Infringing the Time, Manner and Place to Bear Arms

By Rob Morse. May 16, 2022

Article Source

We don’t agree on very much. That is why the rights of free speech and freedom of action are so uncomfortable, so important, and so necessary. We have to tolerate ideas we find offensive or even dangerous because there is so much we don’t know and so much we need to learn. If you doubt that 

our rights of free speech are infringed today, then please consider how public discussion was censored on the topics of Covid lockdowns and election integrity.

Rather than free speech being dangerous, we found that the most dangerous problems are the ones 

we’re not allowed to debate. The cure to offensive speech is more speech, not less. We face a similar problem when we consider infringements on the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense. We have to talk about our infringed right to bear arms. Freedom isn’t comfortable, but it is the safest 

option we have.

We’re told we would be safer if approved citizens were the only ones allowed to exercise the right of armed-defense. We’re told that we’d be safer if law abiding people were disarmed in public. We’ve 

seen that taken to ridiculous extremes where honest gun owners were disarmed in public parking lots, parks, churches, and businesses. We saw criminals and mass murderers attack unarmed victims in 

those so-called “gun free” zones. What happens to our individual right of armed defense when politicians and businesses infringe on those rights?

There are many restrictions on our rights that we submit to voluntarily. We agree to moderate our 

speech in concert halls, in libraries, theaters, and in comedy clubs so that others can enjoy the performance along with us. We lose our right to speak in the temporary circumstance when that right infringes on the rights of other people to listen.

Note that we’re speaking about rights rather than mere preferences. Disarming the honest good guys 

can have drastic consequences. Does a store owner assume extra liabilities and obligations if he 

disarms the law abiding customers who want to enter his store? What happens if a city council says 

that the store owner must disarm all his customers? What if the city council passes a law so law-abiding citizens can’t bring their tools of armed defense into town at all? Do storekeepers and public officials assume additional liability for our safety when they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our families?

If those answers seem obvious then consider if self-defense is a right or a privilege. If shopkeepers 

and city governments are allowed to discriminate based on gun ownership, could they legally 

demand that everyone in their store or in their town has to be a gun owner? Infringements are always done in the name of public safety.

This might sound like we have a handful of questions and are very short of answers. Our legal system has a long history of resolving the natural tension between rights and obligations. We also have some facts to guide us.

We know that honest citizens in the US use a firearm between one-and-two-million times a year to 

stop an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. That is a large number, but we can put it into perspective. Honest gun owners defend themselves with a firearm about 150 times for each time a criminal uses a firearm to commit murder. Armed citizens save lives several thousand times a day.

The frequency and proportion of armed defense explains why our so-called “public safety” gun-

control laws are so dangerous. The advocates for gun-control claim their gun laws make us safer, 

but our most dangerous and most violent cities have some of the strictest gun-control regulations. Political promises are cheap, but our 20-thousand 'gun control'-regulations haven’t stopped armed criminals. Again, looking at proportions makes it clear why gun-control fails time after time.

It is really hard to pass a law that will reduce the harm that criminals do with a gun while at the same time leaving honest citizens armed so they can still defend themselves. If we disarm one-hundred criminals and only inadvertently disarm one-law abiding gun owner then we’ve cost more lives than we’ve saved. It is hard to write a kgun-control law that does no harm.

We already have laws and procedures that hold private citizens and government officials accountable when their negligence injures others. We are responsible if a guest hurts themselves on a broken step 

as they walk up to our front door. The city council may be liable if they refuse to test the quality of 

their municipal water supply and the water makes people sick.

The law has been studying human behavior for a long time. We are held liable for what actually 

happens rather than what we hoped would happen. We can claim that the rotten step on our front 

porch was part of our home’s rustic charm, but we are still responsible for the broken ankle after our guest falls through the broken step. The city council and the taxpayers are liable for the attack on disarmed victims in the city mandated “gun-free” public parking lot. We can be criminally and 

civilly liable when our actions contribute to another person’s injury.

As always, laws are cheap but consequences can be costly. That is a necessary feature so that we consider our actions and fix our mistakes. If you think that sounds punitive then please read past the titles and consider what our thousands of gun-control laws really do.

