Tag: #SCOTUS

Less Reporting = Less Crime?

We’ve been hearing a lot from the President and the Democrat party about how their polices have made us safer and crime is down. They point to the FBI’s latest crime statistics showing just how much crime has fallen.   But has it really? Does this match what you see in your neighborhood/town/city, in your local news, or when talking to your friends and neighbors? Unfortunately, the truth is literally the opposite. 

Let’s take San Francisco, CA as an example. I wrote about San Francisco crime and the resulting mass business exodus last year (https://oddstuffing.com/archives/1063)  and sadly things have only gotten worse. 

Nearly every day there is a report of another retailer closing their San Francisco store. And I’m not talking about the multitude of family run, mom & pop shops who have been the lifeblood of their local neighborhoods for decades and nobody in San Francisco politics care about, I’m talking about the big, national brands where the wealthy people shop. These are businesses which have been open in the city for 10, 20, 30 plus years. You’d think that would give the city something to think about, but no. 

Why are they closing? Crime. Rampant, uncontrolled crime. Not only are the stores being looted daily thanks to the softer-than-soft on crime state and city policies, but the businesses cannot provide a safe environment for customers or staff. Violent assaults are common as is property damage, drugs and harassment from the city’s homeless and criminal population. 

Violence on the street is out of control and getting worse. When city officials do say something about it, usually because a celebrity was robbed, injured or killed, it’s defended as being “an isolated incident”. What’s actually rare is the city’s acknowledgement of the violence. By the way, take note of the agencies NOT reporting to the FBI below. 

So why are we being told crime is down? 

The latest FBI statistics do show crime is down, but what they don’t tell you is that conclusion is based on incomplete data. In 2021, the FBI went to a new NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) for compiling and reporting data and would only accept police reports through the new system. Not all departments were able to make the switch and as a result, more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies out of 18,000 total in the United States did NOT submit their data. That’s a full 1/3 of the reporting agencies. And another 24% only reported partial crime data. While a few smaller, rural agencies might not influence the totals much, the non-reporting agencies include the Los Angeles Police and Los Angeles County Sherriff, New York City Police, Phoenix Police and San Francisco Police. For the state of California, only 49% of the law enforcement agencies, covering 48% of the population reported. You can check to see if your agency reported at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/15/see-if-police-in-your-state-reported-crime-data-to-the-fbi

Keep in mind that in 2020, the year before the latest change, 16,000 agencies reported their data. Why the massive drop in reporting? Money and political priorities. Having been in law enforcement and being responsible for the department’s data submissions during a previous FBI reporting shift, a lot of work needs to be done by individual agencies. But it’s also not like these things happen overnight. Changes like this are years in the making. 

So based on incomplete data, including no submissions from some of the largest, most crime infested areas of the country, the FBI declares crime is down. Did they include a clarification, a caveat or even an asterisk with an impossibly tiny font footnote explaining this was based on partial data? Of course not! The former premier law enforcement agency of the country, the ones everyone looks to for accurate, unbiased information, is once again purposely withholding the truth for the sake of partisan politics. The FBI and politicians who are saying crime is down are lying.  

For a better assessment of what is going on, look at the just released Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).  The NCVS asks about 240,000 people each year whether they have been victims of crime to measure reported and unreported crime. 

Between 2020 and 2023, rape increased by 42%, robbery by 63%, and aggravated assaults by 55%. Note the survey does not include homicide as that is most often reported to police. 

Since 2020, the NIBRS and NCVS have been moving in opposite directions. The FBI has been finding fewer instances of crime, but people are simultaneously answering in greater numbers that they have been victims of crime. 

Other than the massive gap in reporting data, there’s another reason why reported crime can be lower. When the public loses faith in the criminal justice community – the police, prosecutors, courts, and jails/prisons – they are less likely report a crime. If the police don’t show up, don’t make an arrest, or the prosecutors won’t file charges, suspects are released on no bail and take revenge against the victim, courts don’t hold people accountable and prisons let convicts out years to decades early, the public won’t see any advantage to reporting the crime. 

The problem of course is the crime isn’t going to go away, it’s only going to continue to get worse and worse. Victims and those who do not wish to become victims, will continue to flee high crime cities and states in search of refuge elsewhere, just as the businesses already have. Those who cannot get out will continue to be victimized. 

What will the defund the police, don’t charge the offender, don’t hold the criminal accountable and release anyone who has been ‘justice contacted’ progressive politicians do? 

Well guess what, their response is all just part of the plan. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #SCOTUS, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #Crime, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com 

Garland v. Cargill (Bump Stocks) & Why This Is Important

On June 14, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Garland v. Cargill, the bump stock case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled the ATF exceeded its authority in declaring bump stocks as machine guns. The ruling, which relied on the exact text of the National Firearms Act (NFA), said a bump stock did not qualify as a machine gun since they did not fire more than one round automatically per trigger pull. As such, the ATF could not regulate them through administrative action and only congressional legislation would empower them to do so. 

The ruling, concurring and dissent opinions are in the single link listed below. I encourage you to read them and decide for yourself what is based on fact or the filter of politics. 

Also note this is not about the June 28, 2024, ruling that abolished the Chevron Deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, however that ruling will undoubtably impact the ATF going forward. 

