Recently in 2nd Amendment Category

As a white working class guy (WWCG) who happens to teach Greek and Shakespeare on the side, I have been a Teamster for going on thirteen years. During elections, not the last since the law was changed, I have been bombarded by left-wing leaflets by Da Union as I exited the building. It was really obnoxious.

Four years ago I was told that Barry Sotero, er, Barack Obama wasn't against guns. That seems funny now, after appointing determined Second Amendment annihilators to the Supreme Court and his reaction to the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., which would have made his intellectual mentor, Saul Alinsky, very proud. (I don't want to confuse him with another mentor, the guy who helped blow up buildings, Bill Ayers.)

In this fantastic exchange between Michael Coren, one of the best journalists around and who out-classed Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in a memorable exchange regarding the latter's book Kosher Jesus, and Peter Brimelow, who used to write cover stories for National Review when it was definitely worth reading, I gain three insights:

1) We are living in a gilded age of corruption. And the shallow stream media is a part of it. But it's a rickety structure, vastly rewarding a tiny minority.

2) A new political party will rise on the ashes of the largely worthless Republican Party--aside from a few Tea Party guys like Ted Cruz in Texas--and guns are the key. The white working class likes its guns. 

3) Pander to the white working class by not pandering, but by speaking the truth without apology. Such as amnesty for illegals will hurt them by lowering wages, increasing taxes and welfare rolls, and foster unemployment. So oppose it, G-dd-mn it. There'd be lots of free publicity, of the notorious kind, that WWCGs would actually support. That's where Enoch Powell comes in.
One hundred eighty-six murders in Washington, DC, in 2008. Only 88 last year, writes a former DC prosecutor in the Wall Street Journal.

The increasing number of guns since the gun ban was struck down in Heller hasn't lead to the liberals' fear of an escalation of murder and mayhem.

Connecticut is very strict on guns, unlike Vermont, which is the most gun-friendly, believe it or not. Anyone can conceal carry, whether a resident or not, if one is legally able to own a handgun.

What about all those shootings in the Green Mountain State?
I was briefly listening to the Lars Larson Program last night with an excellent interview he conducted with the wonderful John Lott, who informed me that the shooter in the premiere of the Batman movie some months ago had a pick of seven movie theaters within a twenty-minute drive from his apartment. He didn't choose the closest one; rather, he strategically picked the only one in his area that was a gun-free zone, prohibiting legal concealed carry weapon holders from partaking of their inalienable rights.

All I can say is Wow!
One of the recent shocks in my life, like when I discovered that the overwhelming majority of librarians are political left-wingers, was to be presented the fact that the church to which I belong, the Roman Catholic Church, is against the private ownership of handguns.

In its otherwise impressive Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church paragraph 511 reveals the ugly truth, saying that a responsible citizen's possession of handguns "constitute[s] a serious threat to peace." What a load of horsefeathers!

Instapundit reveals the barbarity of this line of thinking in England, where such a mentality is enshrined as law. He's been doing yeoman work lately, such as the so-called gun-free zones where students are told to throw things at a shooter in the college handbook. Yeah, fighting a man with a gun with a dry board eraser--like that's going to work. And all that West Point training I received about firing back with lethal force when presented with such must be wrong, too.

 My response in the margins of the book produced by the U.S. bishops is as follows: "So the Church is un-American; it doesn't believe in a Second Amendment, part of the freakin' Bill of Rights. The premise of the assertion in paragraph 511--the presence of handguns and rifles in the civilian population necessarily leads to deaths--is a debatable one, pace John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime."

I own Lott's book, his most recent third edition. It's the only research that's verified and not refuted, proving the position of gun-grabbers, like the US Catholic Church and fellow liberals, is one that isn't as self-evident as they think.  A case in point is influential Jesuit priest James Martin's conflation of gun control with pro-life beliefs. Life is precious and should be protected. Self defense is something liberals don't believe in, but conservatives do. Remembering the twenty-minute gap from the first 911 calls and the arrival of the first responders proves the pro-self-defense position.
I'm going to have to watch this video six or seven times, taking notes. What the young law school student does in his encounter with a Portland, Maine, police officer is extremely instructive.

Notice a bunch of people, sheeple I should think, call into to the police simply because a man without a badge or state-issued uniform has the effrontery to be openly armed--permitted in both Maine and NH--creates "a cause for concern" for the officer to ask for ID.

But the law student doesn't hand it over. And he's well within his rights to refuse to do so.
I learned this morning that the Spanish unemployment rate is 24%. So why are going down the path of European economic policies, Mr. President?

Dick Lugar. I used to like him a lot. Several decades ago. He really cut me to the marrow, though, when the National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Weapons nearly passed. He was one of the few Republican, if not the only one, who voted against it. This bill would have granted a person the right and privilege of being treated with respect when it came to his being able to have a sidearm concealed on his person--as long as he had a valid license to do so from his home state.

There were a few problems with it, but they were minimal in my opinion. One was Vermont didn't require a permit at all to do so for non-felons.