Our elites already know that gun-control fails. That is why our gun-control laws seldom apply to the elites. Provisions are usually written into gun-control laws so that politicians, judges, and police 

officers are exempt.

Please think about that for a minute. If a law needs an exception because the law puts a politician and 

his family at risk, then that law is too dangerous for us and for our families too.

Freedom isn’t comfortable, but it is the safest option we have.

~_~_

I gave you 1000 words. Please share them with a friend.

RM

Sources-

2021 firearms survey - “https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
2019 FBI homicide statistics, weapons, firearms -
“https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

© 2022 JPFO All rights reserved.
jpfo@jpfo.org
1-800-869-1884
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

America’s most aggressive civil rights organization
We make the NRA look like moderates

Join JPFO

10 Incidents That Highlight the Importance of the Second Amendment for Women

COMMENTARY BY

Amy Swearer@AmySwearer

Amy Swearer is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Since 1987, the United States has recognized March as Women’s History Month to celebrate the vital role of women in American history. Unfortunately, far too often we find that the armed women of history are overlooked or completely forgotten, and the vital role of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women is ignored.

Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property—from Harriet Tubman, the famed “conductor” of the underground railroad who was known to carry loaded pistols, to Mary “Stagecoach Mary” Fields, the first black woman to be a mail carrier, who notoriously kept a .38 revolver in her apron to fend off bandits and wild animals alike.

Tubman and Fields haven’t been alone.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women, either because they were armed or because another armed person came to their defense.

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in March. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

• March 1, Atlanta: Five teens—at least two armed—tried to carjack a woman as she sat in her vehicle, police said. The woman drew her own gun and exchanged fire with the would-be carjackers, who fled. Although she was injured, her car was not stolen. Police said they arrested the teens just hours later, after a police chase in which they crashed a car stolen during a second carjacking.
• March 4, Longview, Texas: A woman armed with a rifle shot and wounded a man who forced his way inside her home, police said. The woman had told the man—who neighbors say had a history of criminally trespassing in area homes—to get off her porch. But he refused and tried to smash in her sliding glass door with his fist, according to police, who arrested the wounded man. The county sheriff praised the woman’s actions as “an excellent example of the importance of our Second Amendment.”
• March 5, Lincolnton, North Carolina: Police said a woman’s estranged husband showed up at the residence where she was staying, forced his way inside, and threatened her and the male homeowner. During the altercation, the homeowner retrieved a firearm from a bedroom and shot the intruder in self-defense before running to a neighbor’s home to call 911. Police charged the wounded husband with multiple crimes.
• March 9, Nashville, Tennessee: After her boyfriend physically assaulted her earlier in the day, a woman returned to their shared home to gather her belongings and retrieve her three young children, police said. A female friend accompanied her for support. When they arrived, the boyfriend argued with the woman, then assaulted her again. She saw that he was armed, so she drew her own gun and exchanged fire with him in self-defense. The woman, her friend, and the boyfriend were all injured, but the three children weren’t harmed, police said. The boyfriend faces several felony charges, including being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm.
• March 10, Dayton, Ohio: A woman’s ex-boyfriend ignored a protective order against him, scaled the roof of her home in the middle of the night, and tried to climb through her bedroom window, police said. When the woman heard the intruder, she grabbed a firearm to protect herself and her daughter and shot the man in the arm as he descended into her bedroom. She told police she realized it was her ex-boyfriend as he ran from the house. He was arrested later that day after calling paramedics for his gunshot wound, and faces several criminal charges.
• March 16, Reading, Pennsylvania: A woman and her boyfriend were about to get into their car at a local park when a man approached them and fired two rounds, police said. The woman drew her own gun and shot back, giving her wounded boyfriend time to take cover behind their car. Police later arrested their assailant and charged him with attempted homicide and unlawfully possessing a gun as a felon.
• March 22, Orlando, Florida: A female veteran working as an Uber driver arrived at a customer’s pick-up location and saw him physically assaulting his girlfriend, police said. The driver decided to give them a ride despite the man’s violent actions because she didn’t want to leave the girlfriend alone with her assailant. When the couple got into the car, the man passed out drunk in the back seat while the Uber driver spoke with the girlfriend. When the man woke up and assaulted both his girlfriend and the driver, police said, the driver stopped the car and demanded that he get out. The driver shot and wounded the man after he shoved his girlfriend to the ground and advanced on the driver in a threatening manner.
• March 23, Paradise, Nevada: A woman was with her boyfriend and three children when an ex-boyfriend broke into their home, police said. The woman armed herself and called 911, and the ex-boyfriend left. However, he returned a short time later armed with his own gun, which he pointed at the current boyfriend’s head. The woman fired one shot, striking him in the head and killing him, police said. No one else was harmed.
• March 24, Lansing, Michigan: When a man with two prior convictions for domestic violence began assaulting a woman inside her  home, police said,  her son came to her defense, shooting and wounding her attacker. Police arrested him at a nearby hospital. The woman was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.
• March 25, Montgomery, Alabama: When a woman called police after being assaulted by her husband, officers advised her to pursue a protective order against him. The woman was on her way to the police station with her two adult sons when the husband rammed his car into hers, drove them off the road, and approached them while brandishing a handgun. One son, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, told his brother and mother to run when his father opened fire. Despite being shot five times, the son was able to draw his own gun and fatally shoot his father before anyone else was harmed. He was hospitalized in critical condition, but expected to survive.