First off, many people, myself included, consider bump stocks a foolish range toy with limited practical use unless you’re shooting at the broad side of a barn. I’ve shot with them on a couple of occasions, and they are finnicky as hell. Sadly, they were used against a barn size target in Las Vegas in 2017 which prompted the ATF ban. Regardless, the point isn’t the type or practicality of the accessory, it’s the ATF’s administrative and systematic banning of more and more firearm and firearm related accessories that is the issue. A bit here, a bit there, and suddenly there’s very little left. 

It’s also important to note the ATF previously said bump stocks were NOT machine guns or subject to the NFA on at least 10 separate occasions through several administrations, consistently concluding that semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks cannot “automatically” fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger”.  A bump stock equipped rifle cannot operate automatically since just the right amount of forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward handguard. Because the shooter slides the rifle forward in the bump stock, each shot is fired by a single function of the trigger. 

The National Firearms Act defined ‘function of the trigger’ to include not only a single pull of the trigger but also any ‘analogous motions’. The ATF contends that one such analogous motion that qualifies as a single function of the trigger is sliding the rifle forward to bump the trigger.

Here is the important part. Had the ATF definition of bump stocks been upheld, then every semiautomatic rifle could be considered a machine gun since it is possible to achieve the same effect using something as simple as a rubber band or a belt loop to ‘bump’ the trigger. 

The ruling also took note of the Ithaca Model 37 shotgun, a firearm the ATF has ruled is not a machine gun even though it can fire more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. The Model 37 is famous for its ability to “slam fire” by holding down the trigger and operating the pump action. But since it does not do this “automatically”, requiring the operator to move the slide with the support hand, it is not a machine gun. 

The ATF declaring bump stocks as machine guns was a purely political decision made in the aftermath of the horrific 2017 Las Vegas shooting. As we’ve seen over and over again, the sickening mantra of “Never let a good crisis go to waste” was invoked in order to administratively slip in a targeted ban against an ‘evil’ gun accessory, while casting a net that would someday be used to ban every semiautomatic rifle. 

This text of the ruling clearly identified what is and is not a fully automatic firearm, as well as specifying the proper course of action to change the NFA must come from Congress. In response to this ruling, a bill entitled Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts (BUMP) Act was introduced. 

Pay attention to the language it uses: 

“(A) any manual, power-driven, or electronic device primarily designed, or redesigned, so that when the device is attached to a semiautomatic firearm the device—
“(i) materially increases the rate of fire of the firearm; or
“(ii) approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun;

“(B) any device, part, or combination of parts, that is designed and functions to materially increase the rate of fire of the firearm, by eliminating the need for the operator of the firearm to make a separate movement for each individual function of the trigger; or
“(i) materially increases the rate of fire of the firearm; or

“(C) a semiautomatic firearm that has been modified in any way that—
“(ii) approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun.

Using this definition, any semiautomatic firearm potentially used with a belt loop, rubber band, hell even Jerry Miculek’s finger, could be declared a machine gun, subject to the NFA and banned.  And THAT is absolutely the intention. 

Fortunately, it was blocked from unanimous consent passage by a single Senator who said, “It’s not really about bump stocks, this bill is about banning as many firearm accessories as possible. It’s an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners.”

It is highly unlikely this will be the end of this topic. The outcome of the 2024 general elections, control of Congress and the White House could bring new interest in this and other gun control priorities. Any new laws would likely immediately be challenged and again appealed to the United States Supreme Court based on the Bruen ruling. 

Yes, your vote matters.

Bob

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #SCOTUS, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com 

POTUS v. SCOTUS (& the Second Amendment) 

In case you missed it, following the President of the United States decision not to seek reelection and pass his nomination to the Vice President, he released his plan for reforms to the Supreme Court of the United States. In what can best be described as a Democrat Party temper tantrum, the President laid out three points for his so-called “reform” of the Court. These include reversing the ruling of Presidential Immunity for crimes committed while in office, setting term limits of 18 years for Supreme Court Justices and establishing an enforceable code of conduct against Supreme Court Justices. 

The fact that the President has sat on proposing any reforms, even following the final report (link below) from his highly biased Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States until AFTER he stepped away from reelection and became a lame duck President, is indicative of the level of seriousness his so-called “reforms” should be taken as. 

One would think any of our former presidents would be deeply concerned with having the presidential immunity ruling reversed. Given the life and death decisions inherent to the job, including those made for the purposes of war, even the current President should be concerned given some of his own actions, including the disastrous and deadly Afghanistan withdrawal. However, he may be relying on the Department of Justice determination of him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”, to provide him with a level of prosecutable immunity. Or perhaps those supporting it have faith the Department of Justice would never go after someone they consider an ‘insider’. 

The sycophant, extremist legal pundits behind this are now saying this can be accomplished without constitutional amendments by simply imposing the conditions upon the Supreme Court by Congress and the President.  In other words, two of the three separate branches of government imposing their partisan demands on the third branch. 

If you’re thinking a move like this from Congress and the President would be constitutional, let’s imagine a couple different scenarios. 

The President (Executive Branch) decides Congress should have term limits. Remember the President cannot independently create laws, so an Executive Order is created. Congress would justifiably say this is unconstitutional as the Executive Branch cannot impose a condition on the Legislative Branch. 

The Congress (Legislative Branch) decides the Vice President is now subject to the Twenty Second Amendment limiting them to two terms in the Executive Branch and passes a law to enforce that. The President and Vice President disagree. In the first place, the President would not sign the law, as it would still be unconstitutional for the Legislative Branch to impose a condition on the Executive Branch. 

