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

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

DELEGATED POWER MATTERS

Governmental power is spelled out, not arbitrary

Acting without authority is…. tyrannical

Biden and the rest can only act with power delegated by the people

A disturbing message became clear when the White House decided to circumvent existing law, the Constitution and an emphatic decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Contracts matter. Rental agreements matter. And the federal government lacks any semblance of authority to declare (as the CDC did): People may live on other people's property without paying to do so, in defiance of contract terms, rent payments, leases, etc. The government's eviction "moratorium" is ultra vires — it exceeds legitimate legal power.

Attempting to extend a controversial and questionable moratorium on evictions—and negating the duty to pay rent for places to live – shows serious disdain for the rule of law. Squatting is against the law. Property owners have contracts. Enforceable contracts are a linchpin of functioning economies and society. Owners are entitled to be paid, and eat, and care for their families as much as anyone. Demanding they tolerate lawlessness, so people forced out of work by government edicts can live rent free—illegally squatting on land that isn't theirs—violates every tenet of American law.

This mindset, that government can do whatever it likes, favoring one party over another without legitimate authority to do so, signals the destruction of The American Way. We know many in America would like to see this, destroy us from within. The socialist/Marxist/progressive forces, aligned behind civilian disarmament, are pursing this on multiple fronts, including this one. From a nominee for the firearms bureaucracy who has shown repeated disregard for the Bill of Rights, to proposals to literally disarm the public and forcibly confiscate weapons from we the people, such actions push the public to the brink of civil unrest, and leftists should cease and desist while there is still time to safely do so. Leftists are rioting in the streets; their civilization-wrecking commands may well push the rest of the nation to do the same.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  • August 16, 2021  •  Contact: Floyd Neeland

jpfo.org

Never Again!

 Holocaust Remembrance Day, April 8, 2021

Do What's Needed to Stop Genocide!

Government perpetrates societal murder, only you can stop it

JPFO's calls to "officials" to respond have gone unheeded. That's unacceptable.

Today, April 8, many of the people in the world will take a moment out of their busy lives to quietly reflect on how cruel we humans can be to each other, as we recall the Shoah, the WWII Holocaust, when Germany and its allies attempted to erase an entire religion and its followers from the face of the planet. They failed. They died more horrible deaths and destruction than they planned for their victims, while we thrive, bringing monumental bounty and prosperity to the world.

Genocide is a tool basically of governments, but also of societies and religions, that must never be sanctioned, endorsed, tolerated or endured with a blind eye as it is, even now, in dark corners of the world. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other swaths of society, hated with intensity are the targets of the atrocity. The haters believe they are right, even approved, and proceed with glee.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, jpfo.org, understands there is no one you can reach out to when you are the target of organized slaughter and enslavement, which is why we endorse and teach individual responsibility and an armed public. History unequivocally shows that only a balance of power maintains freedom, and on this, Holocaust Remembrance Day, we ask again, could Germany have slaughtered six million Jews if they had all been armed and trained? We answer our own question: No! And we repeat our battle cry: Never Again!

#####

“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.”

Support JPFO, speaking truth to power https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

There Is Nothing Wrong With Clinging To Your Values and Your Property

The notion that Prayer, or the Second Amendment is ever improper borders on tyranny. Politicians have no delegated or legitimate power to close down either one. Our Founders armed you to help prevent this.

In the coming weeks, months and more you may—no—you will be bombarded with what used to be recognized as mass brainwashing, regardless of whether either party has total control, designed to make you believe:

-- Guns are bad, even evil (though they are not);

-- Only people on government payrolls should have them (it won’t be framed that way of course but that’s the false message): police, military, FBI, secret agents, DEA, ICE, BATFE, the whole alphabet soup are all OK—you’re safer if they all have these dangerous nasty guns and you don’t;

-- You never had a real right to arms anyway, or good arms, or military-quality arms, or arms that could provide a balance of power... the very reason the Second Amendment exists. This, despite the evidence of your own eyes—namely, gun stores in every hamlet and a heavily armed populace that got that way somehow—in two-and-a-half centuries with no government paperwork until lately;

-- If we tell you to give up this gun, or that gun, big ones small ones black ones long ones, hi suds lo suds no suds some suds, you will obey or the chance of you catching the virus will get worse, and we’ll take your money through legal problems. If we jail you for gun something you won’t even get the mask, wash, distance and hy-droxy-chlor-o-quine which we disavow, so obey.

