Author: Bob

Knee-High By The Fourth of July 

Happy Birthday America! On this Independence Day In 2024, our country celebrates its 248th birthday as a sovereign nation, winning her freedom from Great Britian in the Revolutionary War. 

The saying “Knee-high by the Fourth of July” was used by corn farmers as a measure of success of their crops on Independence Day. It was said that knee-high stalks by the fourth of July would mean a good crop yield. Today, through advances in agricultural technology, farming techniques and genetic improvements, stalks in the Iowa corn fields are typically eight feet tall by now. Those of us in the northern most parts of the country who experienced hard frosts into June this year can still be happy with knee-high corn today.

Corn stalk growth is one of many things that have improved in the 248 years of our country. The quality and longevity of our lives, our standards of living and our recognition and protection of rights have all made great strides. We are a better and stronger nation not in spite of our diversity, but because of it. Peoples from all around the world coming together, united in the common belief that freedom is worth fighting for and protecting. 

Yet progress has not always been easy. Our civil war tore us apart. International enemies have attacked us. Internal turmoil, propagated by those who would profit from the chaos and division, cause our citizens to fight among themselves instead of working together.  

The general elections are coming up and the partisan rhetoric, slanders and lies are flying fast and furious. Money is flowing not to convince you that someone is the right candidate, but that the other candidate is wrong. A very sad state of affairs. 

In the 2020 general elections, 66% of the eligible voters participated, the highest turnout since 1900. This was up from about 55% in 2016. (The number of actual vs. fictious voters is still debated, but that’s a different topic.) But while the 2020 numbers are a good, our nation still lags far behind other so-called developed nations. Our voting participation seems to have peaked in 1876 when approximately 82% of eligible voters cast their ballots. I guess voting was cooler back then. 

Of course, election participation doesn’t always equal quality elections. Free and fair elections are subject to the whim of whomever is running them, a fact well known around the world. We’ve also learned that more technology doesn’t make voting better or more accurate, it just makes it more vulnerable. 

Consider also that in just about every other country, all the votes are tabulated, even with millions cast and counted by hand, and the winners announced at the by the end of the actual election day. It wasn’t so long ago we used to be able to do that in our country. So much for a technological advantage. 

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways, even in our high tech, AI driven, hyper politically correct society. Just because there is a new technological solution to a problem, doesn’t mean it should be done that way. 

I’ve said it before. Every seat on every board in every community is important. If we are not showing up, we are ceding control of our communities, our states, and our nation to those who may not share our interests. 

It used to be very common for Americans to have home gardens. Many had chickens or other small livestock, even in cities. While technology has helped increase the quality and yield of many crops, someone still has to plant it.  


United States citizens used to vote a lot more too. We used to think of our voting rights as our civic responsibly. Now far too many are content to let others handle things while they sit back and complain. 

There’s still time to plant some seeds and grow some wonderful fresh veggies this year. While you’re at it, register to vote and grow a great country too. 

Bob

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

Government Failures = Lost Rights (Maine Edition)

Once again government failures have resulted in citizen’s lost rights. I am referring to recently enacted gun control laws in Maine. The federal, state and county agencies who had all the information AND the legal authority to take decisive action which could have prevented the horrific tragedy in Lewiston, all failed to do so. Now the citizens of the state will lose their rights as gleeful left wing gun control extremist legislators start Maine down the never ending path of useless gun control laws, because… Lewiston. 

Let’s go back to Maine before the horrific shootings in Lewiston on October 25th, 2023. Maine has always been ranked in the top three of the safest states in the country, usually residing at the #1 spot. Maine also ranks as one of the least gun controlled states in the country. This of course made Maine a target of the gun control groups. And just as they did with other previously ‘free’ states, they just needed to wait for a triggering event to get the gun control ball rolling following the sickening mantra of “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

Low crime rates and low gun control is no coincidence. The gun control zealots will tell you this is in spite of the lack of gun control laws and point to their so-called “studies” showing how violent non-gun controlled states are. They bizarrely claim that while “Maine is also a permitless carry state, though it continues to have low gun violence relative to its firearm laws, likely in part because it is protected by the strong laws of other states in the region.”

In reality, the exact opposite is true. Fewer gun control laws allow the law-abiding citizens of the state to be responsible for their own safety and security. More gun control laws mean a constant spiral of more government failures, more violence, followed by more gun control. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

The sad truth here is the number of federal, state and county agencies who had first-hand information about the danger the suspect posed in the months leading up to tragedy, yet failed to act on it, despite having full legal authority to do so. From the US Army/Army Reserve, the New York State Police to the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department, who were all either witness to his violent behavior and stated intentions or received the information from witnesses. 