I suppose the most ironic part of this would be if the President or Congress attempt to impose these changes by executive order or legislation, the opposition to it would be heard in the US federal court system and appealed up to … the United States Supreme Court. 

The separation of powers for the three independent branches of government is a critical component of our government and thinking that two branches can just impose a new set of politically biased conditions on the third is ridiculous. 

Amending the Constitution is difficult, on purpose, as it changes the very foundation of the country. Article Five of the Constitution describes the process: 

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either, as determined by Congress, the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states. 

As with the Democrat party’s proposal to pack the court with five new liberal Justices to ‘eliminate the influence of politics’ in the Court, support from Congress, the state legislatures and the people simply aren’t there. The people are smart enough to know what is going on, an attempted political takeover of Supreme Court, and they won’t support it. 

The justification behind this is the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. In reality, it’s a 5-3 conservative majority, with the Chief Justice, who votes last, now siding with whichever side is winning. This has become evident following his capitulation to the threat of forced reform presented in the Senate Democrat’s “Heal Thyself” memo issued during the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case. 

The rational from the extremist left for packing the Court with five liberal Justices was “We’re not packing the Court. We’re unpacking it.”  A critical point to be considered here. If the only way to get what they call “historic, progressive laws” to pass constitutional scrutiny is to pack the Court with far-left liberal Justices who will rule in favor of them, then it’s a safe bet the laws were NEVER constitutional in the first place.

So, why is this important to us from a Second Amendment standpoint? Well, consider that Everytown for Gun Safety and Planned Parenthood have announced their joint support for the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2023 (TERM Act), which would create 18-year term limits for current and future Supreme Court justices. 

Everytown states: “One of America’s greatest strengths is our dynamism, which we’ve seen clearly in the growing public support for gun safety — and which is being stymied by a Supreme Court where lifetime appointments promote stagnation and stonewalling.” They cited Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock ban reversal) as a key element in their decision. 

Here’s what it boils down to. The extremist left disagrees with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Instead of taking it as a hint that the administrative rules, laws and executive actions are unconstitutional and perhaps they should be focusing on other areas if they want to do some good, they are hell bent on changing the makeup of the Court so that they can get a rubber stamp to infringe on the people’s rights. 

THIS is why I care and why everyone who votes this year should care. Reforms to the United States Supreme Court for the purposes of passing and sustaining unconstitutional laws should scare the crap out of everyone. An independent United States Supreme Court is pretty much the only thing preventing the systematic elimination of the Second Amendment right now. 

Yes, your vote matters. 

Bob

http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #SCOTUS, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com 

Today Was A Good Day For The Second Amendment

Today is truly a good day for free, law-abiding people in our country. The United States Supreme Court has struck down New York’s “May Issue” concealed carry permit law which prevented ordinary citizens from bearing arms to defend themselves in public. While the case was specifically about the New York law, it applies to all other states which also demand applicants to provide “proper cause” to receive government permission carry a firearm for self-defense outside their homes. This historic ruling also updated standard courts must follow when deciding Second Amendment cases. 

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

Today’s ruling (linked below) is 135 pages long and is still being read and digested. While most everyone is focusing on the positive, constitutional aspects, the gun control community is digging in their heels. Rather than accepting the ruling and working towards compliance with the new law-of-the-land, they are actively looking for loopholes or workarounds to circumvent it. 

Here is a sampling of statements from some of the biggest proponents of unconstitutional gun control: 

The Governor of the State of New York: 
“It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.”
“I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I’m prepared to go back to muskets.”

The Mayor of the New York City: 
“Nothing changes today… It ignores the presence (sp) and it endangers our future.”

The Governor of the State of California: 
“A dark day in America. This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches. Shameful.”

The United States Department of Justice: 
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

And finally, from the President of the United States: 
… “I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.”

There are of course many, many more rants from politicians, activists, actors and your average, everyday alt-left lunatic fringe. All reveal that they have absolutely zero intention to comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings and will do everything in their power to circumvent the decision by implementing more unconstitutional, draconian gun control laws that have NEVER done anything to prevent violence or death. 

Today was a good day for the Second Amendment, but it is only the beginning. May Issue laws in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia must be challenged under the new standard and repealed, along with a host of other gun control laws implemented under flawed standards by activist judges in prejudicial courts. 

Anyone in New York or any other “May Issue” state thinking they will be able to run down to their local police or sheriff station tomorrow and get their brand spank’n new conceal carry permit is mistaken. In contrast to the lightning speed they implement new restrictions on firearms from other court rulings, this new ruling from the highest court in the nation is going to be slow walked to death before they are forced to give up that gun, and people control. 

Remember, it shouldn’t take 100 years to reclaim your Second Amendment protected rights. Only you can prevent unconstitutional gun laws from being enacted in the first place.

Yes, it does matter who you vote for. 

Bob

Full text of ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #SCOTUS, #Bruen, #ReclaimRights, #ReclaimNotExpand, #GunVote, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

More Threats For The Supreme Court

Another week, another set of threats directed at the United States Supreme Court from the White House, Congress and dark money political action groups. Their intent remains clear and blunt; decide cases in our favor or the Judicial Branch will be restructured to give us the results we want. 

