Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Second Amendment

Why Are CCW Permit Holders Even More Law-Abiding Than Law Enforcement Officers?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, February 15, 2019: 

Those deciding to take the time and invest the money into obtaining their concealed carry (CCW) permits take their new responsibilities very seriously. On their person they now carry lethal power to maim or kill. In addition there is the great likelihood that the aftermath of a shooting, fatal or not, is going to cost them thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention much mental anguish.

That’s why the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has grown so rapidly. It declares that you don’t have to face the legal system alone. It helps pay some or most of the legal fees incurred following a self-defense incident, including a fee deposit paid to an attorney immediately after such an incident. It helps with bail, if necessary, and further funding assistance if a member is criminally charged or sued in civil court.

That’s why it isn’t a surprise – or shouldn’t be – that CCW permit holders hold themselves to a very high standard of conduct in public. Not only are they provably more law-abiding than members of the general public; they are much more law-abiding even than law enforcement officers!

It was Guy Smith, writing in his Gun Facts blog, who first alerted his readers to a study showing that

Keep reading…

More Guns, Less Crime: Concealed-carry Permit Holders More Law-abiding Than Police

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 14, 2019: 

More than 17 million Americans have obtained their concealed-carry permits, and about four out of every 10 of them carry a firearm with them at least some of the time.

This has been the cause of much angst among the anti-gun crowd, which still believes that more guns will equal more crime. Exactly the opposite has been proven to be the case.

It was Guy Smith, writing in his Gun Facts blog, who first alerted his readers to a study showing that “people with concealed carry licenses are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offences than the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.” Referring to another study, Smith noted that “the four-year violent crime arrest rate of CCW holders is 128 per 100,000 [but] for the general population it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime [than the general public].”

But it was John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, who went one step further:

Keep reading…

Latest Gun Death Scorecard From Giffords Is Grossly Misleading

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 11, 2019: 

For years the Giffords Law Center (GLC) has released its annual scorecard on how well states’ gun laws match its bias toward more infringement of the Second Amendment. It then “proves” that those infringements of law-abiding citizens’ rights reduce “gun deaths” in those states. Its latest release illustrates the point.

Consider its ranking of Wyoming, a state that historically has allowed its citizens maximum freedom in exercising their Second Amendment rights:

In 2018, Wyoming legislators put their constituents at risk by enacting a dangerous Stand Your Ground law and passing legislation allowing people with concealed carry permits to bring guns into places of worship.

 

The state has very weak gun laws and a remarkably high gun suicide rate. Wyoming could save lives by, among other things, passing universal background checks and imposing waiting periods on gun purchases.

On the other hand it ranks California as its “best state” in its survey:

Keep reading…

3D Gun Software Developer Sues New Jersey’s AG Over His Attack on Its First Amendment Rights

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 8, 2019:

Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed (which provides firearm-related software for 3D printers), was delighted when the Department of Justice relented last July in its attempt to shut him and his company down. Without fanfare the DOJ not only settled with Cody and his company, it agreed to pay a large part of his legal fees as well.

Cody celebrated and then put his people back to work on developing more software for firearms enthusiasts, saying: “I have developers for anything and everything, some of the best talent in the world.… It’s all ready to go. I have interested stakeholders [and] a large network [of supporters who] care about what I do.”

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal did not share in Cody’s victory. Instead he launched an attack on Wilson, his company, and the website that hosted his software. He frequently threatened Wilson publicly, declaring he would “come and get” him, and would “stop him” from exercising his newly resurrected First Amendment rights to freedom of speech over the Internet.

Grewal upped the ante on February 2 by sending this letter to Wilson’s company’s webhost Cloudfare:

Keep reading…

South Dakota Takes Every Word of the Second Amendment Seriously

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, February 1, 2019: 

This writer (who lives in the now dark blue state of Colorado) wishes his governor would sound more like South Dakota’s. Before signing into law a bill removing state requirements that a citizen must first obtain a permission slip before carrying a firearm concealed, Governor Kristi Noem tweeted:

Our Founding Fathers believed so firmly in our right to bear arms that they enshrined it into the Constitution. Tomorrow [January 31] I will sign SB47 into law. This constitutional carry legislation will further protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding South Dakotans.

It does a whole lot more than that.

First,

Keep reading…

South Dakota Allows Constitutional Carry, Mississippi Fights “Bump-stock” Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, January 2019: 

The day before signing South Dakota’s “constitutional carry” bill into law, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tweeted:

 Our Founding Fathers believed so firmly in our right to bear arms that they enshrined it into the Constitution. Tomorrow [Thursday] I will sign SB47 into law. This constitutional carry legislation will further protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding South Dakotans.

