Tag: Second Amendment rights

Categories
Second Amendment rights

The Right to Bear Toy Guns

toy guns

Elizaveta Zlatkis could be jailed for up to a quarter century. 

What heinous crime has she committed? Prepare yourself: she kept a stash of guns in her home.

Well, toy guns … used as props. 

Not real armaments, pretend armaments.

New York City police confiscated 21 starter pistols and toy replicas that, according to the NYPD’s own lab reports, cannot fire bullets. And “one actual firearm” that the police acknowledge “was rendered ‘inoperable’ because the trigger, hand grip and internal components were all missing.” 

“We do videos with them as props,” attests a rapper named Crucial. 

“That’s wild,” he says of the prosecution. “They’re fake.”

NYPD cops acted on a tip — standard prelude to many a dastardly home invasion by putative officers of the law — in raiding her home in December 2019.

It’s been a nightmare for Ms. Zlatkis ever since.

She thinks she’s innocent, refusing a plea deal. Meanwhile, the prosecuting attorney, Melinda Katz, won’t drop the charges. 

What’s next? Raids of toy stores and movie studio warehouses?

BearingArms​.com stresses one aspect of the lunacy: Zlatkis is facing decades behind bars for heaping toy guns while thugs arrested “for actually shooting someone are quickly returning to the streets.”

The guns are fake, and the charges too — if only this story were fake! Unfortunately, it is the believable kind of unbelievable. In the increasingly creedal crusade against guns, the kookier, more cultish element appears to dominate.

The DA and everyone else pursuing this case after the guns had been examined are the ones who should face charges for hounding this woman — not that exercising the right to keep and bear fully functional arms should be a life-​destroying offense, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Popular Second Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism

Assault on Second Amendment Ricochets

guns, 2nd Amendment, Virginia, Washington, gun rights,

Were gun owners expected to roll over and play dead?

After the November 2019 election, Democrats took over the Virginia statehouse. A slew of gun-​control bills were soon in the works, including proposals for expanded background checks, a ban on “assault” weapons, limits on magazine capacity, and seizure of legally owned guns if the owner should be deemed “dangerous.”

Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms expect that the precedents lawmakers are working to establish would soon be expanded. And not without reason. After all, many advocates of gun control regard all private ownership of guns as “dangerous.”

In response, more than 100 Virginia counties have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, with many sheriffs voicing their support. In response to the response, the gun grabbers pledge to call in the National Guard if law enforcers don’t grab guns on command. 

The state’s attorney general has declared the Second Amendment resolutions null and void.

This sanctuary movement began before November’s election. Indeed, it began elsewhere.

Last January, I wrote about sheriffs in 25 out of Washington State’s 39 counties that have pledged not to enforce a citizen-​passed gun control measure while it is being challenged in court. David Campbell, on the board of Effingham County in Illinois, reports that his county was among the first in the country to pass a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution — in April 2018. Seventy Illinois counties have also passed such resolutions. Kentucky counties are following suit. Locales in Colorado, Oregon, and New Mexico are also on board.

Something has started.

As with state nullification of federal marijuana laws, the story isn’t over: a major  constitutional conflict approaches.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

guns, 2nd Amendment, Virginia, Washington, gun rights,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
education and schooling Second Amendment rights

Finna Be Lit?

safe2tell, tip, guns, gun control,

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. 

After the horrific Columbine school shooting spree of 1999, “Safe2Tell” was invented to provide students, parents and schools a telephone/​online interface (including iOS and Android) to report suspicious gun-​related behavior.

But the devil is in the … ideas ricocheting in the heads of the people doing the implementing.

A student of a Loveland, Colorado, high school posted to social media his excitement about going shooting with his mother, with photos of several handguns and an AR-​15. He expressed his enthusiasm with “Finna be lit,” which, Jay Stooksberry of Reason explains, means “going to have a fun time.”

Somebody anonymously alerted the Safe2Tell system, and the police stopped by the lad’s home while he was still out shooting. 

Was the anonymous notice earnest? Or was it, instead, something far more ominous? Kids have dubbed the alert system “Safe2Swat,” referring to “swatting,” which, The Complete Colorado explains, “is a term that is used when someone deceptively sends police and other emergency services to another person’s address through false reporting of an emergency or criminal action.”

