A recent court case in California could have long reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the way firearms can be sold to the public.
The case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, has not gotten a lot of attention, but could drastically impact the ability of individuals to sell firearms in private party sales. As it stands, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a victory for those who wish to limit gun and firearm sales.
In the case, an individual wanted to open a full-service firearms shop; the intended location fell into a zone that required a conditional permit. In this location, a conditional permit is needed to open a gun shop near a school, daycare, residential area, liquor store or other firearms location. In short, the current law makes it very difficult to open a facility at all, since pretty much every location in the county is near one of the outlawed facilities or near a residential neighborhood.
The business owner challenged the ordinance, but was struck down by the court. Both the original decision and the appeal ruled in favor of the county, restricting the shop owners second amendment rights. As the plaintiff and business owner pointed out, restricting their ability to open a shop at all also prevented local citizens from purchasing firearms, potentially impacting their Second Amendment rights as well.
Should the plaintiff wish to appeal, the case could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would address whether the county’s ordinance and the court ruling were truly constitutional. The argument that prospective customers might not be able to buy firearms is not at the heart of the case; there are other gun shops nearby — the county could be infringing upon the owner’s Constitutional rights.
California’s 9th Circuit is already well-known for supporting laws and rulings that limit the rights of gun owners. In recent years, the court has upheld restrictive concealed carry laws and with this recent case, restricted the rights of business owners as well. Will this be the case that requires the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify what rights individuals have to sell firearms and establish businesses under the Second Amendment?
As more and more locales seek to restrict rights, particularly in Democrat led areas, it may be time for the highest court in the nation to make rulings that clarify the protections the Constitution holds for law abiding citizens.
They’ll just keep battering away at common-sense language until nothing means what it says. Much as the Communists do with rights.
Gee, I wonder if there’s a connection somewhere?
My jaw hit the floor when I heard the news.
Coming directly from the U.N.’s own website, I was furious to find out that the second largest direct funder of their global gun ban is American taxpayers like you and me.
Figures going back to the Obama administration show hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from our own government towards promoting the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”
And sadly, those funds haven’t slowed down since President Trump has taken office.
Could it just be oversight? Or could it be entrenched holdovers from the Obama administration willfully blocking President Trump from knowing this is going on?
Either way, it is unacceptable that we are continuing to fund this global gun ban.
If fully implemented in the United States, our Second Amendment would be put on life support, and it would take years to undo the damage.
Their goal is to raise $125,000 by Thursday, September 28th.
With those funds, they are going to run an ad blitz designed to get the attention of President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Everything from mail and email, to state-of-the-art online programs designed to identify and mobilize Second Amendment supporters, will be utilized.
But a program like this will cost a lot of money, and that’s why I’m emailing you today.
I really don’t know what you can afford, but I’m hoping you help out my good friends at the National Association for Gun Rights by digging deep to help fund their vital program.
You see, the anti-gun global elites are breathing a sigh of relief.
Even with their anti-gun cheerleader Hillary Clinton not in the presidency, they are able to keep their yearly check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer — which they are using to work towards global implementation of the Treaty.
In fact, the anti-gun global elites just got back from a posh set of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, where they schemed about ways to implement their anti-gun agenda world-wide.
They know that as long as U.S. money keeps flooding in and our signature stays intact they will have their way eventually.
And even if implementation isn’t possible under President Trump, they are fully prepared to wait for someone like (God forbid) Senator Elizabeth Warren to take over the White House.
In the meantime, they can get by on the hundreds of thousands in U.S. funds they will accumulate by then.
And one important way to slow them down is immediately cutting off our funds to the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.”
Frankly, I think President Trump would be wise to cut off a lot, maybe even all, funding to the United Nations given its long history of anti-American activity . . . but that’s a subject for another day.
Today, I hope you will stand with me in at least cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N.’s global gun ban scheme.
After reading through the details of the Treaty, it’s hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.
Perhaps the worst of the Treaty’s provisions can be found in Article V, which mandates countries establish a “National Control List” — or a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!
You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.
And the U.N. is already plotting their next step — developing new “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS).
Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty.” Introductory language already includes:
*** Mandated national “screening” for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re “competent” enough to own a gun;
*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any “properly-licensed” individual may legally own;
*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;
*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense — unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.
And with U.S. funding continuing to support this treaty, the global anti-gun elites are convinced that the U.S. will come on board with full implementation.
As one anti-gun world leader stated:
“[W]e expect the U.S. to abide by the Treaty even if ratification will take some time.”
That’s why the immediate defunding of this treaty is so important, and why I asked you to make such a generous contribution.
But if $75 is just too much for you at this time, I understand. The only reason I am asking for so much is because I know first-hand, as a U.S. Senator, just how effective the National Association for Gun Rights is.
Every cent they receive goes directly towards protecting and restoring the Second Amendment in our great country.
Whatever you give, I would just like to thank you for your dedication to liberty, and the Second Amendment.
United Stated Senator (R-KY)
P.S. I was shocked and angered to find out that the United Nation’s “Small Arms Treaty” is largely funded by U.S. tax payers like you and me.