This echoed the sentiments of the bill’s sponsor, Senate President Pro Tempore Brock Greenfield: “We’re simply trying to create a situation in which we recognize that the Second Amendment is paramount and will not be infringed.”

SB47 does much more than that.

Keep reading…

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear First Gun Case Since 2010

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, January 23, 2019: 

For the first time in nearly a decade, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear on appeal a Second Amendment case. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, a District Court’s three-member panel ruled unanimously that New York City’s ban on transporting firearms outside the home was constitutional.

Although the issue is “transporting” (as in carrying a firearm in a sealed container to take to a gun range) as opposed to “carrying” or “bearing” a firearm in public, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler think’s “It’s the biggest open question in Second Amendment law today.”

The last time the Supreme Court considered gun laws, it left open the question of whether

Keep reading…

Ninety Percent of Guns Used in Crime Not Obtained From Gun Stores/Shows

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 14, 2019:  

The Department of Justice just updated its decades-old study asking criminals where they got the guns they used in committing the crime for which they were currently incarcerated. After asking 287,000 prisoners in 2016 where they got the gun they used, 90 percent of them “did not obtain it from a retail source” and less than one percent obtained it from a gun show.

Half of them obtained their firearm from the “underground” market, while just six percent said they stole it. The survey reported that “most of the remainder had obtained it from a family member or a friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

In other words, current or pending laws banning “assault weapons” (usually variants of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle) almost totally miss the mark,

Keep reading…

Banks, Credit Card Companies Should Prevent Citizens from Buying “Multiple Guns,” Says NYTimes

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 7, 2019:

Not happy with the progress being made by banks and credit-card companies in their move to restrict lending to gun manufacturers, Andrew Sorkin published his thinly veiled support for more surveillance of and restrictions on individual gun buyers in the New York Times in late December.

In his piece entitled “How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings,” Sorkin made clear his anti-gun worldview in the opening paragraph of the results of his Dealbook Investigation: “Omar Mateen used six credit cards to buy two guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition before he opened fire inside the Pulse nightclub [in June 2016].”

Sorkin rounded up evidence that other “mass shooters” had used credit cards to purchase firearms and accessories and concluded that “Many of the killers built their stockpiles of high-powered weapons with the convenience of credit. No one was watching.”

Now they should, said Sorkin. He took his “evidence” and called on the heads of a number of national banks who, he said, were horrified at what he had found. But they backed away from implementing any sort of tech wizardry that would target individuals buying too many firearms and too much ammunition in too short a period of time:

Keep reading…

Jon Caldera’s Noisy Defiance of Boulder’s Gun Ban is Costing Him

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, January 7, 2019: 

When the Boulder City Council unanimously passed a law banning possession of “assault” rifles, large magazines, and “bump stocks” last May, they likely knew it wouldn’t go down well with the pro-gun crowd. What they didn’t know was that they would be setting off a firestorm by pushing around the wrong guy: Jon Caldera.

As this writer noted here last month, Caldera, a popular radio show host and head of Denver’s Independence Institute, told the Boulder pols to take a hike:

My hometown of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move.

 

Let this column [which appeared in the Denver Post] serve as public notice: I will not comply….

 

Let it be known, like those who refused to go to the back of the bus, I will not surrender or destroy my guns, nor will I place my name on the government watch list.

Since then a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

Keep reading…

Left Ramps Up Attacks on Lead Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Boulder Gun Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 7, 2019:  

The day after Boulder enacted its anti-gun law in May banning “assault” rifles, large-capacity magazines and “bump stocks,” Jon Caldera joined with the Boulder (Colorado) Rifle Club, a member of the University of Colorado Shooting Team, and others to file suit against it.

The suit claimed the law violated numerous federal, state, and local laws, and for that Caldera and his school-age daughter are taking heat. Caldera said his daughter has been bullied at her school, “[You know,] the one with posters celebrating tolerance and diversity all over its walls.” Both teachers and students have “ganged up on her,” telling her that “her father is a murderer.”

Added Caldera:

I have a fifteen-year old daughter who’s already been bullied about this at school. She’s been yelled at; she’s been called a murderer.

 

My son has Down syndrome so he doesn’t understand this, but my daughter doesn’t want me to go to jail.

 

I’m concerned about the people I love being taunted because we’re a political minority.