Some gun control advocates like to claim that the Second Amendment was written by and for men, and that it leaves women to suffer as victims of gun violence.

But these claims ignore the countless cases such as the ones above, where the right to keep and bear arms was used by women or for the sake of protecting women—often from male aggressors against whom an unarmed woman would have been effectively helpless.

Women’s History Month may be over, but the importance of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women continues every day of the year.

No matter the month, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms remains in force, with no asterisk or small print excluding women.

Beyond Stand Your Ground: A Need For Immunity In Other 2A-Related Cases

 

By Lee Williams. Mar 15, 2022
Article Source

Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute and similar laws in other states can offer immunity from prosecution when someone uses deadly force to defend themselves, and affords them quick access to an appellate review if the case doesn’t go their way.

In other words, if a defendant involved in a defensive shooting invokes a Stand-Your-Ground defense, their case can be dismissed before a trial even begins if it is proven they are entitled to statutory immunity, or appellate judges can be brought in quickly to make sure the case gets handled correctly.

When a defendant files a Stand Your Ground motion, their case is put on hold. Prosecution is halted. The trial court must hold a “Stand Your Ground” hearing – a sort of mini trial – to determine whether the defendant’s use of force meets the standards for Stand Your Ground immunity. At this point, the burden shifts to the prosecutors, who must then prove by “clear and convincing evidence” why the defendant is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.

After this mini trial, the judge can either dismiss the charges or allow the case to go forward. However, if the charges are not dismissed, the defendant can file a Writ of Prohibition, which quickly bumps the case up to an appellate court for review. This writ can save the time it normally takes to get to the appellate level – usually as much as 18-months to two years – because it allows the defendant to forego a jury trial, sentencing and other delays and present their case directly to the appellate judges, who can affirm or deny their writ.

Stand Your Ground was created to protect people from unjust, malicious or politically motivated prosecutions after they acted in self-defense. By shifting the burden of proof to the state and by making an appeal quick and easy, the law has become a powerful tool, which some believe should be expanded to include other statutes involving Second Amendment rights.

“We need a Second Amendment immunity defense for anything involving the lawful possession of a firearm,” said former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro. “It should mirror Stand Your Ground statutes, but it needs to be broader. It should allow defense attorneys to ask the court to find immunity under the protections of the Second Amendment quickly and efficiently and if they don’t, it should provide a quick route to the appellate level without having to go through the entire court process, which can take years.”

Chittaro pointed to several types of criminal cases that should be covered by Second Amendment immunity. Most involve arrests stemming from gun-free zones, such as schools, sporting events and airports. Many of them lack knowledge – a major factor in a criminal case – much less actual intent to commit a crime.