That’s more than every country in the world with the exception of Japan.
One of the most wise people I know says this.
Because the only thing constant is change.
It would make sense that law enforcement especially should keep up on the latest in court decisions, and how they might affect their performing their job!
Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing
to take blood from unconscious victim
Published on Aug 31, 2017Alex Wubbels, a nurse at University Hospital in Salt Lake City, was arrested after explaining to police that she couldn’t draw a blood sample from an unconscious person. A Salt Lake City police detective asked for a blood sample. After explaining to the detective that the police needed a warrant, consent from the unconscious patient or that the patient needed to be under arrest before the blood sample could be drawn, she was arrested.
(from Liberty Headlines)
(LifeZette) The U.N. issued an “early warning” Wednesday for the United States, urging that the government take immediate action to confront white supremacy following the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
But the warning and call for the U.S. government to act contained a little-noticed last paragraph, urging the U.S. to make sure that the “rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly” are not exercised to deny rights or freedom to others and pressing the U.S. government to “ensure that such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech and racist crimes.”
But as many legal scholars have noted, there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment; that is, the government cannot limit a person’s speech because it is considered hateful towards any person or group.
The United Nations hasn’t been valid for years. Maybe it’s never been valid. Many of the international wars have been started or escalated by the U.N., which seems to have few teeth when it comes to individual liberties.
And then there’s THIS:
Members of The United Nations Human Rights Council
TERM EXPIRES ON
|Bolivia (Plurinational State of)||2017|
|Republic of Korea||2018|
|United Arab Emirates||2018|
|Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)||2018|
|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland||2019|
|United States of America||2019|
Politics works in mysterious ways. The more firearm regulations former President Obama tried to push through Congress, the higher gun sales became. Obama himself was lampooned as “the best gun salesman on the planet” by some industry insiders.
Obviously, the threat of overbearing regulation has faded in the era of the Trump administration. While one may think that a loosening of the reins would encourage more gun sales, the exact opposite has occurred. Gun stocks are down, and so are profits.
What is the explanation?
For all of his bluster, Obama was actually able to do very little about regulating firearms during his time in office. Yes, he was successful in bolstering the amount of total background checks processed. However, the Congress blocked all of his traditional legislation on the issue, and his Executive Orders addressing the topic have been all but completely overturned.
As it turns out, Americans were buying more guns on the threat of gun regulation rather than on any actual policy. Because Americans thought that certain types of rifles and add-ons such as sidearm silencers would soon be difficult or impossible to get, they stocked up. With Trump, there is no talk of gun regulation. Second Amendment rights advocates are no longer in a frenzy thinking that gun rights will disappear in the near future, so the new additions to the cache can wait.
The second factor that may account for a drop in gun sales is a level of satiety in the market. When Americans stocked up on guns during Obama’s term, they really stocked up. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American under Trump believes that they have enough guns – for now.
The Trump slump is a serious issue for the firearms industry. Mid America Armament gun show sales have dropped 50%, with total sales down about 25% from Obama administration years. The former Smith & Wesson, now known as the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, had its stock price drop significantly on election day. Sturm Ruger faced similar losses in its stock price.
Financial analysts predicted firearm sales would take a hit as far back as November. Learn why in the video below.
~ Firearm Daily
“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!” (from a 1920’s Naval Academy magazine)
We political gun folks seem to become apoplectic when those in power even suggest possible gun control legislation. But we become complacent when the people in power seem to support gun rights.
Not so fast, there, Bucko! Historically, there have been a number or Republicans (Conservatives?) in power who signed in legislation which was antithetical to the Constitution, and that which is near-and-dear to us.
Tried to buy a newly-made European machine gun lately?
We must remain vigilant and (if we are able) support the marketplace.
Lest more of our rights whither or be taken away!
(CNSNews.com) – Seizing on the outrage at President Donald Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) announced Thursday that he is introducing articles of impeachment against the president, saying Trump “has failed the presidential test of moral leadership.”
Cohen had already expressed that he had no confidence in the president, when he introduced the “Resolution of No Confidence” last month.
“I have expressed great concerns about President Trump’s ability to lead our country in the Resolution of No Confidence (H.Res. 456) that I introduced in July with 29 of my colleagues; however, after the President’s comments on Saturday, August 12 and again on Tuesday, August 15 in response to the horrific events in Charlottesville, I believe the President should be impeached and removed from office,” the congressman said in a statement on his website.
“Instead of unequivocally condemning hateful actions by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Klansmen following a national tragedy, the President said ‘there were very fine people on both sides.’ There are no good Nazis. There are no good Klansmen,” Cohen said.
“We fought a World War to defeat Nazis, and a Civil War to defeat the Confederacy. In reaction to the downfall of the Confederacy, and the subsequent passage of the Reconstruction Amendments to our constitution, the KKK embarked on a dastardly campaign to terrorize and intimidate African Americans from exercising their newly acquired civil rights,” he said.
