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?
Well, today I get to pick up my ‘films (‘from my last MRI and PET scan) and deliver them to the surgical center miles away, wherein this coming Monday I get to have another MRI (using those as maps) to obtain yet another MRI and lymph node biopsy.
The hope is the diversity of the samples will provide a better sample with which to produce a more precise chemotherapy cocktail with which to treat the lymphoma.
Hopefully, this can be concocted and administered later this week, or early next week.
(Just out of curiosity, why do the doctor’s rely on their patients to be messengers-some of whom are weak and ill?)
While they are in there, they they will also be doing an angiogram – just because they found a tiny problem they want to check.
Things aren’t complicated enough…
The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”
Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”
There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.
Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.
Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?
The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.
The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.
~ Firearm Daily
While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.
As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent, If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried. Or weight of weapons. Or permissible calibers…
This is not about GUN CONTROL.
It’s about CONTROL!
(from Liberty Headlines)
(Zero Hedge) President Trump was crucified by the mainstream media a few weeks back after hosting an improvised press conference and saying there was “blame on both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counterprotester. The comments resulted in most of Trump’s advisory councils being disbanded, as CEO’s around the country pounced on the opportunity to distance themselves from the administration, and heightened calls from CNN for impeachment proceedings.
The problem is that while Trump’s delivery probably could have been a bit more artful, the underlying message seems to be proving more accurate with each passing day and each new outbreak of Antifa violence.
As Politico points out today, previously unreported FBI and Department of Homeland Security studies found that “anarchist extremist” group like Antifa have been the “primary instigators of violence at public rallies” going back to at least April 2016 when the reports were first published.
RELATED: Paul Ryan Spokeswoman Finally Condemns Antifa…AFTER Pelosi Does
Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO…
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI…
How may I politely respond to this?
ABOUT F’N TIME!
Now, how about adding Black Lives Matter and all George Soros’ funded entities (and their fellow travelers)? Throw the RICO statutes at then and seize their assets!
I know, too much to ask…
A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”
Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.
The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.
Whatever happened to DUE PROCESS?
Of course, Oregon is rapidly becoming California North. And Washington isn’t far behind. Seems the pioneer spirit that brought folks westerly stopped at Idaho, Utah and Arizona.
This seems to be prevalent on both coasts.
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, 2017
Alex 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.
Apparently numerous State court decisions have determined taking blood from an an unconscious person without permission is illegal (without a warrant?) and this has been further reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One would assume this officer (and ALL officers) should know this!
The latest I read about this is punitive measures will be taken against the officer involved.
This is of great personal interest to me. After the accident of March 18, 1995 (this court decision was not yet in effect) both me and my 12-year-old daughter were subjected to involuntary blood draws, while we were unconscious!
The guy who hit our car (who was uninjured) was NOT subjected to any blood test, as the responding officer didn’t think it necessary!
(from The Art of Manliness)
Click on the above link – it’s a substantial article!
Slicing the pie
Of course, I suspect most of you out there have a passing familiarity with how to do this. I certainly do. When I owned my two-bedroom, one bath 740 sq ft house (for 18 years), I was a victim of three burglaries! And I cleared the house after each one.
And I was WRONG in so doing!
THIS IS WHAT THEY PAY THE POLICE FOR! My ego and sense of violation got the better of me. AND, I taught in every one of my classes to leave the scene and call the police.
(Those who cannot do teach?)
Still, it’s good to have this knowledge. What if no police are available?
But, regardless, it should only be done in exigent circumstances…
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!
(from Liberty Headlines)
(Henry Rodgers, Daily Caller News Foundation) CNN published a story Wednesday calling “ordinary” supporters of President Donald Trump white supremacists and blaming them for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Va.
CNN Writer/Producer John Blake (CNN screen shot)
“‘White supremacists by default‘: How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible,” CNN blamed Trump voters of helping advance white supremacy, saying the non-racist, “ordinary” Trump voters are giving white supremacists room to operate and are the reason violence erupted in Charlottesville.
“It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate,” CNN’s John Blake wrote, crediting one other professor and “others” for contributing to the story.
You know I’m not a big fan of the President. I am also not a fan of ad hominem attacks (even though in my catagories and tags, I refer to the subject of this article as idiots. 😛 )
But painting everyone who supported the President with such a broad brush is ridiculous! And just wrong. Every Trump supporter I know is not a White supremacist, just as every Hillary supporter I know is not a communist.
And this is not the first time they have crossed the line!
THIS is CNN
THIS is CNN, Part Two
I’m thinking of no longer watching them, or relying on them for ‘honest’ reporting.
(Oh, wait – I did that years ago!)
(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?)