“If a parent picks up their child from school and they forgot their firearm and someone sees it and complains, they should be covered by Second Amendment immunity,” she said. “The same goes for other gun-free-zone prosecutions where there was no knowledge or intent.”

The problem with most of the prosecutions resulting from arrests in prohibited places, is that police and prosecutors often forget that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. A trial judge and/or appellate court should review these cases to determine specifically if it involved this constitutionally protected right, or if the defendant knowingly and with intent committed a crime. Besides, in many states, the list of prohibited places grows every time their legislature meets. This is lawfare – pure and simple.

Every prosecution stemming from an arrest in a prohibited place should begin with an acknowledgement of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights, especially since gun-free zones infringe upon these rights. If a case involves absentmindedness, and not knowledge or the specific intent to commit a crime, judges need to toss them out. It is, after all, what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

Originally from SAF's Investigative Journalism Project

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2022. All Rights Reserved.
12500 NE 10th Pl | Bellevue | WA 98005 | Phone: (800) 869-1884 | Fax: 425-451-3959
jpfo@jpfo.org

Historic Leaders Understood Second Amendment's Importance

 Posted at 10:00 am on December 28, 2020 by Tom Knighton

For Second Amendment advocates, the right to keep and bear arms is paramount. It’s a bulwark against encroaching tyranny from a government that forgets that it serves the people and that the people do not exist to serve the government. Advocates for that right also understand it’s under assault and has been for quite some time.

However, various leaders of the past knew what the Second Amendment was for, including a couple held in high esteem by the left.

A post at the Foundation for Economic Education highlights some of these.

The Second Amendment was not limited in scope at the time of inception, in part because it was put in place as a bulwark against the despotism and tyranny that could arise out of an all-powerful government and standing army. Any cursory review of the writings of many of the founding fathers would support that.

However, we don’t need to hearken back to the colonial era to understand the importance of the Second Amendment. One of America’s most revered Democratic Presidents, John F Kennedy, stressed the importance of an armed citizenry during a commemorative message on Roosevelt Day in 1961:

“In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men―citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment’s notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.”

It’s important to note that JFK preserved the link between the “Minute Men” of America’s Revolutionary period and ordinary modern-day American citizens. Unfortunately, that linkage tends to be broken whenever there is a debate over the “true meaning” of the Second Amendment.

…

With that in mind, securing our individual rights has always been inextricably linked to our ability to collectively defend them. We need look no further than Samuel Adams.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can,” said Adams.

This sentiment has become even more relevant today as we struggle through draconian lockdowns and restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. State governments around the country have taken extreme actions that include closing businesses, infringing upon the right to worship, and even restricting the amount of people allowed inside one’s own home.

…

The great American social reformer and abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who having escaped the horrors of (government-sanctioned) slavery, understood the vital role firearms played in preserving individual freedom.

“…the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country, Douglass wrote in his autobiography, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.

It has been said that these three boxes, combined with the “soap box“ of free speech, make up the foundational rights of a free people.

Now, I don’t actually disagree with any of the quotes by these men. I may think JFK was a scumball as a husband, but he was right with regard to the need for armed individuals to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom. It’s the surest way to make damn sure our rights aren’t erased.

All around the world, gun rights are essentially non-existent. While at least one other nation pays lip service to gun rights, no one else actually acts as if the right to keep and bear arms is actually a thing. What’s more, that right is under constant attack, an attack that will intensify in January to unprecedented levels.

Yet people like JFK, Sam Adams, and Fredrick Douglas knew damn good and well that our rights matter. They’re the very thing that preserves our liberty.

Take a look at the UK. They gave up their guns and then what happened? Slowly but surely, they’re losing their right to speak up as well. Folks are being investigated for hate crimes because they misgendered someone. A man was prosecuted for teaching a dog to raise its paw as part of a joke. Numerous other examples of people not really being free to speak, and they can do absolutely nothing about it.

And some want that to happen here.

The thing is, as long as Americans have the ability to resist, there will always be an unspoken threat. Lawmakers have to consider that even if the courts were to uphold some bit of tyrannical law, the American people may not be interested in allowing it to stand. It’s an additional check and balance on the government.

