibly simple and incredibly complex at the same time.   The greatest example of this is the United States Constitution- in particular the “Bill of Rights.”  In grade school we are taught of the Bill of Rights; the first ten amendments to the Constitution.   We were taught in very simple terms what these Amendments meant- Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and so forth.   By high school we learn that although these rights are enumerated, there are

caveats.  We are taught, for example, that Freedom of Speech does not include shouting “fire in a crowded theater.”  By college or early adulthood, for the most part we understand just how “complex” the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are.   Rather than being something that “everyone” can understand, Constitutional Rights have become a subject which lawyers and judges cannot agree on, and deciding what the Constitution means falls to the Nine Supreme Court Justices seated in Washington, D.C.

This fall, the Nine Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to take up a case which may have a profound impact on what the Second Amendment actually means.   This will be the first major case since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).   The District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was the landmark decision that held (for the first time) that the Second Amendment was an “individual” right, not a collective right or one which only applied to “the Militia” or membership in “the Militia.”  McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), held that the Second Amendment applied to the States.   These two cases, however, have left a great number of unresolved issues.  Now, the Supreme Court is poised to take up one such issue.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York has the potential to be another landmark decision, or “much ado about nothing.”  Potentially the case could decide the meaning of the words “bear Arms” as used in the Second Amendment.  At issue is a New York City regulation that prohibits any person with a license to keep a firearm in their home from transporting that firearm to any place other than one of the seven shooting ranges within the city limits of New York.   Under this regulation, if one has a second home in New York it is illegal to take the gun licensed to be in one home to the second home- even unloaded, in a locked case with ammunition locked up separately.   Under this regulation it is illegal to take a handgun licensed to a home in New York City to a shooting range outside the city.   Under the regulation it is illegal to participate in a shooting completion outside the City of New York with a handgun that is licensed to be in a home in New York City.    Under this regulation it is even illegal to take a handgun licensed to in a home to a gunsmith- even a gunsmith inside the City of New York- without special permission of the Chief of the Police Department License Division.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) case states the City of New York regulation is unconstitutional in that it violates the Second Amendment “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and it violates the Constitutional “Right to Travel” – an unenumerated right, but nevertheless a right guaranteed by the Constitution. 

The “Gun Control Crowd” has weighed in with an interesting set of arguments.   The Brady Foundation is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, stating that New York City will be changing the regulation and therefore the case will be moot.   New York City has yet to make any changes to the regulation.   The second argument- both of the Brady Foundation and the Giffords Law Center states that this case does not deserve “strict scrutiny.” They argue that the City of New York’s concern about having “more guns on the street” outweighs the Constitutional questions involved and “intermediate scrutiny” as applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is appropriate.   However, neither organization nor the City of New York can explain how forcing gun owners to only use ranges in New York City and not take guns out of the city reduces the number of guns on the street.   Logic would seem to indicate that allowing gun owners to take licensed, unloaded, locked guns to homes or ranges outside of the City would reduce the number of guns on the streets inside the City of New York. 

The final argument of the Brady Foundation is that this case could result in the “creation of a new right.”  For some reason, the Brady Foundation believes that the right to “keep AND BEAR Arms” only involves keeping those arms within one’s home.   This argument of course does not hold with Heller or McDonald.   The Supreme Court held that “bearing arms” means to carry those arms outside of one’s home for the purpose of self defense or for other lawful purposes.   Although the Court ruled that the need for self defense was most acute in one’s home, the Court in no way limited self-defense to the home.

It seems this case has several possible outcomes; two of which would place this case into the "much ado about nothing" category.   New York City could actually change the regulation.   Should they change the regulation and allow licensees to travel outside of New York City with their firearms. this case would likely be dismissed. 

The second outcome, one hoped for by the Brady Foundation and Giffords Law Center- is that the Court leaves the ruling of the Second Circuit intact and makes no ruling on the issues of what level of scrutiny to apply to this case.   The court could also state that "intermediate scrutiny" is appropriate- in which case there is very little chance of ever overturning an "anti-gun" law if the state pulls out the "public safety" card.

It is also a possibility that the Court will decide this case by addressing the "commerce clause issues" only.   The Court could invalidate the regulation by saying it restricts interstate commerce by preventing the people of New York from freely using shooting ranges in New Jersey or other areas outside of New York City.  In theory, the Court could "skirt" the Second Amendment issues in the case and make no ruling on whether the regulation violates the right to "bear arms"

The best possible outcome, is that the Court finally states in no uncertain terms, that a political entity cannot ban the ability for an individual to "bear arms" outside the home for self defense.   This would then finally open the door for action against states like California, who so severely restrict the ability to carry a firearm that in effect the bearing of arms is banned. That would make this a "landmark" ruling, while in the other scenarios, the case will fade to "nothing."   Of course, this case will have to be heard.  As of this time, this case is scheduled to be heard in October 2019 and it may be June 2020 before we find out how the Court will rule.