Acting on orders from Chuck Schumer--Doesn't she know she represents NH, not NY?--Jeanne Shaheen also voted against H.R. 822, which I hope comes back to bite her on the arse. It lost by two votes in the U.S. Senate.

But with Lugar's loss to a real conservative, it seems as though we're one step closer to the Second Amendment being treated like a marriage license or a driver's license.
You should have fled to Peru, your mother's home country, when you had the chance, George.

The cops who investigated the shooting death of Trayvon Martin didn't even conclude the evidence warranted manslaughter. Witnesses corroborated your testimony. The district attorney general's office believed it could not meet the burden of proof.

Now you're being charged by a politically minded special prosecutor interloper with second degree murder. Second. Degree. Murder.
It's a teaching moment, as legal Second Amendment scholar Evan Nappen relates, on a man in Newton being ignored after filing the paperwork to carry a sidearm concealed.

It also enables a NH resident to have a loaded firearm in one's vehicle while driving.

The law is black and white which, for whatever reason, the police chief violated.

Nine states are 'may-issue.' which means the courts would tend to side with the discretion of the state issuing authority. A state is not good if it's shall issue. (Story below the fold.)
He writes in a superb FoxNews piece that he has done the only study of the Castle Docrtine's effectiveness:

I have conducted the only published, refereed academic study on these laws, and I found that states adopting "Castle doctrine" laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 8 percent.
I'm getting tired of the whiny police chiefs of NH joining with Gov. John Lynch, in thwarting the rising tide of gun freedom. Richard Crate, the chief of Enfield, is particularly odious, as he pushed in 2007 to vastly reduce NH's liberty in making the state "may-issue" rather than a "shall-issue" for concealed carry. He was on NHPR's The Exchange again recently discussing Stand Your Ground. (And the chief came from Vermont which is a "no-issue" state. Anyone can carry concealed there, baring a felony conviction.)
Thirteen shot, two killed. What gives? I thought guns were outlawed there? I guess the bad guys didn't get the memo.

Gun control: liberals feeling good while innocents die. An armed society is a polite one, paraphrasing Robert Heinlein.
As a firm believer in the unalienable status of our right to protect ourselves enshrined in the, ahem, Second Amendment--the police aren't legally obligated to do so, believe it or not--I was up in arms about Brian Aitken's ludicrous seven-year jail sentence.

Gov. Christie commuted his sentence. He should have been pardoned, Governor!

But last month NH's notable attorney for the Second Amendment--we've got two: Evan Nappan and Penny Dean--described the outright foolishness that passes for sober laws in the Garden State.

All I can say is: You've got to be kidding me! Liberals just hate guns. They treat them like Negroes were treated in the American South six or seven decades ago. Irrational prejudice.
There's a gubmit lie supported by its backers in the lamestream media that gets my goat: 90% of the guns obtained from Mexican narco criminals originate here in the United States. When discussing the Second Amendment with a British national living here, he brought it up as evidence how the Second Amendment is bad.

Nope. Not true. It's a myth, even if reported by the GAO and latter endorsed by the BATF.

Stratfor--HT: Volokh Conspiracy--breaks down the numbers, and it's eye-opening the deception, where the reality is nearly opposite what's stated:
My home state of New Hampshire has pretty liberal gun laws, where gun control is defined as hitting your target. Law abiding citizens can carry their sidearms openly without the need for a permit. To carry a concealed weapon requires a CCW permit. But that may change soon as two bills are making their way through the New Hampshire legislature that will remove the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. While both bills address concealed carry, only one stands a chance of making it through committee and out onto the House floor.

Republican leaders are urging House members to back House Bill 330. It would allow constitutional carry and extend gun-carrying rights to vehicles. But it specifically keeps guns out of courtrooms and courthouses.

Sunapee Police Chief David Cahill, president of the New Hampshire Police Chiefs Association, said his organization does not have a firm stand against constitutional carry. But he sees a benefit to concealed-weapons permits, and he has concerns about loaded weapons in vehicles.

Should HB330 become law, New Hampshire will become the fifth state that would allow what is called "constitutional carry", meaning no CCW permit is required. The other four states allowing constitutional carry are Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Is it possible New Hampshire might get a twofer this year? Between the bill to remove the requirement for a CCW permit and another to make the state the only Right-To-Work state in the Northeast, the Granite State could be sitting pretty.
Excellent insight by Paul Cella.

Libs, who both don't know which end the round comes out of and act like Alan Alda as fathers, won't appreciate the role fathers play in defending hearth and home. It's primal, I know.

But it's not gone.
You know the Canadian justice system is screwed up when a homeowner confronts three men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and is arrested for defending himself.

It seems the Canadian government has got some seriously screwed up people in their Parliament, making it illegal for their citizens to defend themselves against dire threats to them, their families, and their property.

The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.

"I was horrified," he said. "I couldn't believe it. I didn't know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on."

So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.

"He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we're not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off," said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.