Despite the vehement denials by the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department and the deputy involved saying they absolutely did not have legal authority to act, and simply did not want to make matters worse, the Independent Commission appointed by Maine’s Governor to investigate the incident made it clear they did in an interim report. Excerpts from that report include:*  

“The Commission unanimously concludes that the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office had more than sufficient information to begin the process of securing a Yellow Flag order against Robert Card Jr. on September 17th, 2023.”

“The Commission recognizes that, to take Mr. Card into protective custody, an officer would have had to make “face-to-face” contact with him. We also recognize that that process might not have been without difficulty and potential risk. Taking Mr. Card into protective custody, however, was warranted by the information known to Sgt. Skolfield as of September 17, 2023, and a plan to intervene and take Mr. Card into protective custody should have been undertaken.”

“As reported, the Yellow Flag process may sometimes be cumbersome. A review of other Yellow Flag orders in Maine, both before and after the October 25th shootings, demonstrates that the process can and has been successfully used. An officer needs to have knowledge of the process, use all the resources the officer has to gather the necessary information, and have the dedication and persistence to follow through with the investigation and the process.”

As I indicated above, gleeful left wing gun control extremist legislators in Maine were more than happy to capitalize on the deaths of innocent victims to pursue their agenda. MANY gun control bills were introduced, and legislative gamesmanship of the like rarely seen before in the State of Maine were practiced to move them forward. These included such tactics as having vulnerable Democrat members out for walks during key votes and an obscure “vote paring” scheme to create the illusion of opposition while passively allowing the measures to pass. 

In the end, a 72 hour waiting period was approved, as well as a mandating background checks for private advertised sales and “improvements” to the state’s Yellow Flag law. 

What impact will the new laws have? The 72 hour waiting period will result in significant lost business to the state’s hunting and sporting business (a major goal of the gun control lobby) and potentially the loss of the state’s largest firearms retailer who may move to New Hampshire (another major goal of the gun control lobby). With no exceptions for those who are seeking protection from abusers, victims of domestic violence will be left to fend for themselves.  

Changing the state’s Yellow Flag law by removing some of the due-process protections in favor of simplified actions for law enforcement has now turned the Yellow Flag law a dark shade of orange. While not a full-fledged red flag law with an expansive laundry list of people who can petition to remove your firearms and Second Amendment rights, the ‘streamlining’ allows law enforcement to take the action for them. As we’ve already seen around the country, streamlined simplicity leads to abuse. 

While other gun controlled states around the country with much longer waiting periods, such as California’s 10-day and New Mexico’s recently enacted seven day waiting period might consider Maine’s 3-day wait a dream, they all realize this is only the start and now that Maine has allowed the first gun control laws to come in, the floodgates will open. 

Maine’s new gun laws go into effect on August 8th, 2024.

By the way, if you’re wondering what the state’s law-abiding citizens response was to the tragedy in Lewiston, it was to purchase firearms and get training. People are understanding the government will never be able to protect them and they are responsible for their own and the protection of their families.


Yes, it does matter who you vote for. 

Bob

* Note: I normally do not include the names of the pathetic psychopaths who commit these horrific crimes, however I chose to quote the Independent Commission’s Interim Report directly. 

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

Patriots’ Day

Today is Patriots’ Day here in my home state of Maine, as it is in five other states. It commemorates the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy which were among the first battles of the American Revolutionary War. While we remember those who fought for our freedom, it seems like the perfect time to take note of what modern day citizens are doing to protect our liberty. 

As of February 2024, the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) reported background checks of more than ONE MILLION adjusted background checks in a single month for the 55th consecutive month in a row. 

It is important to note that according to the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) this does not translate into a one-to-one number for firearm sales. Twenty-four states have at least one qualified alternative permit, which, under the Brady Act, allows the permit holder, who has undergone a background check to obtain the permit, to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a separate additional background check for that transfer. The number of NICS checks in these states does not include these legal transfers based on qualifying permits, and the NSSF does not adjust for these transfers. It also does not include private, party-to-party sales not conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). 

However, based on these latest numbers, it is now estimated there are over 500 million firearms owned by private individuals in the United States.

But what, there’s more!

NSSF’s most recent Detachable Magazine Report estimates a total of 963,772,000 ammunition magazines in circulation. Of those, an estimated 717,900,000 have a capacity of greater than ten rounds. The data shows what the gun control zealots term a so-called “large capacity magazine” is in fact a common and ordinary standard capacity magazine in the United States and most often used for lawful defensive and sporting purposes. 

When it comes to ammunition, even the most conservative estimates put the number in the trillions. 