Our Founding Fathers weren’t fans of standing armies or of government in general. They recognized that if one isn’t very careful, the fire that keeps you warm can also burn your house to the ground. They wanted the citizens of this great land to be prepared to resist the government if it goes too far.

And men like Douglas and Kennedy understood that. They understood that governmental authority is not automatically good and decent and that we may need to fight back against that governmental authority.

The same governmental authority some who claim to be their spiritual descendants say we should capitulate to now regardless of what is demanded.

Biden Plans "Psych" Test for Gun Ownership

His talk about AR-15 confiscation is overruled by new

"character, suitability and 'any other' " requirements
for gun ownership; Second Amendment would be optional.

The Bill of Rights ban on infringement would be ignored;
Unelected bureaucrats will literally choose who can bear arms;
All existing arms in private hands will be subject to confiscation.

A plain reading—not "analysis"—of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's gun bill, now in both houses of Congress, will require current and future gun owners to pass psychology and character tests to continue owning the firearms they already legally possess. When asked, legal experts have been unable to describe how this would be legal, Biden has not commented. America has 100 million gun owners by most estimates. That has grown dramatically by sales to people terrified amidst urban rioting, who can't get police protection, during the corona-virus pandemic.

The first line of the identical bills, HR5717 and S3254, requires a federal license for any American to legally "purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition." This is de facto infringement.

To obtain this license you would need to prove to unelected officials that you are of "sound mind and character," you do not "potentially create a risk to public safety," and you meet "any other requirements the State determines relevant." No standards or guidelines are provided. Assuming anyone could qualify, authorities, "make a determination of suitability," for your possession and ownership of firearms, including any you currently own. Orthodox Rabbi Raziel Cohen, a JPFO Ambassador and certified trainer says, "This outrageous usurpation of power, and affront to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment could never pass muster at the U.S. Supreme Court."

Alan Korwin, an author and consultant to JPFO notes that, "Democrats have publicly promised if they can't succeed legislatively, they will repeal the filibuster rule, pack the Supreme Court with left-leaning Justices and exercise their will." Nothing limits the High Court to only nine seats.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

DEMOCRATS STILL WAVING RED FLAGS

Red Flag Laws Don't Fly in the Land of the Free If you're too dangerous to have a gun— you're too dangerous to be out in public! Current Democrats' gun-law bill would release potential spree murderers Campaigning for the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress on a platform that turns potential gun psychotics loose should be an automatic non-starter. Somehow, establishment media and a huge portion of the body politic see no problem with this plan. The national red-flag law Democrats want (HR 5717) would empower neighbors to "snitch" on each other, enabling authorities to confiscate firearms, then turn the supposedly disarmed psychotics loose on the streets. No medical or serious judicial review of the neighbors' claims would be required, just a good faith story. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org, is opposed to this plan, as every individual not afflicted by irrational gun-fear should be. Empowering neighbors, who may suffer from the debilitating terrors of hoplophobia, or gun fear, to turn in their neighbors, is a precedent never even considered in this nation of 100 million decent gun owners. People with morbid gun fear believe all gun owners are dangerous—is this who should enforce law? Giving authorities power to confiscate firearms from you, without notice, no chance to confront your accuser, or even basic due process, violates the very fabric of our free society. It evinces a desire to subject us under absolute despotism, with no effect on crime or criminal behavior. It is people supporting such bills (S3254 in the Senate), who are dangerous and need investigation. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3254/text, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text ##### Support JPFO, Standing for Truth Against All Odds: https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of 'gun control' as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called 'gun control' does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.” Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser on JPFO.

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

Truckers Call for Exercise of 2A Rights Nationwide During Emergency

By Dean Weingarten. March 28, 2020
Article Source

A group of small business truckers has sent an email to Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The email asks that, as part of the national emergency involving the Chinese virus, the federal government declare the Second Amendment overrides state law and federal regulation forbidding truckers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

From transportationnation.com:

The 15,000-member SBTC is calling on federal authorities to preempt state and local laws regarding the right to carry a firearm.