From the Harris-Biden [sic] administration we have the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The 36 member, so-called “bipartisan commission” is made up of far-left legal scholars, Democrat activists and a handful of Republicans who were highly critical of the former President. Public meetings by the commission will start the 180-day deadline for a report to the Administration. 

According to the White House, “The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

Put another way, after six months of dog and pony show meetings and millions of taxpayer dollars, the hand-picked, pro-Supreme Court reform activists will deliver a predetermined conclusion to justify restructuring the Judicial Branch to meet progressive needs. 

From the extreme left political action groups and activists, we have a call for Justice Stephen Breyer, a stalwart and senior member of the left leaning Justices, to retire following a speech at Harvard Law School. 

Justice Breyer’s offense was he spoke out against packing the Supreme Court. He argued public trust in the court rests in the perception “the court is guided by legal principle, not politics”. This would be eroded if the Court’s structure were changed in response to concerns about the influence of politics on the Supreme Court.

Naturally, Justice Breyer’s thoughts go against far-left’s court reform movement, championed by dark money groups such as Demand Justice, the former employer of the current White House Press Secretary as well as the Administration’s point person on judicial nominations. The calls for Justice Breyer’s resignation include the commitment from the President to replace him with the first black female on the Court. 

From the Democrat controlled Congress, we have the Judiciary Act of 2021, a two-sentence bill introduced by Democrat members of the House of Representatives and Senate to pack the Supreme Court with five new liberal appointed Justices, bringing the total from nine to 13. 

The logic behind this is the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. That’s all, nothing else. In reality, it’s a 5-4 conservative majority, with the Chief Justice now firmly siding with the left leaning wing following his capitulation to the threat of forced reform presented in the Senate Democrat’s “Heal Thyself” memo issued during the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case. Still, any conservative majority is too much. 

The defense of packing the court has been as loud as it has been flawed. 

“We’re not packing the Court. We’re unpacking it.”

“The Supreme Court is fundamentally broken. And ultimately, I think we can anticipate decisions that emanate from this Supreme Court that are absolutely going to create a public cry for a change in the numbers of the Supreme Court so that they cannot continue their undermining, their destruction of historic, progressive laws that have been put on the books.”

A critical point to be considered here. If the only way to get “historic, progressive laws” to pass Constitutional scrutiny is to pack the Court with far-left liberal Justices who will rule in favor of them, then it’s a safe bet the laws were NEVER Constitutional in the first place. 

When asked if the Judicial Act of 2021 would be brought to the floor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives commented: “No. I support the President’s commission to study such a proposal… It’s not out of the question.”

The Speaker’s “It’s not out of the question” response is clearly meant to intimidate the current Court into compliance with the far-left agenda. Unfavorable rulings from cases under consideration are sure to bring swift retribution from the Democrat controlled Congress in the form of action on the Judicial Act of 2021. 

Then there’s the rub. 

Despite the loud voices from the far-left members of Congress and their aligned media outlets, actual support in Congress and the public for packing the Court is small. Packing the court would also require the Senate eliminate the filibuster, something that has also shown very little support in Congress and the public. These efforts are recognized as the political power grabs they really are and would certainly cost the members of Congress who vote for them the one thing they hold more dear than anything else, their reelection.

But these are desperate times for the far left and if they can’t push packing the Supreme Court through, then the elimination of Justices they believe are vulnerable will likely commence. While their time is limited, there is a lot of damage they can do before the mid-term elections in 2022.  

Bob

#BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondtAmendment, #BillOfRights, #SCOTUS, #GunControlFails, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #oddstuffing.com

SCOTUS vs. The Second Amendment, Part 2 (And Then There Were Two)

With a number of high profile Second Amendment cases either headed towards the United States Supreme Court, or already being heard, this is a critical time for the future of our constitutionally protected rights. At the same time, we have a Court under extreme pressure to make the ‘correct’ rulings as defined by the extremist left. These politicians have made it abundantly clear that if the Court does not see things their way, it will be restructured and packed with justices who will. 

Given the reprehensible conduct by some of our elected officials, this is the most dangerous time in history for significant Second Amendment protected rights cases to be brought before the Supreme Court. 

The independence of the Supreme Court, one of the three branches of our government, is one of the cornerstones of our nation. Each branch has its own powers and responsibilities to ensure the government is effective and citizen’s rights are protected. The Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, has a role which includes the final check and balance of the constitutionality in our country. 

Most of us understand this fundamental design of our government and believe in a strong and independent judiciary. Others see it as a hinderance to their plans for more government power and control, power and control stripped away from the people. 

For a government official, if your legislation is a little iffy on the constitutionality side, how do you get it to survive a court challenge? Easy, you influence the courts. While simply campaigning on an issue and creating popular support for your questionably constitutional law might help, an independent judge is going to ignore public pressure and decide the case based on the Constitution and the law, as would be expected in a Republic. Therefore, the influence you need to get favorable court rulings is to seat judges who agree with your politics and will interpret the law from your political point of view.  

Of course, the whole idea of liberal and conservative justices on the Supreme Court – or any court for that matter – is an abomination in the first place. There should be no political skew in either direction. There should be no other consideration at play other than the Constitution and the law. By the time any case reaches the highest court in the land, politics and the justices’ personal views should be long gone and only the law should enter into their decisions. Sadly, this is no longer the case and ‘legal’ decisions that should be unanimous are now split along political lines.

