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

On the Second Amendment

Our right to keep and bear arms, recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is more disputed than ever.

Here's some of the latest thinking from the JFPO:

Second Amendment: What Are the Facts?

Law Professors Make Case for 2A Rights in Uncertain Times

From some vantage points, it seems the behind-the-scenes strategies and judicial shenanigans are making it more difficult to exercise our rights, especially the right to self-defense and resistance to tyranny.

After you read the linked articles, let me know what you think.

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

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

Slate: Kavanaugh's "Expansive View of the 2A" Signals a "Constitutional Revolution"

Slate: Kavanaugh's " Expansive View of the 2A" Signals a "Constitutional Revolution"

By Staff Writer. January 24, 2019
Article Original

Naturally, the comedy far-left politics e-magazine Slate has taken interest in the first Second Amendment case SCOTUS has agreed to hear in a decade. The case challenges the city's prohibition on transporting licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city, and the Court's decision could have far-reaching effects, as we discuss further here.

Slate's take on this whole affair is eminently quotable comedic gold.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh [is] a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment.

What constitutes such a "breathtakingly expansive" view? Slate's Jurisprudence columnist Mark Joseph Stern explains:

If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn't they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn't it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

Notice how he calls the gun range your second home? Maybe those lefties aren't so out of touch, after all. Mind you, this whole line of reasoning refers to transporting a gun unlocked and unloaded, not carrying it on one's person - a distinction Stern repeatedly struggles with throughout his article.

As icing on the cake, Stern describes the apocalypse that will befall us if this breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment is honored:

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. A central premise of Heller/ and McDonald--that the Second Amendment protects handguns "in the home"--will be cast aside. New York State Rifle will be the first shot in a coming constitutional revolution.

Let freedom ring.

Excerpts from "The Supreme Court is Preparing to Make Every State's Gun Laws Look Like Texas'" via Slate

The original article, from which some quotes were taken, comprises a mix of both seeming cynicism as well as observations towards potential excesses with rulings on Second Amendment matters in the future. There is certainly a possibility of more favorable judgements with Kavanaugh in the court as well as an increase in lower court Trump appointees but time will tell yet whether there will be some real changes for the better.

"You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side."
You just have to love freedom.

© 2019 JPFO All rights reserved.

jpfo@jpfo.org
1-800-869-1884

JPFO: Thoughts On The Bill of Rights

Thoughts on The Bill of Rights

By Michael Gay. April 27th, 2018

There is a move afoot wanting to repeal the second amendment to the constitution. In the excellent little book “Mitzvah” Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith observed that it is an elementary exercise in logic to see that eliminating the Bill of Rights, or any portion thereof de-ratifies the Constitution, which is the basis of the government in which the “repeal” of the second amendment would be taking place. This would be a logical impossibility and illegal.

However, we must question if this would bother anyone in government considering what has happened to other portions of the Bill of Rights in the past several years, and indeed over the past few decades.

Just to be sure that this is understood, the Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The rights contained therein are the unalienable rights illuminated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by there Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights so illuminated are then enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This document does not “grant” rights, it declares them so there is to be no mistake on the part of the men and women in government, and places restrictions on the government to run roughshod over the inherent rights of Americans. As the Bill of Rights says in its preamble, “...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. . .”

However, it must also be understood that the parchments upon which our government has been established, with its powers and limitations spelled out, are not sufficient to guarantee that the government will abide by those limitations.

“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false” hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” 
Judge Learned Hand

“It is sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your word of death for all Comanche to see. And so there is iron in your word of life. No signed paper can hold the iron, it must come from men. The word of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life. . . or death. It shall be life.” 
Chief Ten Bears from the film, “The Outlaw Josie Wales”

The Bill of Rights is much like a restraining order placed on government by the founding fathers. So, like a restraining order, it is a fine thing and effective in discouraging an abusive man from beating his wife–but only as long as the man respects the paper issued by the court. Once the 225 lb man gets drunk and becomes inflated with his own sense of omnipotence and decides to go to her place the 110 lb woman can hold that paper up and he will slap it out of the way and commence to beat her senseless. That paper restrains him only to the extent that he allows it to do so.

It is the same with the restraining orders placed on our government. Once they become convinced that nobody will actually stop them, the parchments upon which we rely mean very little; as to them, the end goal of total control justifies any means.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” 
Patrick Henry

Having the wherewithal to resist tyranny is not sufficient without having the spirit to do so. The abused woman is lost if all she can do is hold up a piece of paper. As her father might have told her, she needs to get away from him, and get herself something that the abusive man will respect; something like a gun and a guard dog to provide backup and the super–sensitive nose and ears for an early warning of danger. In this way the abusive man will either cease and get out, or face some very serious consequences.

If the abused person cannot bring themselves to take these steps. If there is no point at which she is ready to actually shoot. . . she is lost. If the abusive man is not convinced of her readiness to shoot he may well advance upon her, take the gun from her hand, use it to shoot her dog and commence to beat her yet again. To be effective she must have both–the firearm and the resolve to use it.

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day, Dec 15th

 

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day, Dec 15th Aaron Zelman, JPFO's late founder, made it one of his many missions to celebrate Bill of Rights Day, ratified December 15, 1791.    The Bill of Rights, seemingly more and more under attack, defines America. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Constitution of the United States would never have become the law of the land without the Bill of Rights. Several states refused to join the Union unless there was a Bill of Rights to limit the federal power and protect individual rights. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Bill of Rights guarantees fundamental civil and human rights: the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion; protections against unreasonable searches and coerced confessions; rights to counsel and a jury trial. For these rights and freedoms people have struggled for centuries. The Bill of Rights remains a beacon to freedom-loving people worldwide. We should celebrate and nurture it.   The Bill of Rights does more: it defines the limits of government power. More directly than any other single document of law, the Bill of Rights stands between tyranny and liberty. Refugees flee to the United States, not for its "three separate branches of government," not for its arrangement of senators and representatives, but for its liberty. The foundation of that liberty is the Bill of Rights. We should celebrate and nurture it.   We have special days for the birthdays of great leaders, to remember special events, and to honor our military services. But all of these remarkable people and events aimed to advance the cause of liberty -- the cause of the Bill of Rights.   Just one day per year, let us fly the flag, put up a poster, and most important of all: read the Bill of Rights. Also read it, to our children, in libraries, in schools, in homes, as well as reminding our representatives in congress of their oath of office.   Aaron Zelman, in collaboration with Claire Wolfe and Richard Stevens, wrote nine years ago "You'll be Freer and Richer in the Bill of Rights Culture" -- a two part treatise on the subject. There is much food for thought contained within which is valuable reading.   Read also some sage words by L. Neil Smith "Being Necessary ...", which does not mince words when it comes to defining the true meaning of our Bill of Rights. JPFO has a useful index page of Bill of Rights material. "You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side." © 2016 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 Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser on JPFO.

12500 NE 10th Pl

Bellevue Washington 98005

USA 

A Couple of Interesting Things

to click on, in the inbox this morning.

Oregon County Passes Initiative Allowing Sheriff to Void Gun Control Laws If He Thinks They’re Unconstitutional

Nearly a month after a tragic mass shooting shook Umpqua Community College, a rural Oregon county roughly two hours west of the school passed a measure directing the sheriff to bypass state and federal gun laws if he judges them unconstitutional.

Coos County residents smoothly approved the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on Tuesday with more than 60 percent voting for its passage. The ordinance bars public employees from using county funds to enforce any laws the sheriff deems unconstitutional.

It also prohibits enforcement of Oregon’s recent law requiring background checks on private gun transfers, including transactions between friends. County employees who violate the measure could face a $2,000 fine.

And then there's this one:

New Emails: Benghazi Cover Story Continues to Unravel 

A new lot of emails released by the State Department on Halloween were so newsworthy that not even the holiday could drown it out.

It turns out, three days after the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 14, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli specifically warned the State Department in an email not to promote the idea that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was the cause of the attack.

The embassy issued this warning for two reasons: one, it was not true. And two, by calling continued attention to the video, anti-American sentiment in Libya was inflamed, where the video had not been a factor to any significant extent.

“[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” wrote an embassy official whose name was redacted from the Sept. 14, 2012 email.

“[I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it,” the official said. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”

Well, well, well. Madame Secretary not only lied through her teeth, but she was thumbing her nose while she did it. And then lied again.

We're still waiting for the criminal investigation ...

Alan Korwin: The Effort to Subarm America (Part II)

Korwin: The Effort To Subarm America (Part II)

By Alan Korwin. August 2015

(JPFO note: The following was syndicated with the permission of Alan Korwin, the author of this article. Mr. Korwin is the author of 14 books, has been invited by the U.S. Supreme Court twice to observe oral arguments and runs the website GunLaws.com. He is also a friend of GunsAmerica and a stalwart JPFO consultant and advisor.)

SUBARMED, ADJ. A POINT BETWEEN DISARMED AND FULLY ARMED.

To a careful observer, the ongoing effort to subarm Americans is increasingly obvious. It’s a cooperative project involving government, private hoplophobic (gun-fearing) anti-rights groups, and a compliant poorly informed “news” media that has become a lapdog, not a watchdog.

The whole point of being armed is to be properly armed, to create the balance of power the Second Amendment intends and makes possible. Balance of power. You heard that phrase in school if you’re old enough. It used to be important. It still is. Subarming the public upsets this critical balance.

The right to keep and bear arms serves many purposes, from providing duck to saving children, as anyone in the gun debate has heard to death. The role of the public’s arms in preserving peace and freedom however is the Second Amendment’s quintessential one. It is only by force or the ability to use force that our society’s enemies — people who would take what is ours and hunt us down individually or as a nation — are prevented from doing so. I don’t like that sentence but I can’t deny its truth. I’d prefer utopian pacifism, but force is what keeps us safe and free. That’s been true since biblical times.

Col. Jeff Cooper, “the father of the modern technique of shooting,” put it best in his book, The Principles of Personal Defense, when he said: “Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life… the peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists everywhere and at all times.”

That applies, distressingly, to all enemies, foreign… and domestic. Too many Americans today are unaware how this works. It is only by the potential force of an armed body politic that government here has been kept at bay, and our high relative freedom has been maintained — a condition so world famous and effective it has been drawing people like a superconducting magnet from around the world for centuries.

As firearm parity between our policing forces and the public slips however, freedom slips, because that critical balance slips away. And in a headlong quest for increased power, those in government power, working with misguided anti-rights zealots and the fears of hoplophobes, they have been incrementally subarming the public, finding that disarmament is a too-tough hill to climb. By working to reduce all aspects of civilian arms, subarmament is succeeding where disarmament stalled.

HERE’S WHERE FREEDOM SLIPPED

The major turning point came with the so-called Firearm Owner’s Protection Act in 1986. We didn’t know it at the time, because the ornaments hung on that tree distracted us. Abuse by local authorities had gotten so extreme Congress had to act — people were being arrested in droves for merely traveling with firearms, for simple legal possession, nothing more. Cops were just obeying orders from their gun-hating masters. Who says cops won’t obey infringing laws? Have a gun? Go to jail.

We were now protected federally, sorta, from arrest for transporting legal firearms from one place to another — if they were unloaded in the trunk, where they did you absolutely no good if you needed them. You couldn’t bear arms, as the Second Amendment supposedly guaranteed, but you could transport them. Hooray for our side. And that was the bait.

Up until then, what cops had, we had. We went hand-in-hand from matchlocks to flintlocks, muzzleloaders to cartridge guns, smooth bore to rifled barrels, bolt action to auto-loaders… and that’s where the roads diverged.

In 1986 our betters in government decided people could have all the machine guns they wanted, as long as they worked for government. If you were just a citizen, the commerce in these products was closed for you. Oh, you were “allowed” to keep whatever you already owned on the cutoff date, a couple hundred thousand total (suddenly astronomically priced collector items). There was no easy way around that, because the Fourth Amendment required compensation if agents tried to confiscate your property. You might actually use your weapons if jackboots attempted that.

From that point on, officials of every description started stockpiling full autos, by the millions, while you Joe Q. Public could proudly keep and bear only your single shot guns like AR-15s that looked like badass guns. But you were hopelessly subarmed and freedom went right downhill, now facing 80,000 full-auto SWAT raids yearly. And they want your one-pull-of-the-trigger guns too.

SUBARMING TAKES MANY FORMS

Normal capacity magazines are part of it. Police want double-stack magazines for their pistols because they’re safer. When you’re in a firefight, more ammo means more safety. Subarming the public with infringed capacity magazines is a danger no cop would ever accept.

Recently, one federal agency exercising controls over firearms, called BATFE, proposed banning a certain type of popular ammo, “green ammo,” by deciding it was suddenly too dangerous. If this group of unelected bureaucrats gets away with subarming Americans by limiting them to ammo that isn’t dangerous enough, all is lost.

The very idea of ammunition that can’t accomplish its designed purpose or isn’t very good, that’s almost better than disarmament, because it slips under the public’s awareness, a dastardly tactic. An agency that even pretends to have such power is a threat to freedom. You can’t ban ammo because it’s dangerous! Ammo is supposed to be dangerous. Deadly dangerous.

BATFE SEEKS ONE-WAY GUNFIRE: AGAINST YOU

The core of BATFE’s argument is that this brand of ammo is suddenly armor piercing. Something about a ban on armor-piercing ammunition I don’t understand. See if you follow me here.

It’s illegal to fire any bullet at a cop — or at anyone! — intending to do harm without cause, right? You rot in jail until you're old for that — or are put to death. So is it worse to use a green bullet than a regular one? No, of course not. It is murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, or any of a dozen deadly serious crimes all at once.

Does the violation change if the victim is wearing a T-shirt? No difference. Well, what if the person is wearing body armor?

Aha. With armor-piercing ammo, your gun remains lethal. But with plain ammo your gun is no longer lethal. It’s almost as if you don’t have a gun at all (“You only think you’re armed if the other guy is wearing body armor.” –from The Cartridge Family Band). You have been effectively disarmed, versus the state, if BATFE gets its way (without an act of Congress, I should add). The balance of power shifts again: State 1, People zero.

This is the secret sauce behind the BATFE proposal that no one wants to speak about in public. The BATFE proposal about certain types of ammo (that they claim is armor piercing) would make the state invulnerable and shift the balance of power the Second Amendment is supposed to provide. They can shoot you, but you can’t shoot them (their proposed ban only bans you, just like the machinegun ban). It’s the same as disarming the public, without having to disarm the public, a thoroughly villainous scheme.

Oh that’s so far fetched. Their proposal is for only one type of ammo, you can still buy body armor yourself (in most places, still), who cares if 3,000 armored SWAT raids in 1980 is 80,000 today and growing, BATFE wouldn’t expand the list of dangerous ammo if they somehow got the power to ban the green stuff, which was stalled (but not foreclosed). That’s just paranoid delusion (like expecting “BITS” — blood in the streets — every time a CCW law passes, which never occurs).

Yes, the illogic is legendary, yet strangely compelling when you look closely. The balance of power between the people and the state will have been completely broken if BATFE gets the brand new power they seek. “You can have your guns, as long as they don’t work.” This is something democrats have been developing for a while, with lock-up-your-guns schemes.

The nefarious activities at BATFE are legendary. These are the people who smuggled thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords. Now, on their own, they seek to ban reliable ammo to the public. And no one there suffers any consequences. They want you subarmed and outgunned.

Subarmament policies must be recognized for what they are, infringements on Second Amendment rights to keep arms and to bear arms, and rejected categorically as violations of American freedom. The perpetrators of such proposals need to be removed from power and face punishment for denial of civil rights and violation of oath of office.

Alan Korwin Asks: Should America Subarm Its Citizens?

Korwin: Should America Subarm its Citizens?

By Alan Korwin. August 2015

(JPFO note: The following was syndicated with the permission of Alan Korwin, the author of this article. Mr. Korwin is the author of 14 books, has been invited by the U.S. Supreme Court twice to observe oral arguments and runs the website GunLaws.com. He is also a friend of GunsAmerica and a stalwart JPFO consultant and advisor.)

There’s a point between fully armed and disarmed that is subarmed. Being subarmed is dangerous. Officials would never stand for it themselves. It’s the point where you don’t have a very good gun, or certainly not the type you’d prefer, or not the type your police prefer for their own safety, and not the right ammo, or certainly not enough of it. It isn’t the caliber you want, and the magazine is too small. You’re subarmed.

It seems there are people at work in the government and the euphemistic gun-control movement who have figured out if they can’t disarm the public — because the public will not stand for it and put up intense opposition — they can subarm the public (that’s you) a little at a time. If you’re subarmed, and they’re fully armed, that’s pretty much victory for them and a shift in control.

Because it happens by bits, the big picture is obscured. Little by little the power shifts from the public to the authorities. We used to have parity with government, and this kept government in check, made America the liberty capital on Earth. We the people were equal with our hired hands. Both sides were in a state of stasis, equilibrium. They had matchlocks, we had matchlocks.

They had flintlocks, we had flintlocks. They got cap and ball, we all had it. We grew up together, we were partners in this, developed the field together. Self-contained cartridges, rifled barrels, bolt action, revolvers, semi-auto, improvements to everything, optics, full auto… the story starts to rag out right there.

TWO GUN LAWS: TECTONIC SHIFT IN AMERICAN FREEDOM

In 1968 our employees in government decided it was time for us to fill out paperwork for any gun purchased from any manufacturer. It’s been that way ever since, despite the enormous trash piles generated by “news” media to the contrary. It’s no big deal — maybe — but every gun made and sold legally to an American since then comes with government paperwork.