Therefore, in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we hereby request the U.S. Department of Transportation please issue a preemption order nullifying any and all state and local laws that restrict truck drivers from carrying firearms across state lines throughout America in order to enable them to protect themselves and their cargo as they engage in interstate commerce.
As this is now a matter of life and death, please issue same forthwith.

"The SBTC through its TRUCKER LIVES MATTER campaign has sought the unfettered ability of drivers to carry firearms for self protection nationwide since its inception in 2014," Lamb tells Transportation Nation Network (TNN). "We have pointed to Department of Labor statistics that show the unusually high rates of murders on the road for workers in interstate transportation."

 This is a valid argument. It is vital that trucks keep delivering everything society needs to keep operating during the emergency. During social unrest, there will always be an element attempting to take advantage of the situation.

One argument between those who want the population disarmed, and those who believe the population should have easy access to arms is a small scale, utilitarian one.

People who are voluntarily unarmed have a psychological interest in promoting the idea that having a gun makes a person less safe, and that having a gun has no utility in preventing crime. It reassures them they have made the correct decision by deciding to be unarmed.

It is a difficult argument to make rationally persuasive. Weapons would not exist if they did not provide the possessor with an advantage over the disarmed.

The fall back position, for those who wish the population to be disarmed, is to claim only intensely trained and supervised individual, such as, supposedly, police and military personnel, can gain benefit from being armed.

However, people who have passed through the legal hoops required to obtain carry permits, commit far fewer crimes than do police. Police tend to train more with firearms than do most military (as difficult as that is to believe).

Commercial truckers go through a similar background check process as do most concealed carry permit holders. Truckers are especially vulnerable to violent crime because of their vocation.

It would be a good test case for the Trump Administration to declare, during this emergency, the exercise of Second Amendment rights by commercial truckers (whose licenses are federally supervised) overrides state powers to regulate firearms. This argument would be bolstered by the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, as granted by the Constitution.

Those who have lived by the abuse of the interstate commerce clause for decades, would be feeling the other side of the blade.

It would be good policy.

It would be good politics.

It would be immediately challenged in court. It would send a good message to the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court.

It combines utility, emergency powers, the Second Amendment and the Commerce clause. It would be nearly irresistible for activist district court judges. It would be difficult for the appellate courts to ignore. Such a combination would be very difficult for the current Supreme Court to ignore.

It would not be perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the good, because, those who insist on perfect prevent the good from ever happening.

Such an emergency proclamation would be a double edged daggar pointed at the heart of the arguments against the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Will it happen? I suspect not. It is not on the radar of the Trump administration.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

Dereliction of Oath

12500 N.E. Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 • JPFO.org • 800-869-1884 • info@jpfo.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  •  Jan 14, 2020  •  Contact: Floyd Neeland A POLITICAL PLATFORM THAT DEMANDS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES "DERELICTION OF OATH" Such candidates make themselves ineligible to attain the office They cannot in good faith take the oath of office without lying The U.S. Bill of Rights has a plain and direct ban on infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Presidential candidates who run must know, as the public does, that if they win election they must take the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If a candidate harbors an intent to ban or confiscate arms the public already owns, that oath cannot be taken honestly or legitimately. Such a person cannot validly hold the office and must not run. This is the simple and plain position of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org. This applies to state races and other offices as well. Political parties themselves are expected to know this and act accordingly, refusing to endorse candidates whose stated goal is the destruction or abolition of the Constitution's requirements. Numerous candidates running for president have proven themselves ineligible to the office by this plain standard. By declaring plans for infringement even before taking office, we the people cannot expect those candidates to honor their oath or the Constitution, and they should do the respectable thing and withdraw. No punishment is provided in our national charters for such malfeasance short of armed revolt, which is why our Founders provided for an armed electorate. If election is an insufficient safeguard for our liberties, these candidates threaten the very fabric of the nation, and must do one of two things--change their platform or withdraw. JPFO is keenly aware of the nation's Judeo-Christian heritage, and has set its moral compass accordingly. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, 2nd president of the United States, Oct. 11, 1798. The oath of office is a meaningful thing. It is not there for no reason or lightly. America runs on honor -- not all systems do. If a person approaches public office with purpose of deception, or willful design to ignore or abrogate its terms, such breach nullifies that person's moral authority to attain the position. That's why oaths exist. You must take the oath and honor it. Failure to do so undermines the very nature of "our system" -- which is more than its written documents. That this even has to be said is stunning. Americans used to know this to their core. It was beyond reproach. When we were a deeply honorable people it needn't even be said. Now saying it is virtually controversial. The parties themselves should know better. They no longer do, or actively participate in undermining the oath. It is in fact the quintessential argument and requirement. Their failure to honor the oath is an abomination. The president must take the constitutional oath and mean it. JPFO cannot possibly stand behind any other position, and still stand for the preservation of firearms ownership. If it proves to be controversial, we'll just have to withstand the slings, arrows and spotlight. Do you stand with us and the oath -- or against us? Support JPFO. • • • BACKGROUND-- Numerous prerequisites condition eligibility to the office of President of the United States: A person cannot run for a third term, cannot be a foreign citizen, cannot be a convicted felon, must win a majority of the Electoral College votes in a quadrennial election or rise to office through legitimate succession, must meet the Constitution's requirements of Art. 2, Sec. 2, cl. 5, for age (35 years), residency in the country (14 years) heritage (natural born Citizen), and take the Oath of Office. ##### Support JPFO, speaking truth to power: https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of “gun control” as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called “gun control” does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. “You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.” View it in your browser on JPFO.