These numbers are clear and convincing evidence that Americans are rejecting the disarmament regime and the idea that law abiding people are ‘safer’ when they are disarmed.

If you’re wondering why, let me quote you the recent exchange between a Lily Tang Williams, a Chinese immigrant and candidate for office and perpetual gun control prop David Hogg. The link to this exchange is below.

Lily Tang Williams question:

“Hi, my name is Lily Tang Williams”, “Welcome to my ‘Live Free or Die’ state. Actually, I am a Chinese immigrant who survived communism, and under Mao, you know, 40 million people were starving to death after he sold communism to them and 20 million people died… murdered during his Cultural Revolution. So, my question to you, David, is can you guarantee me, a gun owner tonight, our government in the US, in DC, will never become a tyrannical government? Can you guarantee that to me?”

David Hogg’s response:

“There is no way I can guarantee that any government will not be tyrannical,” 

Lily Tang Williams reply:

“Well, then, the debate on gun control is over because I will never give up my guns, never, never. And you should go to China to see how gun control works for dictatorship, for the CCP.”

This folks is why the Second Amendment is just as relevant today as it was at the founding of our nation. There is no guarantee our government, now or any time in the future, will not become a tyrannical one.  Not only are firearms in the hands of law abiding private citizens critical for the self-defense in the home AND in public for you and your family, but to keep our own government in check.

Today we remember those who began our fight for freedom, and to secure it so we would never have to fight for it again. Let’s try to keep it that way. 

Bob

Williams vs. Hogg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khAWldEPdyA

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #PatriotsDay, #GunControlFails, #NaturalRights, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

The Right To Bear Arms For All? 

Every so often a case comes around that makes me stop and rethink my views on firearms rights. Such is the case of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores who is residing in the United States illegally and was charged for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), the noncitizen possession statute. US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled this section of the law to be unconstitutional and dismissed the charges. 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is quite simply 
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— 
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

The ruling was based on the United States Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) ruling as the key element. Post Bruen, all Second Amendment related laws must be consistent with the “text, history, and tradition” of the country, with the burden of proof falling on the State when a law is challenged.

Carbajal-Flores had never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. In this case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020. 

The logic behind the applicability to a non-citizen in the United States boils down to the wording of the Second Amendment. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Like the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the word “people” was used, not “citizen”. This was certainly not a mistake of terminology as the Founders understood the difference and used the word “citizen” eleven times in the Constitution. 

We correctly view our rights as “natural rights” or “pre-existing, inalienable rights”, protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not granted by them. 

To say the United States does not recognize the difference is absurd. Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are citizens. First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are unquestionably applied to non-citizens in the United States. 

The United States detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was specifically created to keep enemy combatants captured during the War on Terror following the 9/11 attacks out of the US court system and have them subject to the same Constitutional rights and privileges as those on US soil. 

This case comes at a noteworthy time in our country with the current administration facilitating the influx of millions of illegal aliens, politically termed as “migrants”, and “asylum seekers”. The administration wants to bestow upon them all the rights and privileges of citizenship, including voting, along with many benefits not available to citizens such as free healthcare, housing, provisions, income, and legal representation. But at the same time, the one enumerated right they don’t believe anyone should have, the right to bear arms, is something they are willing to deny. 

It will be interesting to see if the federal government uses the same type of historical analogues the states have used in their defense of gun control laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. Recall numerous arguments have been made which referenced laws restricting the sale and trade of firearms and gunpowder to Native Americans due to the risk of “Native violence”. Perhaps they’ll be able to cite the disarmament of British loyalists, Native Americans, and black people as applicable “text, history, and tradition”. 

There are of course multiple avenues to keep firearms out of the hands of non-citizens. Universal background checks, a favorite (yet useless) approach of the gun control zealots, mandates all firearms sales and transfers must be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Even if question 21, l (Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?) on Form 4473 was voided, they could deny the transfers based on inadequate personal identification. 

This would be directly opposite of the decision to allow illegal aliens to fly into and around the United States using nothing more than a civil immigration violation form or an unvalidated entry in the CBP One app, while being able to decline having their picture taken. The rest of us must have an enhanced driver’s license or passport to fly, and the correct, current and valid photo ID to purchase a firearm. 

As I said at the beginning, this case has caused me to rethink my views on firearm rights. I’ve always accepted the noncitizen possession statute as a matter of course, most likely from years of reading and enforcing the provisions on the 4473. Yet when you recognize the rights of the “people” include all people and all “natural rights”, it causes you to take a second look. 