The Next Supreme Court Gun Case- Either a Landmark or Nothing

FBI Crime Data For 2015 - Inconsistencies in the Data

FBI Crime Data Statistics - including extended data have been released for 2015.

I am letting my readers know, in  the spirit of full disclosure, because I often cite the FBI data in writing and discussions. 

This is the normal time of year when the prior years datasets are released.   The timing of this release is completely normal.  This is the normal time of year when the prior years datasets are released.  It takes sometime for the FBI to gather all the information from every jurisdiction and agency in every US state and territory.  

However, there are conflicts in the data.

For every year, there a huge number of tables- MS Excel spreadsheets- that are released.  The tables for each year, have  columns showing the previous five years of historical data.   For example a table that may show 2014 data would also have columns for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. That same dataset for the year 2015- it would have columns dataing back to 2011. 

Normally, one would expect the data in the report for 2012 would be the same for each report, the 2012 data should be the same on each page it appears. The number of people murdered by drowning, for example in 2012 should be the same in the 2012 column in the 2013 report - with the column 2013 data added-- we should not see the numbers for 2012 (or any other prior years) be different than they were in the previous years  report. 

I have sent an email to the FBI asking for clarification.  I will share any response I receive. 

Until that time, I am concerned with using the 2015 data in posts online.  

FBI Crime Data For 2015 - Inconsistencies in the Data

Auto Deaths to Set Record- Time for Action!

While the Left would have us believe that guns are the deadliest "mechanism" man uses, the word comes that Automobile Deaths will likely exceed 40,000 this year alone.   And though it may be hard to believe there are far more Guns in the US than Cars (in May 2016 there were over 1.87 Million NICS background checks alone - or in other words more than 1.87 million people had their backgrounds run for the purpose of purchasing at least 1 firearm in just May 2016- you can purchase more than one on the same NICS check).

So of course we must do something here- 

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.  

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. 

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. 

4. All states should adopt "MAY ISSUE" laws instead of SHALL ISSUE.  It should be up to the wim 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. 

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.

6.  All drivers should be requires 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

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.

8.  Ban all vehicles that are in theory even capable of exceeding the highest local speed limit.  No one "needs" that type of car.

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.

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

From what I understand, these are all VERY reasonable measures - and any car owner should support them. I have also heard that banning the private ownership of ANY vehicle is a valid argument- trust your local city "professional's" to take care of you.  To hell with any emergency where having a car could help- there are professional's out there- just wait.

If you haven't picked up on my sarcasm, well you should.   You should probably also know that I am really talking about "gun control." EVERY example I have listed as a reasonable idea, is actually  a "reasonable" proposal from gun control advocates.

The big difference between cars and guns?  There were only  8124 homicides with guns in the US according to the FBI for the last full year data.    That's only 31,000 less than the number of persons killed by autos.

Or maybe we really should be talking "car control"..... 

Auto Deaths to Set Record- Time for Action!

Racism and Gun Control Origins

As the GOP Convention gets underway, at some point a plank in the party platform will be adopted in support of the 2nd Amendment, Protecting Heller and McDonald, SHALL issue laws- basically a plank against arbitrary gun control.   The GOP took the position back in the late 1860's that the 2nd Amendment applied to ALL Americans and States could not interfere.  Why then? Because the GOP wanted freed slaves to be able to protect themselves and stay free.   

This year at the Democratic Party Convention, the DNC will likely propose a plank supporting Gun Control.  Southern Democrats started passing gun control laws in the 1860's and 1870's to strip former slaves of their 2nd Amendment Rights- along with a host of others.   

Gun Control Laws, beginning with those passed by Democrat controlled state governments at the end of the Civil War, Gun Control, have an origin in Racist Ideology.    

"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge [ammo] box." -Frederick Douglass, 1867

It was because of the "black codes" passed after the Civil War that the 14th amendment  was proposed and then passed.   One of the stated goals of passage was to protect the right of African-Americans to possess and carry firearms for thier own defense.  