The suit’s language was clear as well as combative:

Keep reading…

Violent Crime in Brazil is About to Drop Precipitously

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, January 2, 2019:  

Brazil has the highest rate of violent crime in Latin America and the eighth highest in the world. In Sao Paulo, a city of 12 million people, one in four reports that they have been held up at gunpoint at least once.

Along with this frightening crime wave, a weak economy (unemployment is at 12 percent) helped Jair Bolsonaro win election in October with 55 percent of the vote. Three days before his inauguration, he announced that his first effort would be to keep one of his key campaign promises: to expand his country’s gun laws. He tweeted: “By decree, we plan to guarantee the ownership of firearms by citizens without criminal records.”

That’s a far cry from the law presently in force (since 2003), which

Keep reading…

Decree by Brazil’s New President Keeps His Campaign Promise to Expand Gun Rights

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 1, 2019: 

Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who assumed his office on Tuesday, made many campaign promises. He supported his country’s national sovereignty and opposed abortion, affirmative action, and drug liberalization, while supporting closer relations with the United States and Israel. But his signature promise — supported by his famous finger-gun salute — is to liberalize his country’s gun laws. Since its enactment in 2003 Brazil’s murder rate has soared: Brazil has the highest homicide rate in Latin America and the eighth highest in the world.

Parallels to the U.S. president and the head of the National Rifle Association are obvious,

Keep reading…

Downloads of 3D-Printed Firearms Increase After Judge Tries to Stop Them

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 26, 2018: 

A federal judge’s ruling to limit the transfer of files allowing citizens to print their own guns using 3-D technology has resulted in exactly the opposite: The number of downloads of those files has exploded since his ruling in August.

It was Western Washington’s District Court Judge Robert Lasnik who ordered the settlement between the Justice Department and Cody Wilson’s company Defense Distributed to be suspended. He should have known better. He and other gun-grabbers such as New Jersey Governor Chris Murphy and Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey are trying to play catch-up and instead are falling farther and farther behind.

It isn’t that gun grabbers haven’t tried.

Keep reading…

Just How Does the ATF Plan to Enforce Its “Bump Stock” Ban?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, December 21, 2018:

Following the announcement of its “final rule” on banning possession of “bump stocks,” a Department of Justice official was asked how they intended to enforce it when it becomes effective in March. He replied:

We anticipate that the general public will be compliant with the law.

 

To the extent someone chooses not to comply with the law, we will treat this as we do with all firearms offenses. We will prioritize our resources to maximize public safety, focusing on those that pose the greatest threat. We will enforce the statute based on the circumstances of the individual case as we do with all firearms law.

Would officials from the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, usually referred to as the ATF) go door to door? He answered:

Keep reading…

Trump’s ATF Playing With Fire in Banning Bump Stocks

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 19, 2018:  

The day after retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for repeal of the Second Amendment back in March, President Trump tweeted: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY.”

On Tuesday, Trump’s acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said “WAY” by announcing the final rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) banning so-called bump stocks. He announced the agency’s rule by claiming that it was an “amendment” of an existing rule and not a new ruling per se and therefore didn’t need Congressional approval:

The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices — meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics — are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger….

 

The bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule … will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective [estimated to be March 21, 2019].

A senior official from the Department of Justice made clear that they intended to allow the ATF to enforce the law with every asset they had:

Keep reading…

A Million New Jersey Gun Owners Ignore State’s Magazine Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 17, 2018: 

When New Jersey passed its ban on possession of magazines containing more than 10 rounds in June, it gave the state’s million or so law-abiding gun owners 180 days to comply. The law provided five options: 1) modify the offending magazines so they could accept no more than 10 rounds; 2) “render the firearm [that accepts such magazines] inoperable”; 3) register firearms that cannot be “modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds”; 4) transfer the firearm or the magazine to “an individual or entity entitled to own or possess it”; or 5) surrender the firearm or the magazine to local law enforcement.

The million or so law-abiding gun owners selected option No.6: ignore the law and defy its enforcement.

The 180-day period expired on December 11, and not a single magazine has been turned in to any local law-enforcement agencies, according to responses obtained from Ammoland’s John Crump: “Ammoland reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey to see how they plan on enforcing the ban, and [to learn] what the turn-in numbers have been [as of December 14]. Like the New Jersey State Police, none of these departments have a concrete plan on how to proactively enforce the ban, and none had a single report of magazines being turned over.”

The penalty for being found in possession of one of the newly offending magazines is stiff: It’s a felony, with punishment consisting of up to 18 months in jail, and up to $10,000 in fines, or both.