JPFO says—You are not some armed “privileged person” to be hated. You are living the American Dream and to be admired and copied. Your freedom to own the means of self defense and resistance to tyranny sets you apart and is to be honored. It is at the root of why so many people seek to emigrate here instead of to communist dictatorships from which people flee. Even if many of our own citizens no longer recognize the value of arms, or even unwittingly seek to undermine this core significance, firearms anchor liberty. The source of tyranny is government. The Founders knew this, and today our own government decays that way. Factions within it work to disarm us, and discourage training even in the proper use of arms—which would be a great benefit.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership understands what the Founding Fathers understood. We understand from the lethally hard lessons of history. All peoples—your own lineage, of whatever religious or other roots—all peoples were slaves or unfree at some point in history. It is the judicious use of force that sets humanity free. Possession of the means to exercise that force is why America is the shining city on the hill. Never forget that.

Don’t believe these deniers, the misanthropes (people who hate people and civilization), the America haters. The ones with such hypnotic maniacal control over mass media. You’re supposed to be free to become a privileged person, with wealth beyond what you were born with, earned by your own hand, not a marxist. feudal color-coded system of ranks determined by someone else for you. Work your butt off, make something of yourself, like your peers. Don’t hurt others in the process. Hint: The big secret: “The more other people you help, the faster you move up.”

Try it now. Start today. Help someone else and see where it gets you. Even money works, give something, it won’t hurt you. Might be hard at first, gets easier, you get better at it, target the giving better, enjoy the results.

“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.” Watch for our new programs in 2021.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

U.S. Ammo Market, Production Update

 

By Dean Weingarten. November 30, 2020

Article Source

For the second time in a decade, demand for ammunition has outstripped supply in the United States. The first ammunition bubble was from 2012 to 2017. The next started in 2020.

Ammunition manufacturers have increased their capacity. In the face of increased demand, it has not been enough. Ammunition plants are running 24/7 to make profits while demand is high. Shortages still exist in the United States. Common calibers have disappeared from store shelves. Prices have risen. Panic buying and purchasing for private stockpiles has increased.

Those who purchased a stockpile in the interval between ammunition bubbles from 2017 to 2020, are considered wise and foresighted. At one point in October of 2018, .22 rimfire ammunition was available at 2.5 cents per round.

How much ammunition is being produced and purchased in the United States market?

During the .22 rimfire bubble, the productive capacity was increased from about 4 billion rimfire rounds to 5 billion rimfire rounds per year.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated total ammunition produced for the United States market in 2017 at 8.1 billion rounds.

In 2018, the total ammunition production for the United States was estimated at 8.7 billion rounds.

The numbers for 2019 should be published in December of 2020.

A reasonable extrapolation puts the amount of ammunition produced for the United States market at somewhat over 9 billion rounds, of which 5 billion are rimfire and 4 billion are centerfire rifle, pistol and shotgun rounds in 2020.

To put those numbers in perspective, the capacity of the U.S. military to produce small arms ammunition is 1.6 billion rounds per year. 99% of small arms ammunition for the military is produced at the Lake City ammunition plant in independence, Missouri. From alu.army.mil:

Over 99 percent of all small-arms bullets (5.56-millimeter [mm], 7.62-mm and .50-caliber) consumed by the Army under its Title 10 responsibility to supply and equip its forces are manufactured at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

Lake City is the last of the World War II ammunition plants still in operation. All the rest have been shut down and decommissioned. In World War II, the U.S. produced 21.6 billion rounds of small arms ammunition per year. Most of the ammunition plants were shut down immediately after the war. During the Korean war, 4 plants were brought back into service. Now only the Lake City plant is operational. From jmc.army.mil:

After VJ day, all small caliber production plants except Lake City and Twin Cities were closed.Years later, the Korean Conflict would only require operation of six small caliber ammunition plants to meet wartime requirements. Five plants were utilized in the Vietnam War and amazingly today's production is able to meet requirements of 1.5 billion rounds per year by operating one facility, Lake City with Alliant Tech systems (ATK) as the current operating contractor. Modernization of production lines and new technologies has provided the abilities to meet this mission with a reduced infrastructure. Additional rounds are procured from General Dynamics and provided by NATO forces to meet total requirements.

Ammunition manufacturing capacity, for the United States market, is about 9 billion rounds per year. About 5 billion are rimfire, about 4 billion are centerfire.

Small arms ammunition capacity for the U.S. military is about 1.6 billion rounds per year. It is all centerfire ammunition.

