#2A – Page 10 – Odd Stuffing

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

Can You Hear Me Now?

Borrowing the catch phrase from an old TV commercial, this the question those of us in the Second Amendment community have. Censorship of the firearms industry or anyone advocating for Second Amendment protected rights is nothing new, although it has gotten exceedingly worse in the past few years. But now that censorship has expanded to include those who choose to hold and speak out on conservative held values or simply question the government narrative. Although many are speaking out, the message may not be getting through.

Censorship of the firearms and 2A community by mainstream news outlets and social media companies has been going on for years. Shadow banning, the practice of partially blocking or restricting the content and comments online to limit visibility is commonplace. Pages and commentators with thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of followers have found their messages only reaching a tiny percentage of them. Why? It’s simply because those who own the platform don’t like their message. That’s all.

Then there are fact-checkers. Our nation’s free and independent press used to be our fact-checkers since they had an interest in the truth and exposing those who didn’t speak it. But with free and independent giving way to biased and prejudiced reporting, the press simply isn’t trustworthy anymore. Besides, traditional news organizations weren’t set up to handle a 24/7 immediate response model. Enter the fact-checkers.

These so-called fact checkers have emerged as anonymous, unaccountable, supposedly third-party organizations, often directly funded by the very same companies they are “independently” fact-checking for. It should come as no surprise that the sponsoring organization’s ideology and biases towards those they don’t agree with are mirrored in their checks of facts. All the fact-checkers need to do is find an article with an alternate version of “truth” and that becomes the basis of YOUR facts being wrong. Once tagged with a fact-check, even if the fact-check indicates your article is true, its visibility is further reduced.

And let’s not forget Terms and Conditions of Use or Community Standards, the ultimate restriction on content. Social media companies can define anything they want as being “otherwise objectionable” and completely ban it and the users who share it. They don’t have to justify it any further than that and they don’t have to apply the standards equally across the board. They get to decide all by themselves what is true, what is false and what is acceptable for YOU to experience on their platform. These convoluted documents are supposed to make you think they are applying their ideology in a fair manner in your best interest. They are not.

What kind of power do they have? They can ban the sitting President of the United States of America and a member of the United States Congress for so-called offensive content. Yet, at the same time, they permit those who advocate acts of violence against others, target members of political parties or those of a certain race. They also allow actual, bona fide terrorist organizations. Simply questioning an official government narrative or presenting actual / factual information that may cause others to question it, is enough for a permanent ban.

Of course, there is the argument that the social media platforms are private property you use for free. As such, First Amendment speech protections do not apply, and you are perfectly welcome to start your own social media platform. Well…. There are some problems with that logic.

First is the direct connection between one side of the United States government and the news and social media companies. If the White House, members of Congress or members of a political party are contacting these companies and asking them to limit or remove certain content, then you’re damn right the First Amendment applies. The government doesn’t get to do an end run around the Constitution and claim no free speech infringements when they are the ones directing the private companies to do it on their behalf.

Second, let’s not forget the case of Parler, the free speech alternative to Twitter. Liberal talking heads complained the platform was nothing more than a conversative “echo chamber” that attracted and encouraged extremists. In reality, it was simply getting too popular and didn’t employ the same nanny-level liberal fact-checking the other social medial platforms did. So, using the tenuous at best association with the events of January 6^th, Google, Apple and Amazon conspired to take down the platform. Yes, it’s back online now with a new infrastructure and management, but the damage has already been done.

I’ve seen dozens of my favorite firearms related businesses and commentators have their content removed and the owners banned over the past few years. All their content was 100% legal, but none of that matters. Of course, they can appeal, but it’s a byzantine system of anonymous company drones who have the final say, and it should be no surprise it doesn’t go in your favor very often.

Keep in mind, banned content doesn’t let people have information that might help them in their own lives. Banned content can’t inspire someone else to speak out in support of a position. Banned content doesn’t allow people to unite around a cause. Banned content can’t question the only “facts” allowed to be shared. Banned content doesn’t exist, at least as far as you know.

There are some new platforms and more coming out soon which may help shift the tide of information sharing to those who have been censored. I believe their success will largely be dependent on the ability to attract the big-name content makers and get them to leave the current social media and news platforms behind. That should start a cascade of others who will be willing to leave and never look back.

For now, we’re all going to have to be creative and spread our message the best we can. There are a lot of us out there, and that’s exactly what they are afraid of.

Can you hear me now?

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Censorship, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #TheScore, #oddstuffing.com

If Gun Control Works, Why Hasn’t It?

If gun control works, why are parts of our country with the strictest gun control laws the ones with the most violence and crime?

If gun control works, why are the parts of our country with the least restrictive gun control laws the ones with the least violence and crime?