When gun-hating liberals in the Colorado enclave known to some as “the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder” passed a law banning possession of “assault weapons,” “high-capacity” magazines, and “bump stocks” last May, gun owners reacted similarly. The New American covered the story and estimated that law-abiding citizens living in Boulder owned approximately 150,000 now-offending firearms. They needed to be “certified”under the law’s grandfather clause by December 27 or fines and jail time would be applied to those newly minted miscreants. As of December 1, the Boulder Police Department had certified just 85 of them.

Lest law-biding gun owners reading this think that New Jersey or Colorado are a long way from where they live, and therefore they have nothing to worry about, they should consider the disheartening and threatening move by numerous states to inflict similar injury onto them through “red flag” laws. They should further consider what their response will be when law enforcement shows up at their front door, either wit a demand to turn over offending magazines or relinquish their firearms under an ERPO — an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” — now the law in more than a dozen states with another dozen or so considering such laws.

The New American has reported on the dangers of ERPOs. One individual, Gary Willis, a resident of Ferndale, Maryland, was confronted with such a situation at 5 a.m. in early November. He resisted and it cost him his life.

Local papers covered the incident.Willis was asleep early Monday morning, November 5 when two officers from Anne Arundel County knocked on his door. A law-abiding gun owner, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a police department spokesman.They were there to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” and remove his legally owned firearms.

According to a police department spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.  

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.

FlexYourRights.com has a 38-minute video on YouTube that helps gun owners who take the risk of such a confrontation seriously. For those interested in a lawyer’s take on how to respond, one could consider purchasing Tim Baldwin’s “Police Contact: How to Respond” in DVD format for $20. Says Baldwin: “If a policeman believes you are guilty, being innocent may not be enough to keep you protected. There are many innocent people incarcerated in America’s prisons, or worse. Unfortunately, citizens themselves often help bring on improper conduct [by police] through their own ignorance of the law.”

This writer endorses Baldwin’s explanation. which is designed, as he says, to “keep you out of jail — or out of the morgue.”

Such presentations may still leave unanswered the question of how to respond when a law-enforcement official comes to the door with a warrant that clearly violates or ignores the strictures put in place by the Founders in the Fourth Amendment. How should he then respond? That question needs to be answered long before the doorbell rings.

According to Crump, New Jersey law-enforcement officials either have no plan to enforce the magazine law or aren’t willing to discuss it. Those departments he quizzed refused to answer, or responded with “We do not discuss law enforcement strategies.” 

On Bill of Rights Day, We Were Reminded That Venezuela Has no Second Amendment

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 17, 2018:

In an unhappy coincidence, the addition of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution in 1791 was celebrated on Saturday, the same day that Fox News reported on the lack of such protections in Venezuela that have allowed tyrants to subjugate their citizens to virtual enslavement.

Alan Gottlieb, serving as the executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), issued a statement on Saturday pointing to the uniqueness of the Bill of Rights and especially the importance of the Second Amendment in securing them, stating:“Despite the efforts of lobbying groups and some politicians, the Second Amendment has retained its position as the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights.The individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms protects all of the other rights.” Gottlieb added, “Our mission is that of any citizen who values the liberty and freedom our nation symbolizes above all other nations in the world.Our Bill of Rights is the envy of every other citizen of every other country.” Joining Gottlieb’s groups in the announcement was Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).

Gottlieb could have been speaking directly to two former citizens of Venezuela who have escaped the Marxist tyranny first installed by Hugo Chávez in 1999 and then expanded by his protégé, Nicolás Maduro after Chávez died in 2013. Now living outside the grasp of Maduro’s “collectivos” — motorcycle gangs hired, paid, and armed by him to“keep the peace” in the country’s barrios — Javier Vanegas, a former Venezuelan schoolteacher now exiled in Ecuador, and Omar Adolfo Zares Sanchez, a former mayor of a municipality in Venezuela, had their interviews published by Fox on the same day.

Said Vanegas: “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight. [Maduro’s] government security forces … knew they had no real opposition.… It was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Vanegas added that the people were too trusting of their government back in 2012 when the Chávez-controlled Venezuelan National Assembly enacted its “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law”with the explicit purpose of disarming the citizenry. Said Vanegas:

Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government.

Venezuelans … always hoped that our government would be non-tyrannical, a non-violator of human rights….

[But] if guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power — and had legal carry been a common thing — it would have made a huge difference.

Sanchez agreed: “Without a doubt, if there had been a balance of armed defense we could have stood up and stopped the oppression at the beginning.”