Look at how contentious the last few Supreme Court appointments were. Remember how desperately certain Senators fought to keep originalist jurists off the bench. Remember how outraged the left was at the possibility of replacing a left leaning justice with a right leaning one. A Supreme Court with a single vote, 5-4 conservative advantage could derail an entire political agenda due to constitutional challenges. It was a “threat to democracy” itself.  A new strategy had to be put in place. 

Remember the Senate Democrats “Heal Thyself” letter threatening to pack the Supreme Court if it didn’t moot the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. This letter is widely credited with not only Chief Justice Roberts decision to moot the case but to more firmly side with the left wing of the Court. The Court was saved from being packed, at least temporarily. 

Restructuring the Court and packing it with liberal appointed justices to “reduce the influence of politics” is a bold and aggressive plan. It would permanently cement the Court to a left-leaning rubber stamp for generations to come, or at least until the next Congress repacked it. This scheme would face massive opposition from both parties and the public who recognize it for what it really is, a partisan power play. But removing an unpopular Associate Justice, one who has been vilified in the press, to be replaced by a liberal appointed one, that might fly. 

You now understand the never-ending defamation campaign against Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, who faced one of the most disgraceful confirmation hearings in the history of the Senate, has continued to be harassed and threatened while on the bench. Far left Democrats, including the current Vice President, have called for congressional hearings and his impeachment. Social media is awash with slanders calling him the “rapist on the Supreme Court”. (See: A Shot Across The Bow of the USS SCOTUS  https://oddstuffing.com/archives/792)

Yet that alone wouldn’t be enough. They needed to apply pressure to another conservative Justice. This latest round of intimidation comes following Justice Thomas’s dissent on the Supreme Court’s denial of the GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania state court’s decision to extend mail-in ballot deadline for November’s presidential election. 

Critics claimed Justice Thomas’s dissent was a tacit endorsement of the takeover of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th and convinced Amazon to remove a documentary film about Thomas, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words” from their streaming service – during Black History Month.  

To make their point even more clear, left-wing congressional politicians and agitators called for an investigation of Justice Thomas’ wife for her support of the January 6th D.C. rally and questioned why Justice Thomas was allowed to be on the Court at all. 

The message from Congressional Democrats is crystal clear. Incorrect rulings will be severely punished, either by removing the involved justice(s) from the Court or by a complete restructuring and packing of the Court by liberal appointed jurists. Correct rulings on the other hand, will result in the Court being allowed to continue with its current structure, albeit under the thumb of Congress. 

A Supreme Court operating under outright threats and intimidation of the Executive and Legislative branches is far from independent. If the independent Judicial branch allows its decisions to be muted by political influence, it will be no different than a restructured and packed Court. We will, in effect, have two branches of government, the Executive and Legislative, with the Judicial acting only as a servant to the Legislative du jour. 

The cases mentioned in Part 1 have the potential to affirm or deny the constitutionally protected rights of millions of Americans. Simply rejecting these cases in favor of addressing an issue later at a less politically dangerous time risks the very lives of those who would be on one side of a political border vs. the other. Ignoring the Bill of Rights is not an option. 

The American public is waiting, but will the Supreme Court step up? 

Bob

#BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondtAmendment, #FourthAmendment, #BillOfRights, #SCOTUS, #GunControlFails, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #oddstuffing.com

SCOTUS vs. The Second Amendment, Part 1 (Potential Cases)

A number of high profile Second Amendment cases are working their way towards the United States Supreme Court right now, plus one 2A related case already under consideration. The outcomes of these cases are likely to be as impactful to our Second Amendment protected rights as Heller, if not more. While you would think this would be an ideal time for them to be heard, our Supreme Court is being threatened with virtual extinction if they rule against what the left extremists demand. 

The following is a quick overview of three of these cases and why I believe this is the most dangerous time for these cases to be coming before the Supreme Court. The results may not only determine the future of the Second and Fourth Amendments but also if the government is effectively reduced from three branches to two. 

1. Young v. State of Hawaii

This case was recently decided by an en banc panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The case is a challenge to Hawaii’s highly restrictive open carry policy which requires the applicant to show “the urgency or the need” to carry unconcealed firearms, that they have “good moral character,” and that they be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” As a result, only private detectives and security guards are ever eligible. The equally restrictive conceal carry policy, which was not part of this case, effectively results in a complete prohibition of carrying a firearm in public for personal protection. 

Incredibly, the 9th Circuit ruled against Young, stating that Second Amendment protected rights end at your doorstep and DO NOT extend into public. Rather than relying on a plain text reading of the Second Amendment and history of Fourteenth Amendment, they cherry picked history from 17th century English law and 19th century Hawaiian regulations to determine people have the right to “keep” arms within the own homes, but NOT TO “bear” arms anywhere outside. This is the first Circuit Court to ever make such a dramatically anti-Second Amendment ruling. 

To say this is a bad ruling is putting it mildly. Even in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense, noted the validity of “longstanding prohibitions” such as carrying a firearm in sensitive places like schools and government buildings. Yet it was these two words the 9thCircuit used to help rationalize any place outside of the home could be prohibited. 

This ruling now covers all the states in the 9th Circuit – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It is certain that anti-conceal and open carry government officials will immediately seize upon this decision to further restrict or eliminate carrying firearms in public. 

While this is a prime example of the Circuit Courts rabid misinterpretation of constitutional law, legal precedent and an excellent case to be argued before SCOTUS, that has yet been done. SCOTUS did consider another similar case dealing with highly restrictive and subjective carry policy – New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Corlett – in conference on Friday and may announce whether they will grant a writ of certiorari as soon as today.

2. Gun Owners of America v. Garland

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled last week the ATF could not administratively change the law regarding bump stocks and that bump stocks themselves were not considered machine guns. 

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, the ATF reclassified bump stocks as machine guns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) despite having no ability to fire on their own. An estimated 500,000 individuals and businesses who lawfully purchased bump stocks were forced to dispose of them without compensation or face criminal charges for illegal possession of a machine gun. 

The Court’s ruling confirmed the ATF was incorrect in determining a bump stock accessory was a machine gun. It also ruled the ATF could not change the law by itself, that it must be done by Congress. 

The ATF/DOJ will most certainly appeal this ruling to an en banc panel in the 6th Circuit, as well as attempt to make other modifications to firearm definitions to circumvent this ruling. Yet the importance of this case cannot be understated. With the ATF’s recent moves against pistol braces and the 80% market, the possibility of the ATF/DOJ again administratively banning and restricting firearms and non-firearm parts in a similar overreach is real. 

3. Caniglia v. Storm 

This case was recently heard by SCOTUS and while not strictly a Second Amendment case, it has a direct impact on Second Amendment protected rights. The case questions whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirements extends to the home. 

The officers in this situation used “community caretaking”, an exception created by the court to generally deal warrantless searches of abandoned or impounded vehicles, to enter a private home and seize firearms and ammunition. This was after the officers promised the owner who went to the hospital for an evaluation (and was immediately discharged) they would not confiscate them and falsely telling his wife he had in fact consented to the confiscation. 

While there are warrantless exceptions to entering a home without a warrant, these “exigent circumstances” cover emergency situations such as to prevent an imminent or in progress assault or to render emergency aid for someone inside, such as a heart attack victim. No “exigent circumstances” were claimed here. 

Had this case involved the seizure of drugs, stolen property or anything other than firearms, likely nobody would have given a rat’s *ss about it. Yet by attempting to use a “community caretaking” exception to remove firearms from a private residence against the owner’s will, it directly imperils Second Amendment rights. 

Consider what could be rationalized by government officials as “community safety” to enter your home and remove your firearms without a warrant. An argument with a neighbor who knows you have firearms? Someone seeing you come back from the range with a large “cache of weapons”? An argument inside the house where firearms are “registered”, overheard by someone passing in the street? Someone known to own firearms being upset after being terminated from a job?

Side note: In this case as well as another case recently settled by SCOTUS (Torres v Madrid), the government argued the officers themselves were not liable due to “qualified immunity”. This is the same qualified immunity the same government is demanding be stripped from law enforcement officers in the name of police reform at the local, state and federal level. 

The Court’s ruling on these cases could significantly impact your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures in your home as well as your right to keep and bear arms outside the home.

Continued in Part 2 (And Then There Were Two)

Bob

#BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondAmendment, #FourthAmendment, #SCOTUS, #GunControlFails, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #oddstuffing.com

Semi-Automatic Mechanisms – The New Assault Weapons, Updated

With the possibility of a new administration that has promised to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, let’s take another look at what a new ban will likely include. While the most commonly mentioned target is the AR-15 & AK-47 pattern rifles – using the completely inaccurate and scary terminology of “weapons of war”, gun control legislation from around the country provides ample evidence that the scope will be much wider. Firearms with so-called “evil features” are commonly included. Now add the latest trend to include the “semi-automatic mechanism” and you can ban many more commonly owned firearms.  And you thought they just wanted your scary black rifles.

Politically defined terms like so-called “assault weapons” have many problems. Among them is the definition tends to evolve over time. It can mean one thing today and grow to include much more tomorrow. These terms also tend to be geographically specific. An “assault weapon” in one state – or even city – isn’t an “assault weapon” in another. Each jurisdiction gets to pick and choose what they think an “assault weapon” is. The new thing is to call for a complete civilian ban on all semi-automatics. 

One of the latest attempts to massively expand the type of firearms law-abiding citizens are restricted from started in Massachusetts. In the wake of the shooting in a gun free zone in Virginia Beach, VA, an unknown group of naysayers came out with the revelation that the .45 caliber handguns used in that shooting shares the same deadly feature as the dreaded AR-15 – the semi-automatic mechanism. Now, “the most severe gun-related problem facing our society is the proliferation of guns containing a semiautomatic mechanism.” 

Their organization “is working to achieve legislation that will ban the semiautomatic mechanism in any gun sold or owned in Massachusetts. These are weapons that were designed for military and law enforcement purposes only and not for the general public. Revolvers, lever-action, pump-action, and bolt-action guns cover the full spectrum of civilian needs, whether they are hunting, personal protection, or home protection. The semiautomatic mechanism for guns has no place in civilian hands.”

Sadly, this absolutely absurd idea was quickly adopted by gun control extremist legislators in numerous states and is now either proposed legislation or has been added onto their list of “assault weapons”. 

Of course, the first successful semi-automatic firearm was designed by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher in 1885.  The iconic Model 1911 pistol has been in service from – you guessed it – 1911, that’s 109 years old!  There’s nothing horribly sinister or deadly about the mechanism, it simply ejects the fired cartridge and loads the next one to be fired the NEXT time the trigger is pulled. The capacity of the magazine determines how many times you can pull the trigger before the firearm is empty. Massachusetts, being one of the nanny gun control states, says that number is 10. Of course, a standard 1911 magazine is only eight. 