Of course, allowing non-citizens to legally purchase or possess firearms is a long way from a done deal. This was just the first ruling from a US District Court judge and there is zero chance our administration will let a ruling with the potential to allow millions and millions of non-citizens to possess firearms become the law of the land without a fight. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NaturalRights, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

More Than 1 Gun in 30 Days in Kalifornistan?

On Monday, March 11, San Diego based Federal Judge William Q Hayes ruled in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta that California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the judgment was stayed for 30 days for the State to appeal. 

This case adds to the growing list of California’s do-nothing-to-increase-public-safety gun control laws to be ruled unconstitutional. This ruling (linked below) is significant as it comes from a second federal judge rather than numerous rulings from Judge Roger T. Benitez. 

It should be noted California hasn’t been deterred by other states repealing their own 1-in-30 laws or having them struck down in court. In recent years, the State decided to double down and expand its own 1-in-30 law in a classic case of gun control scope creep. We can only speculate as to what would be next. 

When initially enacted in 2000, the limitation only applied to handguns. It was expanded in 2021 to include all semiautomatic centerfire rifles (or combination of rifle and handgun) and expanded again in 2024 to include any firearm, including completed frames or receivers, or so-called “firearm precursor parts”. 

While officially justified as to “stop one gun purchaser from buying several firearms and transferring a firearm to another person who does not have the legal ability to buy a gun him/herself”, I clearly recall the rhetoric from the initial 1-in-30 handgun ban, and the subsequent expansions saying this was needed since ‘no one should be able to buy an arsenal all at once’.  After all, straw purchases, buying a gun on behalf of a prohibited person, is already illegal in California, as well as the rest of the country, so why would this law even be needed?

The reaction from California’s Governor/Yet-To-Be-Announced Presidential Candidate was as predictable as it was ignorant with him choosing to insult the judge and push his own ridiculous anti-gun 28th Amendment. 

“Another day, another common sense gun safety law struck down by a right-wing judge. This is exactly why we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to establish a Right to Safety.”

Let’s not forget where this all begins, the Second Amendment:  

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 


Just as other cases have ruled that the right to keep arms “necessarily involves the right to purchase them”, purchasing more than one firearm (or ammunition) from a licensed dealer is covered by the Second Amendment. 

Once again, the United States Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) ruling is the key element. Post Bruen, all Second Amendment related laws must be consistent with the “text, history, and tradition” of the country, with the burden of proof falling on the State when a law is challenged.

The State’s justifications for “text, history, and tradition” in this case provides an insight into how little they regard individual rights and the Constitution. 

The State relied on “expert testimony” that firearms were not widely owned or purchased during the Founding and Reconstruction era, logic not backed up by actual historical data.

The state referenced laws regulating the storage, sale, and transport of gunpowder which in fact were fire-safety laws, not gun control laws. Also referenced were laws which restricted the sale and trade of firearms and gunpowder to Native Americans due to the risk of “Native violence” or carrying firearms and gunpower more than a certain distance from a settlement lest they fall into Native American hands. 

Similar to previous Bruen “text, history, and tradition” arguments, the State relied on racist laws from the colonial era to justify the constitutionality of modern day gun control laws. 

As with the other cases involving the invalidation of unconstitutional California gun control laws, the State will appeal this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There is zero doubt the “Nutty Ninth” will issue a stay for Nguyen v. Bonta and begin the torturously slow appeals process. We can expect the case will be slow walked, delayed, stalled and motioned to death until the current 5-4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court flips to a liberal majority, either by the replacement of a justice or packing of the Court with new liberal justices.  

Meanwhile, your unlimited tax dollars will be used to argue against your rights, and your donations will be used to argue for them. While a final ruling on this case is likely years away, the lawyers on both sides will be the big winners while your rights are on hold. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Yes, it does matter who you vote for!

Bob

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akvemjzqgvr/03112024california.pdf

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

Louisiana and South Carolina Make 28 & 29

It was a busy week for constitutional carry. On March 5th, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed Constitutional Carry Bill SB 1 making the state the 28th to implement permitless carry. The law goes into effect on July 4th, 2024. Then on March 7th, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed House Bill 3594 making the state the 29th to implement permitless carry. The law took effect immediately upon signing. 

For those keeping score at home, that’s 13 new permitless carry states since the Biden-Harris administration took office. The trend across the majority of the country is clearly towards less firearms restrictions instead of more.

In Louisiana, individuals 18 and over who have not been convicted of a felony may now carry a handgun without government permission. South Carolina also allows individuals 18 and over who are not otherwise prohibited to carry a handgun without government permission. South Carolina is already an open carry state, meaning eligible residents can openly carry without a permit. Both states still allow those who want to get a concealed carry permit to get one. 


