(Firearm Daily)
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?
(from SecondAmendmentInsider.com)
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wants officials at West Point to revoke the commission of an officer who tweeted photos of himself with pro-communist messages while in uniform.
Rubio wrote to acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy this week, calling the images an “extreme embarrassment” for the U.S. military, according to the Military Times.
“It is extremely concerning that someone who so often expressed such hostile views towards the United States’ system of government was able to obtain a commission,” he wrote. “(His) revolutionary ideas were harbored long before he was commissioned as an Army second lieutenant. Were West Point administrators or faculty aware of his views and behavior?”
In one photo, 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone is seen wearing a Che Guevara shirt under his uniform. In another photo, he reveals that the words “communism will win” are written under his hat. The photos were taken at his graduation in May 2016.
Read More
Funny, I would have thought him long gone, by now.
(As well as the American and World History professors who either taught or accepted such drivel.)
Sorry, civil libertarians, the military has different standards than the an average citizen. This is not a football team.
Do we want such graduates leading our men and women into battle? For once, I agree with the Senator.
(from FB and Independent Journal Review)
There have been four arrests in the wake of the vandalism of a Confederate statue Monday night in Durham, North Carolina.
Takiyah Fatima Thompson, Dante Emmanuel Strobino, Ngoc Loan Tran and Peter Hull Gilbert have all been arrested in relation to the unlawful tearing down of the prominent Durham statue.According to local media, the four could be in for big fines if found guilty:
All three are charged with disorderly conduct by injury to a statue and damage to real property, which are both misdemeanors, and participation in a riot with property damage in excess of $1,500 and inciting others to riot where property damage exceeds $1,500, which are both felonies.However, those arrested have something other than potential big fines in common. It turns out that at least three of them are members of the Communist Party. This seldom-reported fact is inconvenient to the narrative that the protest were spontaneous. The protests were in fact organized in large part by the communist Workers World Party, which the arrested members belong to.
According to ABC News, Workers World Party is fighting to bring about a socialist America (emphasis added):
It’s a communist party that was founded in 1959 by a group led by Sam Marcy of the Socialist Workers Party. The group supports myriad issues including anti-racism to anti-imperialist struggles.
The party is active in the Black Lives Matter movement and supports the struggles of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community. The group says they’re “dedicated to organizing and fighting for a socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.”The group said it destroyed the statue hoping to “take down white supremacy.”(more at IJR link, including some lovely photographs of the miscreants!)
Agendas much, Lenin’s useful idiots?
It’s amazing to me how a small group of people (who obviously have the time to protest and vandalize) can accomplish such things. HOW do they live? WHERE does there funding come from?
Hmmm. Let me guess…
(So much for the magical ‘this won’t hurt management or the owners’ argument regarding State Socialism – Guffaw)
A ‘shocking’ discovery was made when a pair of researchers at Harvard Business School decided to analyze the impact of higher minimum wages in San Francisco on restaurant failures…hint: they went up.
Entitled “Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit“, this latest study on the devastating consequences of minimum wage was conducted by Dara Lee Luca and Michael Luca and concluded that each $1 increase in the minimum wage results in a roughly 4-10% increase in the likelihood of a restaurant going out of business.
In this paper, we investigate the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay Area. We find suggestive evidence that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall increase in the rate of exit.
This paper presents several new findings. First, we provide suggestive evidence that higher minimum wage increases overall exit rates among restaurants, where a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit, although statistical significance falls with the inclusion of time-varying county-level characteristics and city-specific time trends. This is qualitatively consistent but smaller than what Aaronson et al. (forthcoming) find; they show that a 10 percent raise in the minimum wage increases firm exit by approximately 24 percent from a base of 5.7 percent. Differences in sample and specifications may account for the differences between our study and theirs. (from ZeroHedge, in part)
link to the whole article and graphs
…And while we enjoy the affirmation of a conclusion that we’ve presented multiple times from such a reputable organization as Harvard, one which pretty much anyone could deduce with the application of just a moderate amount of common sense, for some reason the following scene from “Good Will Hunting’ comes to mind.