If it’s not a magazine capacity thing, is it the shooting speed the antis don’t like? Of course not.  Semi-automatics don’t fire any faster than revolvers. In fact, the world’s fastest shooter used a revolver to put eight rounds on target in one second.  And no, there is no such thing as “fully semi-automatic”, the ludicrous phrase coined by an anti-gun former Army officer in the employ of CNN. 

Why the new fixation on all things semi-automatic?  It’s merely an attempt to put more firearms on the banned list and get them taken out of the hands of law-abiding civilian owners. The tactic has been used for years in the states that have some sort of “assault weapon” definition. What started as a specific list of firearms “too deadly for civilian use” has been systematically expanded to include firearms with purely cosmetic “evil features” such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, threaded barrels and flash hiders or the ability to utilize a “high-capacity” magazine. The State of Washington now defines ALL semi-automatic rifles as semi-automatic assault rifles. Massachusetts went so far as to outlaw the mechanism used in AR-15’s and AK-47’s and bans any firearm that has interchangeable parts, such as the extractor or extractor assembly, with the AR-15 or AK-47. 

How many firearms in the United States are semi-automatic?  Depending on how you slice the data, you’d be looking at roughly 150 million of the estimated 400 million civilian owned firearms in this country.

Would an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms survive a Constitutional challenge, especially in light of the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision and the “in common use at the time” test?  No, of course not. But that’s ONLY with the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court. An expanded Supreme Court packed with far-left activist justices (you know, to “reduce the influence of politics”), would undoubtedly interpret this differently or reverse Heller all together. 

Will a new ban make all these “semi-automatic assault weapons” just go away? Of course not, that will take time. Using a combination of registration through the NFA (National Firearms Act) and mandatory buybacks for those who can’t afford the $200 per firearm and $200 per magazine NFA fee. Of course, NFA firearms are currently fully transferable, so this will need to be changed to the same design as California’s registered “assault weapons”, which cannot be transferred or inherited. 

“Assault weapons” are not just about AR-15 or AK-47’s, or “high-capacity” magazines. It’s about all the commonly owned, and in the vast, Vast, VAST majority of situations in our country, lawfully used firearms. “Assault weapons” is a bottomless pit that will be used to dump an ever-increasing number of banned firearms until the number you can legally own is zero. 

Do you want to keep the lawfully owned and legally used firearms you have today? Do you want your children and grandchildren to have access to the same modern and effective firearms you have today?  

This is why the Georgia Senate runoffs and the independence of the United States Supreme Court are so important. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #SCOTUS, #semiautomaticmechanism, #assaultweapon, #GunControlFails, #Georgia, #2020Elections, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

A Shot Across The Bow of the USS SCOTUS

In case you missed it, the incoming congress just fired another warning shot across the bow of the United States Supreme Court. This warning specifically targeted the most vulnerable member of the court, at least in the eyes of the hypocrite extremist left. Funneled through a less than unbiased newspaper as a ‘breaking news’ story, it is another blatant attempt to influence litigation before the Court. It also presents a compromise scheme for forcing political control of the Supreme Court to those who are a little squeamish about packing the Court. Either way, this highlights the importance of the Senate runoff elections in Georgia are for the future of an independent Judicial branch. 

This latest attempt to influence the court comes from a New York Times review of a book – by two New York Times staffers – that contains “new” allegations of sexual misconduct by Justice Kavanaugh while he was in college. The “new” allegations, introduced in the 11th paragraph of their story, involves a woman who declined to be interviewed by the Times reporters and has through friends indicated she did not recall the event. It’s important to know that this incident, the supposed witnesses and the woman’s denial of it occurring, were all known to the reporters in 2018, during Justice Kavanaugh’s hearings. The story resurfaced briefly in 2019 during the Democratic Presidential primaries but did not result in any action. Now, in 2020, it surfaces again as a “new” story. 

It’s not as if his Democratic party detractors haven’t done their level best to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s reputation and life based on the unsubstantiated accusations leveled against him during his confirmation hearings. 

Of his coaching his daughter’s high school basketball team, a Time magazine reporter wrote: “Ford’s charge shattered Kavanaugh’s carefully crafted tableau, calling into doubt the image he projected. The row of young girls, legs bare in their private-school skirts, looked different now.” 

Of his teaching at Harvard, a letter from staff, students and alumni organized by friends and family of Congressional Democrats was sent that said: “We believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment as an HLS lecturer sends a message to law students, and in particular female students, that powerful men are above the law, and that obstructive, inappropriate behavior will be rewarded.”

With this “new” allegation resurfacing yet again, members of the new administration’s transition team are calling for a congressional investigation into the matter. “If accurate, this would represent a big mistake on the part of the FBI. Without the truth, a cloud will hang over Kavanaugh’s head and an asterisk will accompany his decisions. The only way to repair the damage is for Congress to pick up where the FBI left off.” Note that Congressional investigation in this context of course means impeachment proceedings.

Having members of the Democratic party threaten the United States Supreme Court is nothing new. Remember the Senate Democrats who sent the “Heal Thyself” letter threating to pack the Court if it ruled incorrectly in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. That letter is widely credited with flipping Chief Justice John Roberts to the liberal wing in an attempt to save the structure of the Court. Of course, that threat has now been revived into an action plan should the Democrats retake the Senate. 