Though the police were quick to dismiss the worry, the local school was not. “The following morning,” as Stooksberry tells the tale, the lad’s mother “received a voicemail from the Thompson Valley School District, stating that, until further notice, her son was not allowed to return to school.”

While the administration finally relented, its handling of the situation led to the student being harassed at school by other students.

Who may have “swatted” him in the original report.

Not a fun time — “finna be NOT lit”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

safe2tell, tip, guns, gun control,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
crime and punishment Second Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

Resisting Registration

Caldara, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, Colorado

Jon Caldara won’t register his guns. He also won’t remain silent about his refusal.

He has lots of company in Boulder, Colorado, with respect to the former, if not the latter, form of resistance — his unwillingness to compromise his right to bear arms.

The town recently began requiring owners of “assault weapons” to either ditch them or register them with the Boulder police. Owners choosing registration must submit to background checks “to ensure that the weapon holder is legally able to be in possession of the firearm.” If you pass, you get certificates acknowledging rightful ownership.

But if you lose the certificates, apparently you lose your ownership rights.

The city defines an “assault weapon” as a “semi-​automatic center-​fire rifle” or a “semi-​automatic center-​fire pistol” with various characteristics. In short, the target is “ugly guns,” as foes of gun control sometimes put it. (“Non-​assault” weapon: papier-​mâché weapon.)

Many Boulder citizens are quietly refusing to comply with the mandates. They “see this as a registry,” according to Lesley Hollywood, executive director of Rally for Our Rights.

Caldara, head of the Independence Institute, is speaking out despite the risk. Why? Because “somebody has to.… In this town that spouts tolerance for alternative lifestyles … when it comes to a lifestyle they don’t like, there is no tolerance … Tolerance means tolerating things you dislike, that you find scary.”

This idea goes even deeper than tolerance, though. It’s about “freedom” and “rights.” 

There is nothing frightening about Mr. Caldara’s unregistered guns, but much to fear from Boulder officials assaulting his rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Caldara, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, Colorado
Categories
Common Sense First Amendment rights national politics & policies Second Amendment rights

Free Designs

3d printing, gun, gun rights, Second Amendment, First Amendment, gun control

The relationship between the First and Second Amendments is closer than commonly believed.

This is especially clear in the 3D gun printing story, the subject of yesterday’s Common Sense, “Progressive Designs.” As I finished the copy, a news story broke: U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik “muzzled Defense Distributed with a court order,” as Declan McCullagh puts it. 

And then, as McCullagh goes on, a mirror site appeared. Though Cody Wilson, the man behind Defense Distributed, immediately took his plans offline, “the Calguns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and other civil rights groups” published plans for “AR-​15, AR-​10, Ruger 10 – 22, Beretta 92FS, and other firearms” on their sites.

This made my footnote especially relevant, for it was there that I noted that “plans like this have been available on the not-​exactly-​easy-​to-​access Dark Web for some time.” And now Cody Wilson’s precise “freely downloadable computer-​aided design (CAD) files,” though “dark” on his site, are bright elsewhere.

McCullagh admits that though it is certainly “possible that Defense Distributed may lose this legal skirmish and be prevented from returning its instructions to the DEFCAD site,” since such plans are now everywhere, and not easily stoppable, constitutionally, the “Second Amendment, it turns out, is protected by the First.”

Which is, of course, natural enough — for the Second Amendment’s protections of self-​defense has held power-​lusting politicians at bay, keeping Americans freer than citizens anywhere else. What other country has better free speech protections?

All freedoms help each other, reinforce each other.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
meme

The Deadliest Mass Shooter

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as “the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder”. Government-​sponsored large-​scale killings for racial or political  reasons would be considered democide under Rummel’s definition. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition.

He put the total number of people killed by governments during the 20th century at 262,000,000 of which he says 148,000,000 were killed by communist regimes

  1. Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

I BACKGROUND

2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-​Twentieth Century Democide

II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal RussiaReferences Index

 

More information here

R.J. Rummel’s published work listed here

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

10 Out of 10

Muslim, terrorist, Jihadist, guns, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, illustration, meme

10 out of 10 terrorist Jihadists agree…

American gun rights must be restricted!