“You dropped $150,000 on a fucking education you could’ve got for a $1.50 of late charges at the public library.”
h/t Facebook
(Naw – no political agenda attached here…) 😛
I attended a small, non-political meeting of personal interest to me yesterday morning. One of the ‘rules’ is we don’t discuss politics – AFTER the event begins.
BEFORE it began, however, one of the participants began whining how later Saturday morning there was scheduled to be a ‘Climate March’. I inquired if it was for or against the climate.
She didn’t get it.
I saw THIS, this morning on Free North Carolina…
REVOLUTION: Leftists March With Communist Flags in Front of the White House
Via Billy
Leftists commies marched today to protest ‘climate change justice’ whatever that means, and did so by marching with Communist flags in front of the White House.
I guess an ideology that killed over 100 million people will bring justice to the United States. Leftists don’t even hide their support for Communism anymore. These people are historically illiterate, most likely a product of ‘higher education’.
More with video @ The Gateway Pundit
(joke, or sarcasm, depending on your mood)
(from my friend Joel @ TUAK)
And the sign over the bread line read, “Honk if you love Socialism…”
…but there were no cars, because there was no fuel.
Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.
In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights[*] said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.
Yup. The honchos in the Venezuelan government were embarrassed by bread lines. So, in a brilliant example of historical illiteracy – dovetailing nice with their economic illiteracy – they arrested a bunch of bakers.
Yeah. We need more government controls here.
Also I’m reminded I need to buy more flour when I’m in the big town next week…
—
*Dig this: The National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights is apparently responsible for arresting people who get caught exercising what, in a sane society, would be their socioeconomic rights. Must be socialism.
AH! Government at it’s best! I would have said ‘at HER best’, but that would be insulting all femininity.
(a sequel, as it were, to Lincoln Lenin, as President’s Day is fast upon us…)
(from Free North Carolina)
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.
—Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.
—Charles Dana, managing editor of the New YorkTribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
—Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864ON DECEMBER 3, 1861, a former one-term congressman, who had spent most of the past dozen years studying dissident economic theories, mounting challenges to the existing political order and proposing ever more radical responses to the American crisis, delivered his first State of the Union address as the sixteenth president of the United States.
Berlin (CNSNews.com) – The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.
The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the Czech news agency ctk reported.
The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.
The move comes despite the European Commission’s ongoing advocacy for stricter gun control laws in Europe.
The Czech parliament blocked the E.C.’s earlier attempt to introduce tighter European gun laws, after the attack in Nice.
While the E.U. Firearms Directive and Czech laws already prohibited private ownership of fully automatic weapons, the commission’s initial campaign aimed to further narrow the E.U. regulations to rule out semi-automatic and self-loading weapons – which make up about half of firearm ownership in the Czech Republic – and limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.
The Czech parliament rejected the proposal, arguing that such tougher gun laws would not be the solution as terror attackers only use illegally-held weapons. The government derided the E.C.’s plans as “legally ambiguous and in some cases excessive.”
The E.C. was last month finally able to reach agreement by all member states, including the Czechs, after allowing exceptions for hunters and gun collectors and only banning a select few semi-automatic weapons.
“Mass shootings and terrorist attacks in Europe have highlighted the dangers posed by certain firearms circulating across the E.U.,” it said in a statement, but also expressed regret at the concessions it had to make, such as not banning all semi-automatic weapons or limiting magazines to ten rounds.
Despite the E.U.’s concerns, the latest Czech proposal argues that armed citizens would be the best defense against terror attacks.
In a statement on Monday, Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said that amending the constitution would reduce the chances of attacks by enabling “active and rapid defense.”
Citizens should be given the right to use firearms to defend their “life, health and property” and contribute to “ensuring the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the country, he said.
As December’s truck attack in Berlin demonstrated, security forces have not been able to guarantee the full prevention of attacks. In light of the threat, the Czech ministry argued that the proposed amendment would help to prevent the loss of lives by allowing civilians to contribute to “internal order and security.”
The proposal is scheduled to be considered in March. To pass, it must be agreed upon by at least three-fifths of all deputies and three-fifths of all senators present.
The exact details of the interior ministry’s proposal are still to be worked out, and for now simply indicates that it is subject to “terms and details prescribed by law.”
However, it appears likely to expand the range of “genuine reasons” for possession of a firearm to include those of “national security” – and thus, theoretically, allow anyone to own a gun.