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

Compliance? We Got Yer Compliance Right Here

JPFO: The Founders Didn't Want Americans Armed with Weapons of Sport

The "Nicknamed Candidate" has no clue about firearms

Our forefathers fought our British oppressors with weapons of war. The "Nicknamed Candidate" for president, this Beto fellow, thinks the Founders couldn't imagine us armed properly with weapons of war. We had the most sophisticated weapons of war imaginable in the late 1700s, weapons capable of fighting and defeating the most powerful army on the planet. That was the plan. It still is. The Second Amendment codifies this for the Militia--our People.

This person running for president as Beto must be a fool. His understanding of history stops short of any comprehension of why we are armed. We are armed as a balance of power, a threat to the existing order if it gets out of line. It keeps us free. You don't do that subarmed, with weapons of sport, or weapons of hunting ducks. Americans must have parity with police and infantry. To the extent we do not, we are subject to subjugation and frankly, that balance is slipping, and so tyranny creeps closer. Any careful observer can see that's true, and frightening.

Using a handful of psychotic maniacs who senselessly murder unarmed civilians as leverage to disarm the entire populace is emblematic of exactly who you do not want to elect or even listen to for advice. Asking the nicknamed candidate, riding a child's skateboard--which didn't even exist in Colonial times--for advice on how to run the country, is a fool's game. The fact that our so-called "news" media would give him serious consideration may be the second biggest problem we face. Not just fake news, but fraudulent reporting, misleading the body politic, using a putz as a pundit.

* * * * *

12500 N.E. Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 • JPFO.org • 800-869-1884 • info@jpfo.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  •  Oct 15, 2019  •  Contact: Floyd Neeland

Putting "Gun Control" to the Test

By Rob Morse. October 10th, 2019
Article Source

We all want to protect our family and friends. 'Gun-control' is the theory that disarming honest people will stop criminals. That is a fantastic theory, but does 'gun-control' work in practice? Now that we have new FBI data at hand, we don’t have to guess if 'gun-control' reduces violent crime. The answers might surprise you as we look from coast to coast. Does gun control save lives or cost them?

The 'gun-control' laws in Los Angeles are extreme. You won’t get a permit to carry a handgun in public unless you are a judge or a politician. You have to be over 21 years old to buy a rifle. You also need to show a state firearms safety card and to pass a background check each time you buy ammunition. Those regulations prevent many honest citizens from having a firearm for self-defense. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Los Angeles? The rate of violent crime in LA is more than twice the national average. (748/369 per 100 thousand)

Seattle 'gun-control' laws are quite strict. Firearms purchases are taxed. You must to go through a background check to buy a firearm and you can’t loan a gun to a friend even if your friend already owns other firearms. People under 21 years of age may not buy many types of rifles. The police can seize your guns if you’re alleged to be a danger to yourself or to others. In addition, firearms have to be locked away when they are not in use. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Seattle is 84 percent above the national average. (680/369 per 100 thousand)