The South Carolina law bans firearms in certain locations, such as schools, courthouses, and polling places on election days. It also increases penalties against those who are barred from carrying a firearm, such as convicted felons, if they are found with a gun, and establishes penalties against those who repeatedly carry a firearm in restricted areas.

South Carolina also included a provision in the new law for optional, free training offered twice a month in every county. Imagine that. Not only does the state NOT require fees for the application costs, the permit itself, and state mandated training, but they are offering FREE firearm training to those who want it. 

But let us not forget the usual suspects in opposition. 

As has been the case in every state to remove the requirement for concealed carry licensing, the opposition came from extreme fringe gun-control groups who refer to constitutional carry as ‘criminal carry’ as well as the left leaning larger law enforcement agencies and organizations run by appointed ‘politicians-with-badges’ who do not want to lose local licensing control and fees. 

It is important to note the ability to conceal carry without a permit in every state is for people who can legally purchase a firearm and are not otherwise prohibited. It has NEVER authorized criminals, drug addicts and others who would be prevented from purchasing a firearm the ability to carry one. 

The opposition included Democrat politicians suddenly reversing course to began supporting law enforcement by claiming these new laws would put officers in harm’s way. Fear-mongering quotes from local and state politicians included:

“If you don’t know how to use (a gun) and if you’re running around with it illegally, law enforcement needs to know that.”
“This bill allows an 18-year-old to walk around with a gun on their hip as if they are a cowboy.” 
“I just said a prayer last night that I hope my greatest fears don’t come true, and that’s that South Carolina becomes the Wild, Wild West.” 

Similar to what has happened in other states when mandated firearms training requirements were dropped, short sighted concealed carry instructors fearing the loss of business came out against the laws. One instructor commented, “It’s just a potential for chaos without education behind it and it’s not safe. “

Of course, the exact opposite has proved true each and every time permitless carry has been implemented. Armed citizens are less likely to be victims and violent crime has decreased. It’s as simple as that. UNLESS of course you utilize the proprietary, so-called “research” from the extremist gun-control groups, then it really is the wild, wild west out there.  Which do you believe is true? 

When it comes to training, when the cost prohibitive nature of the permit application process and mandated training programs are removed, more people actually do seek firearms training on their own. Business for firearms instructors in these states is booming (no pun intended). 

Despite the official line of wanting to weed out criminals through background checks, concealed carry permits are most often utilized to restrict who will be granted the privilege to self-defense through overly expensive, intrusive and time consuming application processes.  

Of course, the impact is greatest for those who may need to defend themselves the most, those who take public transportation, work late shifts, go through, or live in areas wealthier people can just go around. Not everyone can afford the costs of multiple fees, training, and time off from work to get a concealed carry permit. This all contributes to restricting the ability to defend yourself and your family to those who can afford the ‘privilege’.

Crime and violence continue to skyrocket around the country thanks to extreme-left law makers and prosecutors who prioritize defunding police departments, rewriting laws to lower penalties for crime, release those previously convicted of crimes and fail to hold those committing new property and violent crimes responsible for their actions. The result is more and more people are taking responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families. In many cases, this involves buying, owning and carrying firearms for self-defense.

The full list of states with constitutional carry laws now includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Congratulations to the Pelican and Palmetto states!  

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #ConstitutionalCarry, #Louisania, #SouthCarolina, #SelfDefense, #GunControlFails, #USCCA, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

New Mexico Rights Must Wait 

New Mexico’s Governor made gun control a priority in this year’s 30-day budget legislative session. The good news is only two gun control bills passed out of the Round House. The bad news is two gun control bills did pass out of the Round House. Not satisfied with the outcome, the Governor has already suggested she may call a special legislative session to deal with her “gun safety” agenda. 

Specifically:

SB 5 bans firearms from polling places. Restrictions include within 100 feet of a door to a polling place or within 50 feet of a monitored secured container (drop box) beginning 28 days before election day. Exemptions exist for law enforcement officers, persons in private vehicles and for those carrying concealed with a valid concealed handgun license. 

HB129 establishes a seven calendar day waiting period for the purchase of firearms. There are exceptions for buyers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL), a valid New Mexico concealed carry handgun license, law enforcement agencies and officers, as well as between immediate family members.

It should be noted the majority New Mexico Democrats rejected an amendment for victims of domestic violence from having to wait seven days to receive a firearm because it “might result in the homicide of a perpetrator of domestic violence…” 

If you’re looking more of the asinine thinking involved in these kinds of laws, I give you the proposed HB 316. “This bill creates a new law which makes it illegal for a felon to use a firearm during the commission of a felony. The first offense carries an up to five-year sentence. Subsequent convictions have an up to nine-year sentence.”