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Second Amendment rights

Second Amendment People

Donald Trump, 2nd Amendment, gun rights, Hillary Clinton, assasination

Donald Trump states things in a manner simultaneously ambiguous and incendiary.

Of course, he has help from the media, the Clinton camp and other embittered opponents, all elated to act as firestorm propellants … through as many 24-​hour news cycles as possible.

At a rally this week, Trump claimed that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint justices to the Supreme Court committed to undermining our individual right to bear arms. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he told the crowd, before adding, off-​the-​cuff, “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The Clinton campaign and much of the media (but I repeat myself) immediately took this as a clear call to Second Amendment activists to … well, summarily execute Mrs. Clinton.

A leap? As Hillary would say, “Let’s unpack this.”

Would Mrs. Clinton curtail gun rights as Trump charges? She recently told Fox News that she would not choose justices seeking to overturn the High Court ruling in the Heller case, which interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual gun right.

Do I trust her? Stop laughing and read on.

Was the Donald attempting to incite violence against Hillary? No.

But what should be the people’s response were a future president or court to declare our right to defend ourselves null and void?

Remember, musket-​armed American patriots met the British redcoats at Lexington and Concord for the shot heard ’round the world. Why? Specifically to stop the Brits from rendering the colonists defenseless by confiscating their arms and ammunition.

The implication? Clear.

So, with a chill down the back of our necks, let’s hone and redouble our peaceful support for our most basic right, self-defense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, 2nd Amendment, gun rights, Hillary Clinton, assasination

 

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

What Doesn’t Fly

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

After the Orlando massacre, isn’t it time to get guns out of the hands of … licensed security guards?

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in The Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company.

Mateen’s government credentials included “a Florida state-​issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.” Twice, he was investigated by the FBI, in 2013 and again in 2014, and cleared — investigations closed.

Should we talk about security failures?

Instead, a filibuster by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and a sit-​in protest by House Democrats changed the channel to gun control. The Senate voted on four bills that threatened more than the Second Amendment. Our Fifth Amendment rights to due process were also in the sights of crusading Democrats and appeasing Republicans and still are.

Not to mention the Ninth Amendment, freedom to do all manner of things, including travel.

Hillary Clinton says that “if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” Yet, the problem comes in government simply declaring someone too dangerous to fly or to buy a gun, without ever publicly bringing a charge — you know, with evidence — much less convicting that person of a crime.

Having a government agent place a name on a secret list doesn’t even approximate due process of law. And, accordingly, doesn’t justify stripping a person of fundamental liberties.

Terrorism is terrifying … but not any more so than politicians who, in pursuit of their political agendas, don’t think twice about our freedoms or their constitutional limitations.

It’s not all right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Anti-​Gun Barrage

guns, anti-gun, second amendment, Common Sense, illustration

America’s would-​be gun-​grabbers, chiefly in the media and “on the left,” don’t know much about guns.

But they know what they hate.

After the horrific terrorist shooting spree in San Bernardino, MSNBC and CNN went on a shooting-​their-​mouths-​off spree, relentlessly pushing the need for stricter gun control. President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats echoed the theme.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks went full accelerando, unleashing a foul rant about how “we” are the terrorists and “we” are letting “us” get away with mass murder “every week,” ignoring the statistics that murder rates have gone down, are still going down, and that the rest of the world is being hit with mass shootings too, mainly from Muslim radicals.

When the news came out that the perps were, indeed, Muslim, the barrage of anti-​gun talk didn’t stop, though their intellectual ammunition had fizzled.

The president went further off his rocker, calling the guns he wanted to ban “powerful” — though they are of lower caliber than many handguns — while Hillary Clinton talked about the need to ban “assault rifles.”

As has been noted by others, “assault rifle” only means what anti-​gun folks say it means, and what they designate as assault weapons are not (contrary to their constant implications) the equivalent of machine guns (which have been illegal for citizen ownership for a long, long time).

Being scared of scary-​looking guns is no excuse not to be able to define them. While it would be good to reduce incentives for folks to “go postal” or to commit terroristic acts, we aren’t going to prevent mass shootings by a simple prohibitionary or mere regulatory regime.

That’s for scare-​mongers to push. And us to resist.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

guns, anti-gun, second amendment, Common Sense, illustration