Gun ownership is currently legal in the Czech Republic. As per E.U. regulations, firearms are required to be registered, and Czech law also requires a license and a genuine reason to possess a firearm, such as for hunting or personal protection.
Gun holders are also required to pass a background check which considers factors such as mental health and criminal history.
Unlike gun ownership, there are no laws explicitly covering civilian use of a firearm in self-defense, nor in regards to terror attacks specifically. Such an incident would fall under general criminal provisions regarding self-defense, which may allow the use of a gun, but only in cases of absolute necessity (including the threat of “imminent” attack).
Self-defense case law in the Czech Republic has applied only to violent assaults such as rape and robberies, and not to terrorism. It is not clear yet how the constitutional amendment would, if at all, build on or deviate from this established law.
The country was shaken by a mass shooting in 2015, when 63-year-old Zdenk Ková fired on a group of 20 people, killing 8. Ková, had a gun holder’s license despite a history of misdemeanors and concerns over his mental state.
The incident prompted calls for a re-examination of Czech gun laws, but they are still considered among the most lax in the E.U., partly due to the fact semi-automatic weapon possession is allowed.
According to data collated by Gunpolicy.org, a firearm injury prevention NGO, an estimated 7.6 percent of Czech’s 10 million residents legally hold weapons, with 810,046 registered privately owned firearms in the country.
h/t Facebook
Perhaps the Czechs have a longer memory than most Europeans?. Nazis? Communists? Other forms of terror?
Of course, the French and most of the E.U. just doubled-down on restrictions for their citizenry subjects. Wanna bet the next European attack will be in another ‘gun-free’ zone?
About these “protests”…
I wonder if it’s just Soros or SEIU (famous for earlier OWS busings) or LaRaza? Or a coordinated effort by community organizers (outside agitators) in all these groups?
I was told by a liberal friend that it didn’t happen against Obama, because folks think Trump is more dangerous (!?) Different strokes, I guess. I thought Obama was/is plenty dangerous…
As for me, there have been Presidents and policies with whom/which I disagreed over the past 40 years. But, I couldn’t leave school – I’d have been suspended. And work? Fired.
Besides, I had and needed to keep my job! (I’m guess this IS a job for many of these folks!)
(in part from Free North Carolina)
Via Billy
Paid fake protesters were bused in to the anti-Trump protests in Austin, Texas.
They must have spent a lot of Soros money on this operation.
There was a whole string of buses.
Everything they do is fake or paid for.
Or MORE crooked?
Or, is it just the Directors? (You choose)
Hoover’s FBI was (in)famous for being anti-communist, anti-civil rights, and very much ends-justify-the means (black bag jobs, COINTELPRO, illegal files on EVERYONE. Assassination?)
So much so when ‘Open Territory’ occurred (code for Hoover dying), it was reported the secret files were destroyed (yeah, right) and Congress passed legislation limiting the FBI Director’s job to ten years. (Hoover was the FBI Director for 48 years!)
And we went through 10 directors since Hoover’s death, the eleventh (and current) being James Comey.
And post-Hoover we had illegal wiretapping, intelligence gathering, false flag operations, Ruby Ridge, Waco ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
But, according to the TV show (the FBI) and the movie (the FBI Story), the FBI was alleged to be a band of stalwart patriots, fighting communists, anarchists and criminals with equal aplomb.
And now we have Comey, a blue-ribbon candidate who seems to have dropped the ball on prosecuting Secretary of State Clinton.
from Free North Carolina:
James Comey’s Dereliction
Via Billy
Of course the Obama administration was not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton
When considering the recommendation of Federal Bureau of Investigation director James B. Comey against a prosecution of Hillary Clinton over the e-mail scandal, bear two things in mind.
First, for all their pretensions about the insulation of law enforcement from politics, the FBI and the Department of Justice are agents of the executive branch. As a matter of constitutional law, the power they are delegated to exercise is the president’s, and they wield it at his pleasure. The highly ambitious men and women in coveted executive-branch leadership posts always have the option of honorably resigning if they find the president’s bidding too unsavory to do; but if they remain, they do what is expected of them.
More @ National Review Page 21
"Round up the usual suspects."
Guffaw in AZ 