Without such a threat from an armed citizenry, Maduro’s tyranny has turned Venezuela from one of the most prosperous and free countries in South America into a virtual concentration camp run by Maduro’s thugs. The murder rate in the country is almost 100 per 100,000 (in the U.S. it is less than five), and the poverty rate is nearly 80 percent.

David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, stated the obvious: “Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government. The Venezuelan rulers … viewed citizen possession of arms as a potential danger to a permanent communist monopoly of power.”

Kopel’s comment calls to mind (in)famous statements by two historical tyrants over that “potential danger.”Said Adolph Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” And from Mao Tse-tung, who ruled China as chairman of the Communist Party of China from 1949 to 1976: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns. That way,no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

Americans need to appreciate the paper-thin difference between Venezuelan captives and American citizens: That difference is Founders who knew their history and built protections into the Constitution to keep the central government from exceeding its proper bounds.The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights was added as additional security.

The country’s first president, George Washington, explained that difference: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

For Venezuelans, that lesson fromhistory is being learned the hard way.

Ruling That the Second Amendment Is a Second-class Right Faces Dissent

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 10, 2018: 

The ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week not only perfectly exposed the damage Obama appointees have done to precious constitutional rights but also showed how Trump appointees are already laboring to repair that damage.

President Obama appointed 329 people to federal judgeships during his eight-year administration, including one Patty Shwartz, who wrote the majority opinion in a Second Amendment lawsuit upholding New Jersey’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

She wrote:

Today we address whether one of NewJersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in theUnited States — a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held ina single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds — violates the SecondAmendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’sEqual Protection Clause. We conclude that it does not.

Dissenting in the case was a freshly minted circuit court judge nominated by President Trump: Stephanos Bibas. Bibas is a brilliant legal mind who is not only the 15th-most-cited law professor by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and numerous state high courts, but also the fifth-most-cited professor of criminal law and procedure by professors teaching in law schools around the country.

Bibas assumed office on November 20,2017 and chose the case the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs,Inc. v. the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey to take Shwartz to task over her frivolous treatment of the Second Amendment as a second-class right not entitled to a full and robust defense against anti-gun outfits such as Everytown for Gun Safety, which defended New Jersey’s attorney general in the case.

Bibas opened his dissent declaring that“the Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat theright to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Courtinsisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our

own sense of wise policy.”

For 19 pages he not only provided a defense of the Second Amendment that obliterated Schwartz’s opinion but prepared the case for appeal to the Supreme Court. In essence, Bibas did the Supreme Court’s homework on the case, should the high court decide to review it on appeal. Here are just a few of the salient points Bibas made in his exterpation of the majority opinion in the New Jersey case:

The Second Amendment provides a right to “keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. [Emphasis added.] It protects possessing arms, not just firing them. So the majority misses a key part of the Second Amendment. The analysis cannot turn on how many bullets are fired….

New Jersey has not met its burden to overcome intermediate scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves an“important” public interest], let alone strict scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves a “compelling” public interest]. True, the government has a compelling interest in reducing the harm from mass shootings. No one disputes that. But New Jersey has failed to show how the ban advances its interest….

The majority’s concerns are understandable. Guns kill people. States should be able to experiment with reasonable gun laws to promote public safety. And they need not wait for mass shootings before acting. The government’s and the majority’s position may thus be wise policy. But that is not for us to decide. The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly told us not to treat it differently.

In this specific case Bibas was in the minority. But he has done his homework. He was one of the judges on the Federalist Society’s approved list of constitutionalists for the president to consider and is now tasked with correcting the majority when they go astray. As Trump’s appointees permeate the fabric of American jurisprudence, they will increasingly take on the task of bringing the U.S. ship of state back to its original moorings.

Massive Noncompliance to Boulder, Colorado, Assault Weapons Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, December 6, 2018: 

In May, in a fit of righteous do-goodism, the Boulder, Colorado, city council unanimously banned the sale or possession of so-called assault weapons along with high-capacity magazines and “bump stocks.” As a sop to those among the city’s 100,000 residents who already owned firearms, current possession of such items was grandfathered in. All that was needed was that, by December 27, a firearm owned prior to passage of the law would need to be “certified” by the local police department. A fee would be charged per weapon, and a background check run on the owner.

If the owner cleared the background check, and his check cleared the bank, he would then be issued two “certificates of ownership” showing the particulars of the firearm and the date it was issued: one to be kept with the firearm, the other to be kept somewhere safe, just in case the first one was lost or misplaced.

The city council promised

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann