The second ...

What does the Second Amendment say? Is gun ownership a right for all Americans? Or just for a small militia? Euge

Click Click

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.  There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto Whether Isoroku Yamamoto's "sleeping giant" quotation is falsely attributed to him or not it moot.  The reason it resonated in the first place is because it's a statement of fact. Today, it could just as well be attributed to Deep State, and why disarming the citizenry is crucial to their agenda. [Verifie attribution: Supreme Barn Army Commander Pecksnif; 2018]

2nd Amendment Win

Tails of the Gun

Illinois Supreme Court Delivers 2nd Amendment Win, Park Vicinity Law Declared Unconstitutional Nullified: Carrying a gun near a park could be punished with up to 5 years in jail. The state of Illinois cannot be said to be a ‘firearm friendly’ state by any stretch of the imagination.  However, in a recent unanimous ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state law that seemed designed to be a “categorical prohibition” for the state to abuse. The law said, in essence, that carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a number of public places was a crime.  Using this law, Julio Chairez was arrested and charged in Aurora, Illinois (a Chicago suburb) with a Class 3 Felony.  By appealing his case to the state Supreme Court, he scored a great win for anyone concerned with their Second Amendment rights in the state of Illinois. [Full]

Penn Teller Talk to LoFos

Tails of the Gun

Tammy Bruce expands ... skoonj

Ya know guys ...

—  You Utter Berks

(cuzzin ricky) They did.  The prospect of us becoming a nation of disinterested slugs was beyond their ken. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. AND Amendment II 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.

Will Wheaton and Friends

‘Star Trek’ actor eviscerated after equating NRA with UCLA shooting Posted on June 1, 2016 by Editor // 0 Comments Shortly after reports of a shooting — later identified as a likely murder-suicide — resulted in a campus lock down at the University of California at Los Angeles, one actor opted to post a pithy indictment of the National Rifle Association to his Twitter page. “F— the NRA,” Wil Wheaton, known for his roles in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and “The Big Bang Theory,” wrote on Wednesday. While his profane comment earned some praise from his anti-gun fans and followers, outraged Second Amendment supporters almost immediately peppered his feed with opposing thoughts and invective. “California has almost every gun law liberals ask for,” one critic wrote. “So when there is a shooting, who do liberals blame? The NRA, of course.” MORE

Home Alone

Burglar shot by 11-year-old who was home alone

2nd Amendment applies to Stun Guns

The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much First case without Scalia

Justice Thomas Bon Mot

Channeling Scalia Thomas' questions came in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law "suspends a constitutional right.''

HOT AIR MACHINE

BROCK-"I AM THE BEST"

O.K.  At a political fundraiser in L.A. last nite, Soetoro said this: “I will tell you at this moment in history, the choices are stark. And facts, evidence and values are on our side. And the other side has gone off the deep end. And what you’re witnessing in the House fight right now is that even deeply conservative folks are not considered ideologically pure enough and we would rather burn the House down than admit the possibility of democratic process that requires compromise.” Amazingly, after accusing the GOP of going "off the deep end," he also said this:  “There’s almost no measure by which we’re not better off now than when I came into office.” I am friggin speechless.  I mean, I know it's a fundraiser, which means he's going to spread the bullshit wide, deep, and frequent, but that statement is the pinnacle of crock.  It makes hyperbole look like humility and balderdash look like scripture. Ron Metzger Mo Sup jtold me she heard Obama say he was one of our (the?) greatest presidents.  There is some serious psychosis going on with this guy.  But, we knew that.

Racist Racialists

Holder's Mustache

Black Activists Call for Lynching and Hanging of White People and Cops Black Activists Call for Lynching and Hanging of White People and Cops Aug 28, 2015 | Lana Shadwick Lana Shadwick 28 Aug 2015 Members of the #FYF911 or #FukYoFlag and #BlackLivesMatter movements called for the lynching and hanging of white people and cops. They encouraged others on a radio show Tuesday night to “turn the tide” and kill white people and cops to send a message about the killing of black people in America. One of the F***YoFlag organizers is called “Sunshine.” She has a radio blog show hosted from Texas called, “Sunshine’s F***ing Opinion Radio Show.” A snapshot of her #FYF911 @LOLatWhiteFear Twitter page at 9:53 p.m. shows that she was urging supporters to “Call now!! #fyf911 tonight we continue to dismantle the illustion of white…” (Interesting FR comments) Meanwhile: NYT's Barro: 'Massive' Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime

Help, my scotus is infected.