The 'gun-control' laws in Chicago are intimidating. The regulatory hurdles to buy a gun, and to get a concealed carry permit, are among the most expensive and lengthy in the nation. Chicago outlaws the ownership of certain types of rifles and has effectively banned gun ranges in the city. Chicago has mandatory waiting periods, so residents who obey the law have to wait an extraordinarily long time between when they ask permission to buy a gun and when they may finally take possession of that firearm. The purchase of ammunition is also strictly regulated. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Chicago is almost three times higher than the national average. (1006/369 per 100 thousand)

In addition to state laws, New York City has its own burdensome gun laws. The licencing application to buy a long gun or handgun runs over a dozen pages and required a criminal background check. Owning a handgun requires a purchase permit as well as a state and city license. The application process takes from three to six months and requires a personal interview. You need a different permit if you want to have your firearm stored at your home or at your business. You need a separate permit if you want to store your firearm at a residence outside the city. Those permits do not allow you to have your legally owned firearm available for use as you travel to and from work or between your homes. New York also restricts the type of rifles you may own. They restrict the amount of ammunition your firearms may hold. New York also has so called “red flag” 'gun-control' laws, so school officials, members of law enforcement, or members of your family can ask the court to block you from buying or owning firearms without you being present or represented at the hearing. These regulations don’t stop criminals since the rate of violent crime in New York City is 66 percent higher than the national average. (614/369 per 100 thousand)

Baltimore’s 'gun-control' laws are extremely strict. They require mandatory background checks when firearms are transferred. A safety course and purchase permit is required to buy a handgun. Mental health professionals, law enforcement officers, or a family member can ask for a protective order to disarm a gun owner without the gun owner being present at the legal proceedings. Many firearms are in a restricted category so that law abiding gun owners may only purchase one gun a month. The state also has a registry of all handgun owners. Baltimore denies concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens so you are effectively disarmed in public. The state also restricts the type of rifles you may own, and the amount of ammunition that firearms may hold. These laws fail to reduce crime since the crime rate for Baltimore is almost five times the national average. (1833/369 per 100 thousand) With over 300 murders in 2018, Baltimore politicians called for more of the same.

The 'gun-control' laws in Trenton prevent many honest people from owning guns. You need a state permit to buy any firearm, and this permit takes months or years to obtain. New Jersey routinely denies ordinary citizens the right to carry a firearm in public. The state also keeps a record of all registered handgun owners. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue a restraining order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Trenton, New Jersey? The rate of violent crime in Trenton is more than three times higher than the national average. (1161/369 per 100 thousand)

The 'gun-control' laws in Boston deeply restrict the rights of law abiding people to own and use firearms for self-defense. The city requires a permit to purchase either a long gun or a handgun. It also requires a license to own the firearm. Law enforcement officers have denied these permits saying that the citizen did not have a justified reason to own a firearm. Boston police may also refuse to issue concealed carry permits to citizens with a clean criminal record. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue an order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Boston? The rate of violent crime is about 70 percent higher than the national average. (622/369 per 100 thousand)

We’ve looked at city after city and the evidence is clear. 'Gun-control' laws do not make us safer. In fact, these laws probably put honest citizens in greater danger from violent crime. I found this data with a few hours of study so any honest journalist could have tested the theory of 'gun-control'..if they wanted to know the truth.

'Gun-control' is getting us killed. The sad news is that politicians will continue to call for 'gun-control' as long as it gets them elected. Fortunately, we can put a stop to that.

Sources- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/violent-crime
(national rate of 369 per 100 thousand)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-6
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
https://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/new-york/new-york.html
http://nycitylens.com/wp-content/guns/new-york-city-and-its-gun-laws-how-strict-are-they/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Summary_table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey#Summary_table

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2019. All Rights Reserved.
12500 NE 10th Pl | Bellevue | WA 98005 | Phone: (800) 869-1884 | Fax: 425-451-3959
jpfo@jpfo.org