'The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,' and that, until he does, 'the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.'"  -Frederick Douglass, May 10, 1965 

Now, according to  a Pew Research Study, 54% of African-Americans view gun ownership in a positive light.  It is also being viewed as a matter of Civil Rights 

This is not a new phenomenon.  Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Applied for and was denied a concealed carry permit.  The best argument for SHALL ISSUE laws is it helps remove human  factors- such as racism - from the process.   If you are old enough and meet background requirements you cannot be denied- as Dr. King was.

It is well worth reading Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) on the Second Amendment, its history, and racism.   The Washington Post called it "...a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto..."  

(I am not going to cite MTV as a source here, but I am going to provide a link to an interesting article on MTV on the Racist origins of Gun Control).

The bottom line is Gun Control has origins in post-Civil War racisim.  But, the Constitution, and our laws as American must and should be absolutely color-blind or there will never be real Freedom and Justice for all.

Reference Links:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2900230/the-really-really-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article89859017.html

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/1/28/freedom-fighters/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905329.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Racism and Gun Control Origins

A Tax That Works- And How President Obama Has Done a GREAT Thing (UNINTENTIONALLY)

The title of this alone has, I am sure, shocked and stunned anyone who reads my posts with even the rarest frequency.

My conservative friends are likely thinking I have finally "gone round the bend" or "lost it" altogether.  That I would be praising both a Tax AND President Obama is surely having them suspect I have lost my mind.  

I am equally sure that my liberal friends (I REALLY do have a few) are shocked as well - that I would praise President Obama, in an election year (despite the fact he is a lame duck) must be raising doubts as to my sanity (as though those doubts do not already exist).

Arizona Game and Fish Department will be receiving this year $26 million in Federal tax dollars from a Tax SPECIFICALLY for Wildlife Conservation.   This is a portion of $1.1 billion raised solely for Wildlife and Fisheries.

The tax is the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 signed into law by FDR (and a similar act for Fisheries).  The PR Act requires an 11% excise tax on all long-guns (rifles) and ammunition, and a 10% excise on all handguns.

This tax is paid ONLY by the PURCHASE of Firearms (and fishing equipment for the fisheries act)- and yes, I LIKE this tax.

The Pittman-Robertson Act tax is paid by the manufacturers of firearms and built into the cost of firearms and ammunition.   The funds are "set-aside" by Federal Law.   The funds are NOT part of the General Funds of the United States and MAY ONLY be used for Wildlife Restoration and for the furtherance of hunting education and training.  Billions have been raised since the enactment of the tax.  

A single example of the benefit of this tax is the Wild Turkey.    In the 1930's there were about 30,000 wild turkeys in the US.   Today that number is close to 7 million.

As far as my praise for the President goes---  President Obama has been the greatest  "firearm salesman" this country has seen.   Each year of his Presidency, firearm sales have increased (while murders by firearm have decreased - down to 8,124 in the latest FBI data).  

So thanks to the "unintended" increase in gun sales in part due to the President- the amount raised for Wildlife Restoration has increased-- the greater the gun sales, the more Pittman-Robertson funds are raised.  Increasing Gun Sales and the subsequent increase in PR Act funds is a great thing this President has done-- whether he likes it or not! 

A Tax That Works- And How President Obama Has Done a GREAT Thing (UNINTENTIONALLY)

HYPOCRISY from the Left- Contempt for Davis but Not DC?

There is nothing I hate more than blatant hypocrisy, and a perfect example of it is the contempt case of Kim Davis.

Kim Davis has been jailed for contempt of court because she has refused to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Her decision is a result of the same-sex marriage ruling this past June. She has defied the court, and now she has been held in contempt.

The "Left" is having a field day saying she refused to obey the "law of the land" and she deserves what she gets for disobeying the Supreme Court. Her mug shot has been posted online, with the headline "Justice Served." This is hypocrisy in its purest form.

These same people who are rejoicing over her contempt ruling have been silent over the contempt the District of Columbia has shown in response to the ruling in D.C. v Heller.

From District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)- "the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

How did DC respond to the Supreme Court? It is 2015. The case was ruled on 7 years ago. The City Council passed a new ordinance that made the handgun Mr Heller wanted to register illegal.

Dick Heller is a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. His job required he carry a gun in federal office buildings, but DC said he was not allowed to have one in his home. The gun the DC made illegal AFTER the Supreme Court order that he be allowed to register the gun? The same as his Service Weapon! Where is the outrage against the City Council and Mayor of DC for DEFYING the Supreme Court continuously for the the last 7 years!!!

It is time for the District of Columbia to held accountable and for them to acknowledge fully and recognize that "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed."

(Please feel free to share with everyone the "meme" below. Click image or here to download)

#DCContempt

HYPOCRISY from the Left- Contempt for Davis but Not DC?