In this situation, there does not appear to be one case to be influenced but rather a series of cases now under consideration and likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court regarding the 2020 elections. The not-so-subtle implications are for Justice Kavanaugh to vote ‘correctly’ or face impeachment. But as anyone can see from the “Heal Thyself” letter, voting correctly won’t make this threat go away. 

There’s also another side of this “new” accusation and call for Congressional investigations. It represents an alternative plan to take over the Supreme Court. The well-advertised threat to pack the Court with liberal appointed justices to “reduce the influence of politics” has been unpopular with many non-extremists in the Democratic party. This plan, removing just one originalist Justice, one that has been demonized by the Party, and allowing a liberal appointee would cement a solid 5-4 liberal majority. 

If you’re wondering what the big deal is with the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, this is it. A Democrat win of both seats results in a 50-50 tie in the Senate which would be broken by the (possible) new Vice-President who is the most extremist left politician to ever be elected. This is a grandstanding, elitist politician who has already stated her position on Justice Kavanaugh as being “He must be impeached.”

What else is at stake? Only the ability to have free and fair elections, the Electoral College, the future of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and the independence of the Judiciary branch. 

Simply look at what campaign promises have been made and ask yourself what will happen if the final check and balance of power, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, were no longer a hinderance? What if every law that brazenly infringes on your Constitutionally protected natural rights was deemed fully Constitutional in the name of the new socialist agenda by a Court more interested in social reengineering than Constitutional rights? 

If you have a few bucks to spare, sending it down to support the Republican candidates in Georgia might be in all of our best interests. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #SCOTUS, #Politics, #Georgia, #2020Elections, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

This often-debated quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin following the creation of the United States Constitution in 1787.  Franklin’s message underscored this form of government would be difficult to maintain. Greed and the lust for power in the hearts of some would seek to alter our nation to suit their own needs vs. the needs of the nation. This is the underlying struggle behind the rhetoric and noise of our current elections. Do we abandon the very foundation of our nation or do we fight for the structure and the natural rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights? 

The most complete version of Franklin’s quote indicates the person asking the question was Mrs. Elizabeth Willing Powel, a prominent society figure and the wife of Philadelphia Mayor Samuel Powel, and goes as such:

Powel: Well, Doctor, what have we got?
Franklin: A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.
Powel: And why not keep it?
Franklin: Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.

It is important to remember where our new country was at this point. Having just freed itself from the oppressive rule of England, the Founding Fathers were insistent on establishing a government which would not devolve into the same monarchy they had just freed themselves of. They were also highly concerned about “the tyranny of the majority” in a democracy. 

In a democracy, the majority rules on every issue and there are no protections for the minority opinion. If 51% of the population decides there is no right to free speech, then there is no right to free speech, period. 

This is why the Founders chose to create our country as a republic. In a republic, a constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if a majority of the population votes for it. So even if 99% of the population votes there is no right to free speech, then the law is unconstitutional and invalid.

It would sound like a done deal then, right? It can’t happen here because of our natural rights are protected by the Constitution. But that’s not what is happening. Our Constitutionally protected rights are being eroded at an alarming rate and the process is relatively easy.  

Lawmakers who enjoy a ‘flexible’ interpretation of their oath of office appoint like-minded judges on the bench to validate the laws they enact. If a new law is challenged, it can be upheld as “Constitutional” by judges who are willing to ignore the original text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents and the rule of law to create new precedents. Each new precedent builds on the last until you have a set of laws that has NO resemblance to anything Constitutional. 

The protection for our rights is supposed to be in the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government. But when the courts are subverted by political appointees who are willing to legislate from the bench and utilize highly creative interpretations of the Constitution to advance a radical ideology, our individual rights easily, and legally disappear. 

Maintaining the balance of power and independence of the Judiciary is one of the reasons the elections are so contentious this year. One political party is vowing to expand the United States Supreme Court with liberal appointees deemed ideologically compatible in order to “reduce the influence of politics”. Put another way, they want the high court to validate whatever law they put forward and a conservative, originalist / constitutionalist majority court would most certainly prevent that. 

How do they get around this? Easily, just by having politicians (who see the Constitution as a systemically racist construct that is standing in the way of implementing socialistic changes) controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House.  It allows them to eliminate the Senate filibuster, stack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Electoral College and add additional left leaning states to ensure a long-term, unbreakable liberal majority. 

Oh, I know… I’m just a right-wing conspiracy nut who’s trying to invoke fear among conservatives and maintain a white supremist dominated country. EXCEPT, all these plans have originated FROM left-wing zealot politicians already in office, both as threats against the judiciary branch and promises to their constituents. 

It is unfortunate that so many in our country have bought into the belief that our nation was so fundamentally flawed from the beginning it must be torn down and rebuilt in a new, reimagined way. What they seem to forget is their natural rights of freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble and the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the very rights they are exercising to demand the complete restructuring of our country, are the rights protected by what they want to get rid of. 

Whether history’s recording of Benjamin Franklin comments is accurate or not, the call to action it evokes is important to us all. Do we allow the underling principles of our country to be swept away in a wave of lies and political correctness or do we continue to build on that foundation in a way that protects our rights now and into the future? 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #Republic, #BenjaminFranklin, #SCOTUS, #FoundingFathers, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com