Twenty-two years later, in 1986, the scales of equality tipped over. The Gun Control Act basically said members of the state could have machine guns but the peasants (that’s us) could not — only one-shot guns for us. Matching firepower was no longer for the masses — it was for the hired help only. Two centuries of Gun Equality between government and the public was over. Now that’s a big deal.

Oh, the few full autos in public hands at the time could remain, but this was subarming on a grand scale, an order of magnitude, it made the two sides totally unequal. The miniscule number of now collectible machine guns people owned could be cherished, lost to wear-and-tear and jealously safeguarded — thanks to five-figure price tags instantly springing upon a closed finite market.

SAY GOODBYE TO OFFICER FRIENDLY

The rapid decline in freedom everyone has been noticing was catalyzed. The rise of the police state became more intense. SWAT raids (multiple battle-equipped specialists with machine guns and overwhelming power) have gone from 3,000 per year in 1980 to as many as 80,000 per year now. The Andy Griffith Show was solidly in the past. Officer Friendly was on his way out.

We weren’t a police state then and we’re not one now, we’ve just started looking more like one than anyone would like — and toe the line, pal. Not to worry, our morals are still intact. Or are they.

You’re overwhelmed when a dynamic entry team of eight masked, body-armored men storm through your door with flash-bang grenades at two in the morning, like the state does these days. You’ve been subarmed to the point of being gunless when they have MP-5 machine guns and you have the civilian single-pull-of-the-trigger AR-15 you’re so proud to own. It’s the gun you insist is OK because it’s the one-shot model, not the machine gun it looks like, which ignorant gun haters fear it really is. And they want to confiscate that too.

The seven-round magazine New York got saddled with is a subarmament joke and the people responsible should be brought up on charges for infringement and violation of oath of office. They swore to uphold the Second Amendment, not to find workarounds. Small magazines endanger the innocent when peril lurks. Ask police if they would stand for that.

OF COURSE AMMUNITION IS DANGEROUS

Meanwhile, BATFE bureaucrats are deciding some ammunition is more dangerous than other types, so it should be banned. How utterly preposterous! What needs to be banned is the BATFE.

Ammunition cannot be banned based on the fact that it is dangerous! And a government agency cannot exercise power that Congress has no legitimate delegated authority to give it.

Everyone knows that ammunition is dangerous — because that’s its purpose! Not just dangerous, deadly dangerous. It is supposed to be. If it’s not dangerous, it’s flawed. What BATFE is really seeking is to have some ammo removed because it might be used against them, making them bulletproof — but they won’t ban it for themselves, and it could be used against you. Judging ammo — which is beyond the delegated power an agency can have because it infringes on our rights — is like judging which words are too dangerous to say. BATFE doesn’t want you to think about the logical angle:

Using any type of ammunition at all in any unjustifiably dangerous way is already grossly illegal many times over at every level and can carry the death penalty. Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. Planning a murder is illegal.

Using any kind of gun and any kind of ammo for any of that is criminal at the state and federal level with no wiggle room. That’s enough for this rogue agency or any other. Banning ammo is an infringement ploy.

If authorities can justify subarming the public based on ammo type, the Second Amendment will have been eviscerated, and this is intolerable. All subarmament efforts should be spotted, called out for what they are, and summarily halted. There are no excuses, no saturation “news” stories about crazed maniacs that justify taking action against the public. The responsible parties should be reprimanded, discharged from or voted out of office and publicly ostracized for acting against the interests of the United States. The jig is up.

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2015. All Rights Reserved.
12500 NE 10th Pl | Bellevue | WA 98005 | Phone: (800) 869-1884 | Fax: 425-451-3959
jpfo@jpfo.org

Quote of the Day: Second Amendment vs. Second Chances

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit.

"Should Christians Give Up Their Guns?"

From Pastor Chuck Baldwin, via JPFO:

Not since 1775 has a central government in America attempted to disarm its citizens in the way that President Barack Obama and Senator Dianne Feinstein did recently. King George III attempted to disarm the colonists on April 19, 1775, and that attempt ignited America's War for Independence. Leading the charge to resist the banning and confiscation of their firearms were colonial pastors such as Jonas Clark.

Back then, America's pastors had a thorough comprehension of the Biblical principles of liberty, including the right to keep and bear arms. They taught their congregations these sacred principles with such zeal and persuasion that the attempt by those British troops to march on Lexington and Concord and seize the colonists' guns was met with the now famous "shot heard 'round the world." Ever since that historic event, the people's right to bear arms has been held sacred by the vast majority of Americans--Christian or otherwise. The right to bear arms was understood to be, not just a right, but a God-ordained duty, a long time before it was ever enshrined in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Go read, as they say, the whole thing.