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

The Democrats' Plan: A Gun-Free Zone Where America Used to Be

 

Face the Truth: MAKE AMERICA A GUN-FREE ZONE! That Is the Democrat's Plan, Go Ahead—Ask Them— "What guns do you believe Americans should be allowed to have?" * This is the bottom line, America—Democrats will ban every decent gun in private possession. That bill is already written and in Congress. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO, http://www.jpfo.org has been describing it for months. HR5717/S3254. A right, especially the right to arms, isn't a thing for officials to "allow." The bill requires any remaining guns (small revolvers, derringers) to be inoperable and locked up. That's exactly what the Supreme Court prohibited in the Heller case because it is unconstitutional infringement. But that's how leftist politicians roll—law, human rights and the Constitution don't matter. Government has guns—better than you can have, and more of them. You are subjects, no guns unlocked, no guns loaded, too much of a dangerous threat (to them). Armed criminals roaming free, rioting, spreading terror, released without bail, it helps keep you in line. This is why Dems won't discuss it in interviews, or even deny it's occurring, and mess media suppresses the footage. If you elect these tyrants, you'll place yourself in servitude to armed masters. "Be warned, or be mourned, tomorrow." –Klaatu * We have asked numerous leftists this question, the replies are uniform: they rattle off lists of what you cannot have—guns that look scary, "spray" bullets, black guns, powerful guns, the few names they know (AR15, AK47), but they can't name what ought to be "allowed." They've given it no thought. ##### 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.”

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA

Three Major Parties Running for the White House

 PRESS RELEASE

12500 N.E. Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 • JPFO.org • 800-869-1884 • info@jpfo.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  •  September 29, 2020  •  Contact: Floyd Neeland (View on website) Three Major Parties Running for the White House DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, COMMUNISTS No one doubts the communist Chinese want control of America as badly as Democrats and Republicans The winner fills more than 6,700 jobs for the office, another 1,200 with Senate consent Only one party supports an armed public to balance gov't power • Communists don't allow their subjects to be armed. They run dictatorships. • Democrats have bills in Congress right now to take virtually every private American gun. • Read bill HR5717, it is nothing like media or politicians describe. HR5717 bans loaded guns at home, even locked—until you're under attack. It bans guns with grips. We're not imagining this. —If government disarms us—which is done by force, through law—it's all over. —The great American experiment ends. Self-governance stops. Government rules you. —Freedom, liberty, free-enterprise, free speech, all of it. Self-determination is in "their" hands. —No one "gives" you liberty. You take it. By force. With arms. Our Founders understood this. Only force keeps freedom in your hearth and home—away from "officials," adversaries, mobs—seeking to take it. Common wisdom says, "You can't arm slaves and expect them to stay slaves." It works the other way too—disarming free people enslaves them. Commies sure know it. Citizens endured offensive Democrat ridicule for it... yet still recommend: Cling to your guns and Bibles. G-d help us if the three major parties push the American people too far. Join JPFO, it really helps. “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.” 12500 NE 10th Pl Bellevue Washington 98005 USA

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

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

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

From the Warning in the Declaration of Independence ...

"evinces a design to reduce them to despotism"

Democrats have "come out of the closet,"
cheering to disarm the public.

This is no false alarm or hype. A significant portion of our own political establishment is calling for disarmament of our own citizenry, while remaining heavily armed itself. Seeking to incrementally or completely disarm the public is tyranny--the very acts that led to revolt against the British Empire. The bill Democrats want (H.R.1296) seeks to ban guns with grips--it is called but isn't some sort of "assault-weapon" act. Democrats are deceiving you and the media.

Politicians and their minions who press ahead with this agenda are encouraging a deadly response they should never want to face. Those people should be removed from office or candidacy by legal means before matters get worse, while time remains. Gun confiscation is a bright red line. H.R.1296 bans guns with grips, not "assault"--an illegal behavior, not a gun type.

Democrats cannot legally do what they are proposing, it is infringement, which is banned. Leaders of that party must object to the proposed confiscations, but they have not. Confiscation is an obvious overt violation of law and human and civil rights. Any pretense at gaining office by swearing an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, while adhering to such outrageous policies is preposterous and subversive.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership calls for immediate censure of Beto O'Rourke by Congress, for insisting that if elected he would take guns from Americans, a blatantly illegal act. We call for an immediate and unequivocal renunciation of that position by every politician seeking office, unless they come out and publicly demand repeals of The U.S. Bill of Rights. Do not be cowards--face us and admit where you stand.

#####

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.”

12500 NE 10th Pl
Bellevue Washington 98005
USA