So… It would be a felony for a felon, who is already committing a felony by possessing a firearm, to use a firearm in the commission of another felony. 

These are the kinds of mental gymnastics required when prosecutors and judges don’t hold criminals accountable for their actions. They wheel and deal on charges, minimizing or dismissing them, imposing suspended sentences, and releasing those convicted early ‘in the interest of justice’, but now want to look like they are being serious about crime. The result is absolutely idiotic NEW crimes like this. 

Here’s a novel idea for you. Arrest, charge and convict criminals for the crimes they commit and make them serve their sentences. 

Pure speculation on my part, but I’d say New Mexico’s tiny tyrant is pushing as much gun control as she can in hopes to gain favor and a spot in the next democrat administration. She missed out last time, due in part to her own scandals, but with her second term coming to an end in 2026, she’s probably looking to land a cushy cabinet post. 

Let’s recall the Governor’s statement on her so-called “public safety legislative agenda” just before this legislative session began: “This is the largest public safety package ever presented. We are committed to using every tool and evidence-based strategy to improve the climate, to deal with gun violence, and to make sure that New Mexicans are clear that we believe in the constitutional right to safe homes and neighborhoods.”

Of course, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to safe homes and neighborhoods. State and local governments do have a constitutional duty to protect public safety, but their powers limited by the Constitution so as not to infringe on the rights of individuals. They also cannot be held liable when they fail to protect the public. That’s called taking all the responsibility but none of the accountability. 

Perhaps the New Mexico Governor was referring to the California Governor’s “Right to Safety” 28thAmendment proposal which supersedes and effectively eliminates the protections of the Second Amendment. Considering it would do the exact opposite of what it says it will do, a better title would be “The Right to Be a Victim”. 

I’m betting the Governor will put on a full-on dog and pony show when she signs these bills into law, as well as announce a special session to push the rest of her do-nothing-to-improve-public-safety. 

Hold strong New Mexico and continue to let your representatives, democrat and republican, know that Second Amendments protected rights are NOT second-class rights. And if they disagree, well, perhaps it’s time for new representation. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #NewMexico, #GunOwnersOfNewMexico, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com 

The Wrong Move?

Iconic gun maker Remington recently announced they are closing their factory in Ilion, NY and moving to Georgia after 208 years. This follows the departure of Smith & Wesson from Massachusetts after 165 years, moving to Tennessee. Beretta USA, the American subsidy of the 500-year-old company left Maryland after 39 years and moved to Tennessee. All have cited the regulatory environment in their former home states. 

Just for context, Remington is our nation’s oldest gun manufacturer, founded in Ilion, NY in 1816. Generations of entire families in the community have worked for Remington. 

Of course, Remington, Smith & Wesson and Beretta are not the only firearm industry companies to flee the anti-gun states. Other notable exits include: 

Magpul moved most of its operations from Colorado to Wyoming and Texas. 
HiViz announced it was moving from Colorado to Wyoming. 
Shield Tactical said it would move from California to Texas.
Kahr Arms decided to leave New York for Pennsylvania. 
American Tactical Imports decided to move from New York to South Carolina. 
Mossberg opted to expand in Texas, not in its home state of Connecticut.

The reasons for the departures are clear and consistent. Anti-gun legislation banning the sales of the products they manufacture in the state, and in some cases banning the manufacture of the products themselves. Manufacturers also faced pushback from their customers for continuing to invest in states which are working to eliminate their Second Amendment rights. 

Even as the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, states like New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, California and New Jersey have continued to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws targeting the manufacturing, sales and possession of commonly owned and legally used firearms. 

Following the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ruling, “Bruen Response” laws essentially banning public carry of firearms were introduced in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and California. New York even laughing titled their public carry ban the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”. New Mexico’s governor decided an executive order for a so-called “public health emergency” (a Covid era remnant) was sufficient to ban ALL public carry of firearms in one county. 

While many of the provisions of the “Bruen Response” laws are being held up by temporary injunctions pending final adjudication, some portions continue to be enforced. Other laws banning so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “large capacity” magazines are successfully being challenged and making their way through the appeals process. 

The Hawaii Supreme Court even went to the extreme of openly defying the United States Supreme Court by deciding “We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

The timing of when these cases get to the United States Supreme Court is likely to be the deciding factor in their outcome.  Today there is a 5-4 conservative majority on the Court. All it will take is for ONE seat to be flipped during the current or ANY democratic administration, and these cases will go down in flames. Any progress in protecting or restoring Second Amendment protected natural rights will most certainly be reversed at the very first opportunity by a “liberal” Supreme Court. 