If gun control works, why are they always telling us we need more gun control?

If gun control works, why are they always telling us there are “loopholes” in the gun control laws they created that need to be filled in with new gun control laws?

If gun control works, why do the gangs, terrorists, criminals and thugs always have guns?

If gun control works, why are American citizens buying firearms to protect themselves and their families in record numbers?

If gun control works, why are the areas with the strictest gun control blaming the areas without strict gun control for the crimes and violence committed in the strictest gun control areas, when the areas without strict gun control don’t have the same level of crime and violence?

If gun control works, why are more and more cities, counties and states doing away with gun control laws and passing laws to further protect our natural right to keep and bear arms?

If gun control works, why hasn’t it?

Bob

#OddStuffing, #BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #oddstuffing.com

When Mr. Right is Wrong!

Today’s slightly off-topic rant is dedicated to Bob Right of Saline, Michigan. Mr. Right came to Odd Stuffing, blocked me – the author & owner of this page – then proceeded to post insults on my posts. His Facebook profile page and “comments” are attached.

It’s almost as if Mr. Right wanted to be able to post his abuses with impunity and not have to face any response from me. How very Facebook of him. For this juvenile attempt at a monolog, he has been banned.

As I’ve said before, I enjoy having people disagree with me and commenting with their point of view on my posts. This is how I and everyone else gains a greater understanding of the issues we face today. I absolutely abhor blocking or banning people or deleting posts. I think it squelches the free exchange of ideas and only makes matters worse.

What I post are my opinions and I stand behind what I write. If someone doesn’t agree with them, that’s okay. I encourage you to reply with your own thoughts on the subject. But if the best you can do is insults and name calling, the lowest type of argument, how am I or anyone else expected to take you seriously?

So, for coming on my page, purposely blocking the owner/author, then hurling insults, I reply to you with something you can easily understand, the universal intellectually superior comeback that trumps any argument; C’mon man!

Bob

#OddStuffing, #BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Cmonman, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #oddstuffing.com

Un-Happy Labor Day

Today is Labor Day in the United States, a time we should be taking to celebrate the American worker. We should be, but this year is a very different. With the twin plagues known as COVID-19 & election politics in full bloom, millions of Americans are out of work, their “non-essential” businesses shut down or only able to open at a small fraction of their capacity. In my state, today is day 180 of the mandatory Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve of COVID-19 economic shutdown. Businesses closed, many forever, means workers idled, dependent on emergency government assistance to provide them with enough money to simply survive. Too many businesses are closed, families broken, and lives lost for not being able to endure the anguish. This is not the way to celebrate Labor Day.

I don’t believe for a moment American workers want to be dependent on the government for their existence. American workers want to work. They want to provide for their families themselves. They want to be independent and make their own choices about the safety of their families, but they are not allowed to.

A little reminder on what Labor Day is.

The modern observance of the holiday seems to have forgotten the roots that brought Labor Day into being. Following the Pullman Strike of 1894 where 30 workers died and 57 were injured at the hands of the United States Army and Marshals Service, Congress approved Labor Day as an official holiday. It was an attempt by President Grover Cleveland to gain support among the trade unions following the strike. While it is disputed who first proposed the holiday, Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners or machinist Matthew Maguire, the intent was to create a “workingmen’s holiday”.

Recently the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revised their numbers to show the number of sick and dead from COVID-19 were never as bad as they had been reported. Also revised has been the guidance for travel indicating the mandatory 14-day quarantines are not necessary. Still further evidence shows the economic shutdowns have been overly broad and unnecessary. Yet extremist governors refuse to revise their shutdown orders and let people go back to work. Those who attempt to defy these orders have been issued shockingly excessive fines for simply opening their businesses.

The longer this pandemic shutdown goes on, the more we see it has not been a health-related emergency but a political exploitation. The purpose has been crystal clear, to cause as much economic disruption as possible to influence people to vote against an administration THEY blame for the economic turmoil and promise to rebuild the economy THEY themselves are responsible for destroying.

When the U.S. Congress comes back into session this week, we’ll see if they are willing to work towards helping those who have been shut out of their jobs or holding them hostage until they can pass a full agenda of socialist reform measures.

Better yet, how about some encouragement to the states to get them to reopen their economies. Perhaps if the politicians who have yet to go without a paycheck from the economic shutdown lost their income too it would prompt them to action. Perhaps a complete shutdown of all federal dollars to any state that hasn’t reopened would get them to take a fresh look at the economic impact vs. their political positioning under the pretext of a health emergency.