..... failed to protect SCOTUS Passes on Chance to Set 2A Ruling Right “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.” Justice Clarence Thomas Not exactly profiles in courage, but the Supreme Court declined to review two lower court rulings upholding San Francisco's draconian gun control laws. The Associated Press reports, "The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks. A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets." Of course, in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a requirement about locking down a firearm in the home, saying the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." So by declining to hear this case, the justices are allowing a patchwork of wrong interpretations of its ruling to stand. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it." Furthermore, they're passing on an opportunity to clarify the most important point of all: The Second Amendment is not "for sporting purposes." The ban on hollow-point ammunition is beyond asinine, but the justices can't be bothered to fire anything but blanks. This post was in my queue when life so rudely interrupted on June 8.  It seemed important.  Now it seems like blah-blah-blah.  What else is new?  Sigh.

Gun Grabbers; Liars All

AHEM

Buy a Bazooka at Sunny's Surplus Today!

BEING PREPARED

Now, dear friends, as part of my stress therapy to help stop obsessing over knowledge that my country—one that I proudly defended; one that my father and stepfather also defended, with one giving his life in that service—that my country is in the hands of a man illegitimately conceived and allowed to govern through legerdemain and by a body politic increasingly having no investment whatever in this nation, and increasingly—  most  willingly stupefied .... where am I?  I'm lost in my own compound sentence.  I want to talk about the M-6 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher (Bazooka). I did some scouring of Maryland's draconian gun laws, and nowhere found its, the bazooka's, prohibition.  Did you know that?  If it's legal in Maryland, then it's almost certainly legal in your state.  Did you know how versatile and easy to use is the bazooka ?  Watch the instructional video and be amazed.  Every patriot ought have a bazooka in the gun closet.  URGENT! Act quickly before Obama declares by fiat that the sale of bazooka ammo is prohibited.  And remember your oath. Barn Army Oath On my honor I will do my best  To do my duty to God and my country  and to obey the Barn Army Law;  To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong,  mentally awake, and morally straight. Barn Army Law A Barn Armyer is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,  courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, and heavily armed. Smoke'm if you got'm

Destroy Operation Choke Point

Holder's Mustache

PSA Bill to Destroy Operation Choke Point The way we were About a year ago, the Second Amendment community was rocked by news that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had teamed up with Attorney General Eric (the Hun) Holder to utterly destroy firearms manufacturers and dealers by cutting off all credit and banking relationships with them. For its part, the FDIC categorized gun and ammunition sales as a "high-risk business," lumping it in with drug dealers, pornographers, and Ponzi scheme operators -- all of which it was working to completely destroy. So now, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced legislation to shut the doors of Operation Choke Point.  Rubio's bill, S. 477, would defund Operation Choke Point -- permanently.  It would insure that the FDIC didn't use "fees" to fund a program which could no longer go on with appropriated funds. And it would prohibit the Attorney General and the FDIC from reestablishing "Choke Point" under another name. Furthermore, Rubio is committed to not just allow his legislation to lie dormant.  He understands that he may have to add the proposal as an amendment to a must-pass bill.  This is exactly what we will need to overcome a potential presidential veto. So please contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor S. 477.

Whereas a despotic government no longer operates with the consent of the governed,

Tails of the Gun, and the Second Amendment Whereas .... “ Monday I ran across this letter to the editor in our local rag, The Capitol; which, now that it's been purchased by the Sun Papers, truly deserves that sobriquet.  The author, Mr Clement, hath I think eloquently captured, in form and substance, my own long held view that the citizenry must be allowed to arm themselves equally with such police (and I include the military) that can be used against them by a despotic government. I don't know Mr. Clement, but I imagine he looks something like this As a staunch supporter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even in this age of WMD, I think I have found a small foothold on the slippery slope of gun control where I might safely and permanently stand.  I offer a proposition.    Whereas the purpose of the military is defense against foreign enemies, and    Whereas the purpose of the police is enforcement of domestic law, and    Whereas a  government is despotic which turns its military against its people, and    Whereas a despotic government no longer operates with the consent of the governed, Now, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be limited only to the extent that these same limitations apply to all police forces having jurisdiction over the citizen. Simply draw up a list of that subset of weaponry which the police may use,  and you  have a list of authorized weaponry for the common citizen. Some lament that such a proposal leaves the police "outgunned."  Our founders knew otherwise.    "… all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations...".    A public armed  as herein described poses no threat to the civil society but, rather, is the key check to that unbridled power which inevitably leads to a long train of abuses and usurpations. William Clement, Arnold, MD The Capital, August 25, 2014 ”

DC USA USA USA

Tails of the Gun (Hot Linked)          In D.C., Response to Judge’s Handgun Ruling Is Mixed and Muddled (Updated)