What's ironic is that Thomson had surveillance video of the incident, showing the arsonists setting Thomson's house ablaze and Thomson exiting his home and firing the two or three gunshots. When Thomson showed the video to the police, they arrested him on the charge of careless use of a firearm.

It must be noted Mr. Thomson is an expert marksmen, meaning if he wanted to hit and wound or kill the miscreants, he could have. Instead, he showed restraint, aiming to miss and to drive the arsonists off. I would say that he wasn't careless at all. Instead he was exercising his god-given right to defend himself.
As expected, the anti-gun organizations have been trying to use Jared Loughner's shooting rampage as a rallying cry to cripple the Second Amendment. They've tried re-interpreting the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to make it appear the Second Amendment is a collective rather than individual right (Heller vs DC notwithstanding) or have made efforts to weaken it in other ways, including redefining the original definition of "regulated" as in "a well regulated militia" or even the definition of "militia".

Not surprisingly, some of those commenting to Rachel Alexander's piece linked above had more insight in the matter, refuting claims of not knowing the intent of the Framers made by the anti-gun groups. One of the best is a series of quotes dating back to the early years of the Republic, making known in no uncertain terms the intent of the Second Amendment.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ..." - Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"... the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" - Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..." - Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ... " - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

Gun control advocates always point to the word "militia" in the Second Amendment as proof that the Founders would support gun control laws. That contention is not supported by the historical documents. As the Founders continually acknowledged, A MILITIA IS THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE. In fact, in the Second MILITIA Act of 1792, ALL able-bodied, white men over the age of 18 were required to possess a gun.

As to the term "well regulated", too many of the anti-gun organizations have no understanding of the term as understood by the Framers. In the 18th century it had a somewhat different meaning as explained by another commenter.

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the present-day definition of the term "regulated" (regulation by law).

In the 18th century, the term "well regulated" meant "well disciplined", (being able to hit your target consistently).

What good was a militiaman if he couldn't hit his target? It all boils down to having an armed populace who were also proficient in the use of their firearms.

Can it get any simpler than that?
Yes, they'll take my marriage license--even if it's with a gay partner.

But no, contrary to the Bill of Rights, it won't honor my CCW license.

Can someone explain the rationale, other than liberal bigotry? Makes me irritable.
First, it's the New Hampshire legislature changing its rules to allow legislators and staffers to carry their guns inside the Statehouse.

Next, it's the District of Columbia's highest court deciding people who pled guilty or were convicted and jailed for violating DC's unconstitutional gun ban (overturned in DC vs Heller) have their convictions set aside.

"A conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice," and a defendant can therefore ask to have it set aside (via a petition for coram nobis relief) even many years later.

Despite the fact of DC vs Heller, the District of Columbia still has difficult roadblocks to gun ownership, in effect restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens. If I recall correctly, there are a number of suits in progress dealing with DC's procrastination and obstructionism in regards to the Second Amendment. The city's government doesn't seem to care that it has one of the highest violent death rates in the nation, doesn't care that it has left its law abiding citizens without the means to defend themselves. They also ignore the Justice Department's own figures showing violent crimes of all kinds are miniscule in states allowing citizens to own and carry guns compared to those states and cities that don't. You'd think they'd get a clue. But then again, it's really about power and controlling the populace and not actually protecting them (or letting them protect themselves).

Washington DC is trying to buck the trend seen in the rest of the country, where gun laws are being struck down or modified to allow citizens to arm themselves. As this has been happening the crime rates in those states have gone down. Yet another lesson that will be ignored by the Powers-That-Be in DC.
I wrote about it a little earlier. But it's not beating a dead horse to beat this drum. It's so instructive how hollow the legal standing of the gun control crowd is.

For example, Justice Breyer can apparently look into the mind of James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, in the absence of any worthy data, to opine that gun rights really shouldn't exist.

This issue came to the Supreme Court's notice several times in recent years in Heller and MacDonald.

It's amazing how Justice Clarence Thomas is running intellectual circles around the very bright Breyer, who can't seem to bring himself to face facts. Americans have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It's a right, however, that paradoxically as we're winning the encroaching police state is opposing. I want to stay optimistic that I won't be frisked or wanded as is increasingly going on when people ride subways or buses. But I can't.
I know from Cato's super smart legal scholar--Ilya Shapiro--in this instructive nine-minute podcast that Justice Breyer's reasoning in his dissent of McDonald v. Chicago, which struck down Chicago's ban on guns, leaves a lot to be desired.

Mike W. continues that vein of thought with an emphatic smack-down of the former Harvard law professor whose family has owned a cabin on a lake in New Hampshire for three generations. I wonder where.

I'd like to add that Justice Sotomayer obviously lied in her sworn testimony when she stated that because of Heller it was settled matter, stare decisis, that the Second Amendment applied to the federal gubmit. But as soon as she could, she joined Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to make gun ownership unsettled by attempting to overturn Heller and declaring:

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.

New Finds

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category


Monthly Archives


Powered by Movable Type 4.1