American workers deserve the opportunity to work and celebrate their Labor Day as actual workers.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #constitution, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #LaborDay, #MadeInTheUSA, #COVID, #Politics, #SmokeAndMirror, #Vote2020, #GunVote, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Mooting the US Supreme Court

While the Second Amendment community anxiously awaits a decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, we have to consider if a moot decision in this case will effectively moot the United States Supreme Court itself. On the other hand, any ruling other than moot will likely see the extreme left wing of congress working to reshape the Court itself. Either way, there is a whole lot more involved in this case than just the case itself.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York is about the draconian Premise Licenses issued by the City of New York. It allowed Licensees to legally possess their firearms at the single permitted home or transported unloaded and locked to one of seven authorized ranges in the City. ANY transportation to ranges or homes outside the city was strictly prohibited, as was any travel not directly between their home and the approved ranges.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association has been fighting this law for seven years. During this time, the City of New York has vigorously defended this law through the courts as a completely Constitutional restriction. After all, they claimed it was in the interest of “public safety” and that was all that was necessary. That all changed once the case was granted cert (a writ of certiorari) for review by the United States Supreme Court. Following this action, the City made a number of attempts to nullify or moot, the case including claiming they would relook at the law, amending the law administratively and finally reversing and revising the law so it gave the petitioners the ability to leave the City with their firearms. They even went so far as to have the State of New York loosen the state laws to back this up. All of this happened at a speed unheard of in New York for pro-Second Amendment legislation.

So that should be the end of it, right? Well, not really. There are a number of questions still remaining including the entire judicial process of how it got there. For seven years, the City of New York has been ardent in their defense of this law. Only after the highest court in the land, a court now leaning slightly more conservative, do they pull the plug and say mea culpa. Why? Because a ruling against the City of New York could have a far reaching and devastating impact on gun control legislation around the country.

This isn’t the first time in recent history where the gun control community has decided to bite the bullet (sorry, bad pun) and accept less gun control than see a conservative leaning Supreme Court make a nationwide ruling. Washington DC became “Shall Issue” following Wrenn vs. District of Columbia where the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia court ruled the ban on open carry and “good reason” restrictions on concealed carry were unconstitutional. In order to protect the gun control laws of states like California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Connecticut, Washington DC did not pursue further appeals. Of course, DC continues to change their rules to make it extraordinarily expensive and difficult to obtain and keep a “Shall Issue” permit, but you wouldn’t expect them to just follow the law now would you?

So what would a non- moot ruling mean? Other than getting a ruling on the original case itself, it would prevent the City and State of New York from simply reversing the law again and reinstating the exact same restrictions they had in place. But what the gun control zealots fear the most is the Court will rule favorably on firearms possession outside the home OR that Second Amendment cases must be examined under “Strict Scrutiny”.

Some quick notes on Rational-Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny

Under rational-basis the government must have a legitimate interest and the law must be “rationally related” to the interest.
Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must have an important interest and the law must be substantially related to the interest.
Under strict scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to the interest.

Note that the likelihood of a law being overturned increases as the level of scrutiny increases.

It’s also important to note that even when the district courts have examined cases under intermediate scrutiny, they have relied on shady, unreliable and incomplete “evidence” to reach their biased opinions in Second Amendment cases.

What was the evidence in favor of the NYC travel ban? An affidavit with nothing more than a series of conclusory statements. The entire evidence in support of the travel ban was an affidavit from a former gun-licensing official. He speculated that licensed New York City handgun owners transporting unloaded handguns outside the city might perpetrate “road rage.” Without a strong, definitive ruling from the US Supreme Court, logic like this is what will determine whether or not you get to keep your natural rights.

And let’s not forget the attacks on the US Supreme Court members themselves. After the disgraceful attacks during Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, the possibility of his impeachment was openly discussed. This, as well as the so-called “grassroots” movement by graduates to remove him from his position as a lecturer at Harvard Law School and other positions, is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate him into tempering his rulings.

Even more blatant was the brief five Democratic Senators filed in response to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case itself. They argued: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” said the brief, filed in August by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The threat is crystal clear. If the court rules against the City of New York, it will be restructured to a more liberal point of view. If that isn’t the definition of political influence of a Supreme Court case, nothing is.

So there you have it. If the case is ruled moot, the City of New York will be free to un-reverse their regulations and restrict law-abiding citizens in new and creative ways until another case makes it back to the US Supreme Court, just in time to be moot again. OR, the court can rule against the City of New York and establish the proper procedure for all Second Amendment cases – and risk being restructured to the point where it is no longer able to make any non-politically approved ruling.

Who is to blame for having a non-independent judicial branch of our government? We are… all of us citizens / voters who have allowed our representatives to make a mockery out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Who we vote for has consequences and we’ve only begun to see how bad it can be.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #SCOTUS, #CityofNewYork, #WashingtonDC, #Intimidation, #Politics, #GunControlFails, #mewe, #medium, #oddstuffing.com