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

JPFO: Replacing Emotions With FACTS ...

Replacing Emotions With FACTS ... By Tim Schmidt - USCCA Founder. June 2018, Issue #23 "Years back, I was a staunch gun control advocate. Last week, I joined the NRA and the Gun Owners of America, and I'm looking to join more Second Amendment advocacy groups." So says H.A. Goodman, a writer and former-anti-gunner-turned-Second-Amendment-supporter, in a recent piece titled "Why I Joined the NRA After Writing Gun Control Articles." Goodman, a freelancer who's been quite vocal in his opposition to both the Second Amendment and an armed populace, now runs a pro-gun channel on YouTube, according to GunsAmerica. In The Daily Caller, Goodman himself poses the question we're all wondering: "How did this evolution take place?" GunsAmerica reports that Goodman's "awakening" resulted from three realizations: "First, that government tyranny is still a persisting problem and that the 2A is, and has been, historically, the safeguard against it proliferating. Second, the government is grossly incompetent when it comes to preventing mass shootings. And, third, it's really a settled matter. Studies prove that gun control is largely ineffective." In his article, Goodman lists several examples supporting these claims, including Dianne Feinstein's admission "that no legislation could have prevented the Vegas shooting" and how "the FBI knew about the recent Florida shooter before he killed 17 people." Now, you've likely heard me repeat a few wise words from my friend Lt. Col. Dave Grossman -- that "hope is not a strategy" -- and I'm keeping these words in mind as I contemplate Goodman's journey to "our side." I'm not holding my breath for scores of people to experience a similar awakening, but it is encouraging to know that when an individual is able to push the heavy emotions aside for a second and replace those emotions with facts -- like those from a 2008 study that showed "80 percent of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns" or that "the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people" did so with "two smaller-caliber handguns that have never been targets of a ban by liberals" [Goodman, The Daily Caller ] -- there is a good chance that individual will start to see the Second Amendment for what it is: a God-given, natural-born right and a guarantee for responsible armed citizens all across the country. Most importantly, it shall not be infringed. Goodman, it seems, has finally seen the light. He claims to have joined the NRA and Gun Owners of America "because the groupthink that I once spewed hurts law-abiding citizens and does nothing to prevent the next deranged copycat criminal." I commend him for coming forward to share his story. And at the end of the day, I'm holding out a bit of hope that other staunchly anti-gun folks might also search for the truth and follow suit. Tim Schmidt Publisher - Concealed Carry Report USCCA Founder "You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side." You just have to love freedom. © 2018 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

Not Infringed Enough? The NSSF Wants MORE "Prohibited Persons"

 

Why is NSSF Trying to Expand
List of "Prohibited Persons"?

By Kurt Hofmann, August 5th 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.

In the wake of high-profile mass shootings in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Louisiana, some of the calls for more "gun control" are coming from a perhaps surprising direction. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry's trade association, is calling for revisions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that would deny more people the most effective means of defending life and liberty. What's more, they are proudly boasting of having done so in the past, and lamenting the fact that "gun control" groups won't give them any credit for their own "gun control" efforts.

Larry Keane

"Now More Voices Agree on the Need to Fix NICS," announces the title of NSSF's recent blog post, written by NSSF's Senior Vice President and General Counsel Larry Keane, and apparently we are to believe that what the voices agree on is that the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not being infringed enough:

For the national background check system to work, all applicable records based on current law have to be entered into it at the state level. After all, any system is only as good as the accuracy and completeness of its database. This is where we all can agree that the system needs improvement.

Um, no--we cannot "all agree that the system needs" that kind of "improvement." We cannot "all agree" that in a country in which "the experts" claim that twenty percent of the population is mentally ill, that the government should be given the names of the 60 million people who are to be forcibly disarmed.

But NSSF hasn't been waiting for our agreement:

We are in the third year of our industry's national effort to ensure that the system has all the appropriate records put into it. We call the initiative FixNICS and we have been successful through our direct efforts to convince 16 state legislatures to pass legislation to ensure that there are no statutory, regulatory, administrative or procedural impediments to entering all appropriate records - criminal and mental health - into NICS.

Quite proud of their "gun control" efforts, aren't they? This is collaboration with the enemy. Whether it sinks to the level of Quisling's treason, or "merely" to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement, is perhaps academic. As Churchill said, after all, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." What the crocodiles of "gun control" are being fed here, of course, is the ability of millions of Americans to legally own the best tools of self-defense.

The intent, presumably, is to voluntarily give up some ground, in hopes that the gun ban zealots will be satisfied with that, and not seek more. How can anyone think that's an effective strategy? When has the forcible citizen disarmament lobby ever been satisfied that they have taken enough? Every inch of ground we surrender is an inch that they will not have to fight for--and an inch closer to total disarmament of the citizenry.

No. Again borrowing from Mr. Churchill, " . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . .." Anything less is voluntarily aiding and abetting citizen disarmament.

The only way to "fix" NICS is to do away with it, consign it to the scrap heap of the more sordid parts of our history. As David Codrea has long argued, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." Maybe NSSF ought to redirect its efforts in the direction of recruiting a lot of custodians.

A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.

"If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns, Why Aren't The Rest of Us?"

If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns,
Why Aren't the Rest of Us?

By Kurt Hofmann, July 1st 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.

The Los Angeles City Council is considering implementing a more restrictive "safe storage" law, requiring all handguns to be locked in a safe or disabled with a trigger locking device when not in use. Given that this is L.A. we're talking about here, the only surprising aspect is that such a law hasn't already been on the books for years by now.

Well, no--actually, there is one more surprise to be found here--the loudest opposition is from the police union. What--L.A. cops against "gun control"? Well, they don't object to all the private citizens being required to lock up their best defense against home invaders. What they don't like is the thought that they and their families might be at the tender mercies of home invaders until they can unlock their best means of self-defense.

This opposition comes despite the fact that the proposed law includes a provision that exempts active duty and reserve officers (whose children, apparently are far safer around unsecured firearms than other people's kids). The problem, according to the union, is that retired officers are expected to deal with as many obstacles to their ability to defend themselves as are the rest of us. From the Los Angeles Times:

The proposed rules would exempt active-duty and reserve officers, but the Los Angeles Police Protective League says retired officers should be excluded as well, warning of possible dangers to former officers and their families.

Apparently, retired cops must be able to defend themselves quickly, but retired school teachers (for example) in the greater Los Angeles area are never murdered at home--oh . . . wait.

Besides, one would think that with the "Only Ones" apologists' love of the notion that cops are far better trained and capable with firearms than the rest of us, they would be able to deal with a trigger lock far more quickly than we lowly mundanes could.

But here's where it gets truly surreal:

In a letter to city lawmakers, the union argued that current and former officers needed quick access to guns for protection, citing the 2013 armed rampage by former LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner as an example of police and their families being targeted.

Yep--to bolster their argument as to why former L.A. cops need more immediate access to their firearms, they point to a former L.A. cop who went on a murderous rampage with firearms. That's like using the Hindenburg as an example of why hydrogen-filled airships are the best means of travel.

In a home invasion, the window of opportunity to successfully defend oneself and one's family can be measured in seconds, and no evidence has been presented that those criminals who target the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker move any more slowly than those who go after cops. As discussed here a few weeks ago, in the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the requirement that guns kept in the home be disabled was specifically cited as an unconstitutional burden on the right to self-defense--and not just cops' self-defense, but everyone's.

We are told that we are to lock up our guns, "for safety." We are told that cops (and retired cops) must have unlocked guns . . . "for safety." How does once having worn a badge make what's safe for one person the exact opposite of what's safe for the next?

A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.

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.