“ Updated 6:01 p.m. | For all practical purposes, a federal judge’s weekend ruling that overturned local laws prohibiting District of Columbia residents from carrying guns outside of their homes has opened the door for non-residents to tote handguns into the city and has made it potentially easier for members and staffers to transport firearms across the District to the Capitol. D.C. police have been ordered not to arrest people for carrying pistols and deadly weapons in public. Washingtonians can still face criminal charges for carrying unregistered firearms and ammunition, but the millions of people who visit the nation’s capital are exempt from those provisions under an order from Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. The chief’s guidance effectively put the District’s firearm regulations, at least for non-residents, on a par with the most permissive gun jurisdictions in the country. D.C. police got additional guidance from Lanier on Monday afternoon. She clarified that the ruling applies only to handguns, not long guns or shotguns that are still illegal, and that committing crimes with handguns remains illegal. For non-residents, legal possession of a handgun in D.C. is based on the laws of their home jurisdiction, meaning D.C. police will be responsible for knowing and enforcing licensing and permitting restrictions from around the country. Lanier noted that additional information on gun laws in other states will be forthcoming and said that in the meantime, officers can call a 24-hour information line. Lanier’s orders came in response to Judge Frederick Scullin Jr.’s July 26 ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that D.C.’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. In the 19-page decision, Scullin wrote that he was stopping enforcement of the law “unless and until” the city adopted a constitutionally valid licensing mechanism. In her follow-up guidance to officers, Lanier nodded to the confusion. “Unfortunately, this ruling has left many unanswered legal questions that are currently being reviewed by the [Office of the Attorney General],” she stated. Federal laws and a portion of D.C. code still prohibit people from carrying weapons on Capitol grounds, according to Capitol Police spokeswoman Lt. Kimberly Schneider. But members and staffers already have weapons privileges for the Capitol campus dating back decades. Although the D.C. prohibition against firearms was put into place in 1975, members of Congress and their staffs have the legal right to bear arms on the Hill. Capitol Police Board regulations established in 1967 permit members and their aides to transport licensed firearms on the Capitol grounds in the course of carrying out their official duties, provided the weapons are “unloaded and securely wrapped.” Although the regulations expressly prohibit weapons on the floor of either chamber, as well as in the adjacent lobbies, cloakrooms and galleries, individual members  can “maintain firearms within the confines of [their] office.” Before Lanier issued her order on Sunday, members and aides might have had to violate District law to transport a handgun to the Hill. “Easing gun restrictions in the District of Columbia whether by court ruling or by regulation, certainly eases the way weapons are transported through the District,” said a former high-ranking Capitol Hill law enforcement official who spoke on background about the potential impact of the law. On Monday afternoon, D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan filed a motion to stay the effectiveness of the opinion. Alan Gura, the lawyer who argued against D.C.’s gun law on behalf of the nonprofit Second Amendment Foundation, said the case had nothing to do with the Hill, but he expects members of Congress will be playing close attention to the outcome. “As part-time residents of the District of Columbia,” Gura told CQ Roll Call, members can now enjoy “a greater measure of freedom in their lives,” thanks to the ruling. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 District of Columbia v. Heller decision made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership within the home. It also recognized that guns may be banned or controlled in certain “sensitive places,” including schools and government buildings. Gura thinks a legal challenge to the federal and local laws prohibiting people from carrying guns on the Capitol grounds would be “far-fetched” under the Heller precedent and said it wasn’t a case he would argue. Republicans in Congress have tried to overturn the city’s gun laws, to the outrage of locally elected officials. D.C. Councilmember David Catania, a mayoral candidate running as an independent, said in a statement that strong gun control laws are critical to the District’s public safety, “a fact supported by the ban on possessing guns in federal buildings, on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, and Congressional office buildings.” “Having more guns on our streets does not make us safer and a rushed roll back of our laws will only result in confusion and create additional challenges for law enforcement in the District,” he said. “Once again, the democratic will of District residents and their elected leadership is being marginalized and threatened by those who know little about our city and the nearly 650,000 people who call it home.” Democratic mayoral nominee Muriel Bowser, who represents Ward 4 on the D.C. Council, said the ruling was “troubling and poses a serious threat to public safety in the District of Columbia” and vowed to fight for gun safety legislation. In the wake of the ruling, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., chided Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., for his attempt to roll back gun laws in the District. “With two people arrested in the last two weeks for bringing guns into the Capitol complex, both of whom were charged under D.C.’s carry law, Representative Massie can no longer hide behind that D.C. law,” she said in a statement. “The only thing standing between guns and the Capitol now is a federal law. Will Rep. Massie be consistent and finally try to overturn a law he has legitimate, direct jurisdiction over?” Norton said she expects the District to appeal the decision, which goes beyond what the Supreme Court has held. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld the constitutionality of three of the District’s four major gun laws, she pointed out. Massie told CQ Roll Call he was encouraged by the judge’s decision. “In fact, his ruling strikes down a provision of the DC Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008, which I specifically referenced in the text of my successful amendment on July 16th,” Massie said in an email. “Clearly, Ms. Norton and the Mayor missed the mark when they asserted that my legislative effort to restore a fundamental human right was an overextension of congressional authority.” He cited Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution as evidence of authority over D.C.’s legislative matters, and said the ruling “re-affirmed my assertion that the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms cannot be denied by any locality or state.” Now,  if only anyone could find ammo for sale ”

You Go Girl

Oh My