“Subsequent incarnations of the Klan continued to terrorize African Americans with lynchings and civil rights murders such as the assassination of Medgar Evers and the killings of Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman and other civil rights workers,” Cohen added.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Trump said Tuesday that both sides in Charlottesville were violent and that not all the people protesting were white supremacists – some were just there to protest the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue.
“I will tell you something. I watched those very closely — much more closely than you people watched it, and you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now,” he said.
When asked whether he thinks what he called the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis, Trump said, “Those people — all of those people –excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Cohen, who is Jewish, said the protests by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in last weekend reminded him of Ku Klux Klan rallies and of Kristallnacht, also referred to as “the Night of Broken Glass,” when Nazis torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes, schools, and businesses, and killed close to 100 Jews. In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps.
“When I watched the videos from the protests in Charlottesville, it reminded me of the videos I’ve seen of Kristallnacht in 1938 in Nazi Germany. It appeared that the Charlottesville protesters were chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’ and ‘blood and soil,’ an infamous Nazi slogan, as they marched with torches that conjured up images of Klan rallies,” Cohen said.
“None of the marchers spewing such verbiage could be considered ‘very fine people’ as the President suggested. And it certainly appeared the participants were in lock-step,” he said. “Some of the white nationalist protesters were interviewed by the media, such as Sean Patrick Nielsen. He said one of his three reasons for being there was ‘killing Jews.’
“Another was Christopher Cantwell, one of the white nationalist leaders, who said he couldn’t watch ‘that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl’ and said he hoped ‘somebody like Donald Trump, but who does not give his daughter to a Jew,’ would lead this country,” Cohen said.
Cantwell was referring to the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who converted to Judaism.
“As a Jew and as an American and as a representative of an African American district, I am revolted by the fact that the President of the United States couldn’t stand up and unequivocally condemn Nazis who want to kill Jews and whose predecessors murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, and could not unequivocally condemn Klansmen whose organization is dedicated to terrorizing African Americans,” Cohen said.
“President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership. No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry. No moral president would ever question the values of Americans protesting in opposition of such actions, one of whom was murdered by one of the white nationalists,” he said.
“President Trump has shown time and time again that he lacks the ethical and moral rectitude to be President of the United States. Not only has he potentially obstructed justice and potentially violated the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, but he has also shown that he is incapable or unwilling to protect Americans from enemies, foreign and domestic,” Cohen said.
“Neo-Nazis and the KKK are domestic terrorists. If the President can’t recognize the difference between these domestic terrorists and the people who oppose their anti-American attitudes, then he cannot defend us,” he said.
Most of you know I am not a supporter of the current President. I believe he is a ‘populist’, not unlike Huey Long, who rode the Silent Majority into the White House, in part because there were so many questions of character surrounding his opposition.
And, in a rough comparison, I do prefer him to her as the Chief Executive. (Hobson’s choice?)
Having said that, do the President’s actions (or inactions) rise to the level of Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, that is other High Crimes and misdemeanors?
He has consistently, and for years, disavowed the KKK and their fellow travelers. The fact he didn’t do it again quickly enough for the Left suggests ONLY a political votive for these articles of impeachment.
And, even though I am not a fan (and wish the President were more libertarian!) I wish they’d leave him alone to do his job of further draining the swamp.
(Perhaps those who attack him incessantly are swamp denizens? Who knows?)
My good friend, veteran (and sometime blogger) Donovan posted this on Facebook, with the following comment:
Well. This is interesting. I agree with this. When even Al Jazeera says you’ve gone too far, I sit up and take notice. This applies to BOTH sides of the political aisle.
In 1943, the US War Department released this video to tell Americans not to fall for fascist rhetoric. Share this video if you’ve heard language like this recently.
I don’t mind saying, watching this made me a little misty…
Certainly, we should stand up for American Values. And one of these values is Individual Liberty for All.
(My apologies to Donovan and Tom. In an earlier post, I confused you two…)
This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Ask Your Representative to support the Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
IT’S ABOUT TIME!
Where were bills like this when the various ‘assault weapon bans’ were introduced? Of course, the political climate has changed.
Let’s support bills like this before the pendulum swings back again the other way!
The truly sad part is if State and federal legislators truly followed their oaths, none of this would be necessary.
(from Tamara, via FB)
· Carmel, IN ·
If you carry a gun, you should know that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that you have relinquished your rights under the Fourth Amendment (contrary to the holding of the Indiana Supreme Court).
Tom Palmer lectures on modern threats to liberalism and individualism, exploring the philosophical roots of these threats and explaining the danger they pose. He touches on the theocratic threat of Islamism and the leftist threat of identity politics, but the bulk of the discussion focuses on the recent re-emergence of the type of nationalist, racist collectivism previously exhibited by fascists in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.
The slides associated with Palmer’s lecture are posted on SlidesLive.
I’m a ‘conservative’ libertarian. I disagree with the National (Libertarian) Party on a number of points, mostly regarding open borders.
But, I still believe all liberty-loving folks need to band together, regardless of minor sticking points, to battle the evils of Statism.
Lest we lose it all over infighting!