So, if you are a firearm industry manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer, do you really want to remain in a state which is systematically working to completely outlaw your products, business, and way of life? No, of course not. It wouldn’t make a bit of sense. Just as many individuals are choosing to flee the high crime, high tax, high cost, high regulation, and low constitutional rights blue states to the red states, the firearm industry is fleeing too. But is this the right move? 

First off, let’s look at what’s happening to the formerly deep red states. Austin, Texas is currently the go-to destination of tech companies fleeing California. But in doing so, they’ve brought the same people and attitudes who continue voting for the exact same policies responsible for the problems they are fleeing. Don’t believe it, take a stroll through downtown Austin and see for yourself.  Texas is no longer deep red, but an embarrassing blush of purple. And this is without considering the over 7 million “asylum seekers” and “migrants” flooding the country over the last three years. 

If you look at many of the formerly solid red states, you’ll see a lot more blue showing up, mostly around the metropolitan areas. As these population centers grow with those fleeing the high crime/high tax, etc. areas, they are bringing the same thing with them. Unfortunately, that means the same failed and unconstitutional gun control laws which contributed to the demise of the areas they left. 

Whose fault is this? Well, quite frankly it’s our fault, you and me. We have allowed others to control our government, courts, and educational systems by simply wanting to live our own damn lives. Because so many of us believe a big government is bad, we simply don’t get involved in it. Instead, we let others who say they will be our voice and will change the system from within, only to have them quickly assimilated into the culture and become part of the problem. 

Make no mistake, the voice of sanity and reason across the country is strong and growing stronger every day, but it needs to be more involved. We can’t sit back and hope some hero on a big white horse is going to ride in and save us. We must be the ones who take back control of our towns, counties, states and the nation. Every elected seat on every elected board and commission matters. 

Ugo Gussalli Beretta’s position on moving was, “If we’re going to build a factory somewhere, I want to put it in a state where I don’t have to worry about it, or my sons don’t have to worry about it, or even my grandkids.” A 100-year view of the company. 

Do you really think we have 100 years before there are no more safe havens left for our Second Amendment protected right? 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

Defying SCOTUS & Aloha To Rights

When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the State of Texas, there was an immediate and loud reaction to “Defy SCOTUS!”. But now, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to carry a firearm in public in Hawaii saying the US Supreme Court rulings do not apply there. With this, the very same loud voices are crying foul and say Hawaii cannot defy the United States Supreme Court. 

So, comply with decisions you agree with and defy the ones you don’t? Sorry, but that’s not the way the system works.

First off, the ruling in Texas was extremely limited and only applied to the Border Patrol being able to access portions of the border under control by the State of Texas, and if necessary, cutting their fences, to do their jobs. 

What it DID NOT address is the ginormous pachyderm in the room that our current administration has redefined the job of the Border Patrol to be that of an illegal alien welcoming committee instead of defending our borders and preventing illegal border crossings. 

The absolute worst-case scenario in this situation would be federal government attempting to remove or take members of Texas contingent into custody by force. From everything I’ve seen from the border area, the individuals on the ground on both sides are professionals and that won’t happen. However, I can also envision the FBI false flag division getting involved to create a situation where they ‘need to act’. Time will tell. 

In the meantime, Texas will continue to defend its border from foreign invasion, without having to defy SCOTUS. 

In the Second Amendment world, many states have been openly defying the Supreme Court with their so-called ‘Bruen response laws’, essentially attempting to implement the exact same unconstitutional restrictions in a different way.  

Now we have the Hawaii Supreme Court issuing a unanimous ruling directly defying the United States Supreme Court by deciding there is no right to carry a firearm in public in the State of Hawaii. 

Relying on US Supreme Court decisions in many cases including Miller, Heller, McDonald and even parts of Bruen, the Hawaii Supreme Court uses them as rational to reject the actual conclusion of Bruen. They go into great detail cherry-picking outlier opinions from reports and publications supporting their conclusions. Justification for current firearm regulations include laws from the slave era days of restricting firearms to white property owners and King Kamehameha I (1795 –1819) enacting Hawaii’s first law: Ke Kānāwai Māmalahoe, or “law of the splintered paddle.”

Honestly, if I didn’t read the decision myself, I would have thought this was something from the Babylon Bee, yet the quotes from the ruling speak for themselves. The link to the ruling is below. It’s a hoot. 


“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution. “The thing about the old days, they the old days.” The Wire: Home Rooms (HBO television broadcast Sept. 24, 2006) (Season Four, Episode Three).”

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

“There is no individual right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17. So there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense.”

Federalism principles allow states to provide broader constitutional rights protection to their people than the federal constitution. However, in Hawaii’s case, they are using this principle to eliminate rights protected at the federal level.  

So, Hawaii, the 50th state of the United States, has just declared that they are not bound by the US Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment. What other natural rights protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights can be eliminated in Hawaii? 


There are many issues with this ruling but for me it boils down to the extremist left attempting to destroy the rule of law and the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court. To be clear, they only want to destroy the rule of laws they DON’T agree with. If they agree with it, it should be enforced vigorously and those who break it punished severely. 

The US Supreme Court itself has been a target of the extremists since it shifted to a 5-4 conservative majority. There have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks on the conservative justices. These include attempts to impeach, attempts to get them to retire or recuse themselves from important cases, threats to reorganize the courts, impose term limits, and even a plan to pack the Court with five new liberal justices in order to “remove political bias”.  

Yet the biggest threat is to simply defy Supreme Court decisions the extremists disagree with. By ignoring the court’s ruling, they delegitimize the court itself and eliminate its function as the third independent branch of the government. Sadly, this is conceivable since it is the executive branch which enforces Supreme Court rulings. And as we’ve seen lately, the executive and legislative branches have zero interest in complying with Supreme Court rulings they oppose.

It’s very simple. Once you destroy the rule of law, you have no law. We don’t get to selectively defy one Supreme Court ruling because we disagree with it while absolutely demanding others comply with a ruling we do agree with. That’s not how the system works. 

I’ll ask again, do you really think it doesn’t matter who you vote for? 

Bob

https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #Aloha2ARights, #Hawaii, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

California Ammunition Freedom Gone and The Curse of Blue Slips

As was expected, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted California’s request on Monday, February 5, 2024 and issued a stay in Rhode v. Bonta, the ammunition background check ruling which was ruled unconstitutional just six days ago by Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez. Ammunition background checks now continue, preserving the State’s precious status quo during the appeals process. Not preserved are the constitutional rights of Californians. 

Of course, the ‘status quo’ the state wanted to preserve is not the one which was in place since ammunition was invented, or the founding of our nation in 1776, or since California joined the union in 1850, but that time honored tradition ushered into place in 2016 with Proposition 63 and the bait-and-switch Senate Bill 1235. 

The short order did not offer any explanation or the rationale behind it, however it did contain the dissenting opinion from one judge on the three-judge panel.

“I would deny the motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe appellant has met his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay.”

Whenever there is a decision like this, everyone always looks at who appointed the judges involved as an indication of their political bias. AGAIN, I’ll point out that political leaning in a constitutional court should be given absolutely ZERO consideration, but that’s not the reality we live in. In this case, two of the judges were appointed by republican George W. Bush and one was appointed by democrat Joe Biden. But does that really matter?  Guess what, it doesn’t, and that’s where Blue Slips come in. 

Blue slips are a quaint partisan tradition in the United States Senate which ensures a judge with an ‘acceptable’ political ideology to the home state senators is appointed to the court. It is a slip of paper the home state senator returns to the Senate Judicial Committee to show their approval of a federal judicial nominee. 

While it is the President of the United States who appoints federal judges, the Senate must give them a hearing and approval. Depending on the majority party of the Senate, the President must choose a candidate not based on their legal prowess or judicial integrity, but one that will be acceptable to the home state senators and the majority in the Senate. Even in the case of majority representation in the Senate, the home state Senators can withhold their blue slip and thereby deny the nominee a hearing and vote. 

What this archaic Senate rule means is only liberal leaning judges are ever going to be appointed in a liberal state. The result is what we now see in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a supposedly independent judicial body which functions as a rubber stamp for liberal legislatures in the Ninth Circuit. 

By the way, this is the same logic used in the argument to pack the Supreme Court with five new liberal justices in order to remove political bias. 

Rhode v. Bonta now continues its appeal process with unconstitutional law left in place. One thing we can be absolutely certain of at this point, the case will be slow walked, delayed, stalled and motioned to death until the current 5-4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court flips to a liberal majority, either by the replacement of a justice or packing of the Court. Meanwhile, only the lawyers will be benefiting. 

Sorry California. Ammunition Freedom Week was great, but it is over now and the constitutional right to bear arms has been relegated to second-class right status once again. 

As for you in the rest of the country, are you paying attention? Do you really think it doesn’t matter who you vote for? 

Bob

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/24.02.05-Stay-Granted.jpg

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Unconstitutional, #GunVote, #AmmuntionBan, #AmmoBackgroundCheck, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com