On March 10, 2022, Alabama became the 22nd state to eliminate the need to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
Fun fact: On March 1, 2021, I wrote about Utah and Montana joining the ranks of constitutional carry states, making for a new total of 18. I like the way this is heading.
Alabama now joins Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming in recognizing citizens right to concealed carry a firearm for self-defense.
As the gun control / anti-gun zealots have done every time legislation is considered to allow permitless carry for firearms, they put their propaganda machine into overdrive. Alabama was no exception. Wild stories spread about how there will be shoot-outs over minor issues, blood flowing in the streets and cities turned into the wild, wild west.
Among those who spoke against constitutional carry was the Alabama Sheriff’s Association, who worked with the ultra-anti-gun group Moms Demand Action to attempt to defeat the bill. When asked if he would support an amendment to the Constitution explicitly limiting Second Amendment rights to the home, Alabama Sheriff’s Association director Robert ‘Bobby’ Timmons said, “Oh yeah…I’d be in favor of that. But, I mean, it would never get passed.”
Mobile Sheriff Sam Cochran even made the often used false suggestion that constitutional carry would create an environment where a criminal who currently cannot carry a gun would be able to do so.
Many contend being able to carry a firearm outside your home is a privilege and subject to any form of “reasonable” regulation, control, and fees the government decides to impose. The most frequently used comparison – and used again in Alabama – is to that of a driver’s license. Of course, the ability to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway isn’t a constitutionally protected natural right, it is a privilege. But that’s what the gun control lobby want you to believe, that driving a car and carrying a firearm are the same thing. They have always wanted to restrict or revoke your rights and turn them into privileges they can control and restrict.
If you have to ask for permission to exercise a right, it’s a privilege.
If you have to pay a fee to exercise a right, it’s a privilege.
If you have to take training and tests to exercise a right, it’s a privilege.
If you have to carry a license or permit to exercise a right, it’s a privilege.
If you can be denied exercising a right, it’s a privilege.
They point to “emerging data”, self-funded “academic studies” and “research” showing how violent crime will increase when permitless carry is allowed. They allege that only strong, “may issue” carry laws are appropriate. Only laws where persons applying for permission to carry a firearm in public must prove they have “good cause” or “justifiable need” to carry a firearm as well as demonstrate they are of “good character”. This is usually combined with significant mandatory training, substantial license fees and the ability of the issuing authority to deny their permit for any reason, or no reason at all, is the only way to allow a precious few the privilege of being able to carry a firearm outside their homes.
What really happens when more people are allowed to carry concealed firearms? Violent crime goes down. That’s all. No gun fights in the streets, no people shooting up the town or duels at high noon. Maine’s experience is typical. The state went from the third safest state in the nation to the safest state in the nation following their move to being a constitutional carry state.
Note that I mentioned the anti-constitutional carry Sheriffs and Sheriff’s Association here by name because it is important for the citizens of Alabama to understand where their elected officials stand on protecting their constitutionally protected rights. Reserving rights for themselves and those they determine worthy of being able to defend their lives and the lives of their families falls far short of their oath of “… support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama…”. Hopefully the citizens of Alabama will remember this the next time they see these names on a ballot.
Congratulations Alabama!
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #ConstitutionalCarry, #Alabama, #SelfDefense, #GunControlFails, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com
Tag: #GunControlFails
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 6th, 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
The Only Thing Necessary…
The Only Thing Necessary For the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing. While this quote is generally misattributed to Edmond Burke, even directly by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the meaning and intent remain, as does the call to action for people like you and me.
I’ve been on a little break to deal with some geography issues, and still am, but that’s a story for another day. During this time, a lot has transpired impacting our constitutionally protected rights, and specifically the Second Amendment. As with most consequential things, it’s important to understand what has happened to guide us to the future.
It’s safe to say that over the past two years, our individual rights have taken a savage beating. In the name of ‘what is best for society’, we have seen our rights to free speech, religion, press, association and to petition our government for redress of grievances stripped away. Our right to keep and bear arms, highly restricted in many places, has been even further regulated and ‘put on hold’. We have been subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, been denied bail, subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and denied the right to a speedy trial.
For the new year, I’m going to need to play catch-up on some past events in order to move forward. While my focus is, and always has been, the Second Amendment, we can’t ignore some other abuses of our rights. We don’t get to pick and choose what rights we want to defend and those we don’t care as much about. For most certainly if we allow rights in one area to deteriorate, then how long will it be for all of them to be nothing more than words on old pieces of parchment.
If you doubt that by banding together with other like-minded individuals has no chance of success, let me drop another quote on you from cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
If you still have an open slot on your resolutions list, let one of them be getting involved in your local, county, state and federal politics. For far too long we’ve let others serve and be involved and we now see the result of that.
The Odd Stuffing crystal ball tells me 2022 is going to be a bumpy ride. It’s time for patriots to hop in and buckle up.
Bob
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #GetInvolved, #2022, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #oddstuffing.com
A Direct Threat To Public Safety
This quote was part of the California Governor’s response to the ruling from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez declaring the state’s 32-year-old ban on so-called “assault weapons” unconstitutional. While this matter is nowhere close to being final, the June 4, 2021, ruling in Miller v. Bonta is a substantial step forward in the restoration of Second Amendment protected rights in the State of California, as well as the rest of the country.
The first part of this ruling is:
“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).”
Of course, the Governor and State Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately attacked this ruling:
“Today’s decision is a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period. The fact that this judge compared the AR-15 — a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield — to a Swiss Army knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon.”
By attacking the analogy used by Judge Benitez instead of the facts of the case, then continuing to perpetuate the “weapon of war” lie, it showed how little understanding the Governor and Attorney General really have about firearms, crime, violence and the Constitution.
The comparison is apt as the iconic Swiss Army Knife is universally recognized as an indispensable, multi-function, multi-use tool. The Judge could have just described the fact that the AR-15 is an indispensable, multi-function, multi-use tool, but he decided to use the common analogy to make the point. Thinking it compared lethality or anything else is absurd.
Of course, the “weapon of war” lie is one of the most popular myths among the gun control extremists. It attempts to portray the AR-15 as the exact same firearm used by military forces. Naturally it is not, and the incredibly HUGE difference is military firearms that ‘look’ like the AR-15 are select fire; having the ability to fire multiple rounds per trigger pull, either in a burst or fully automatic. The AR-15 has NEVER been used by our military or any other as a “weapon of war”. It is simply a semi-automatic firearm, just like any other semi-automatic firearm without the so-called “evil” cosmetic features. But you already knew that.
While the full ruling is 95 pages long, I encourage you to take some time and read it. Like all of Judge Benitez rulings, it is extremely well thought out and documented with verifiable, factual evidence, even if the State of California ignores it. The link to it is below.
The big question is of course, what happens now? Judge Benitez stayed the ruling for 30 days within the ruling itself, ironically expiring on the 4th of July. The State will appeal, as they have promised in their public statements.
California is the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, well known for its hostility towards and rulings against anything Second Amendment related. Cases in the Ninth tend to be decided by the political ideology of the judges assigned to the case rather than facts or Constitutional issues.
The success in this case was made possible thanks to generous donations and the member supported organizations behind it. The cost has been significant and will continue to grow as it goes to the next stage.
Now realize the State of California has unlimited resources to fight this case. Why unlimited? Because they are fighting this with YOUR tax dollars. The highly exorbitant tax dollars you pay to the state not only pay for their socialist agenda items, but to litigate cases like this to protect their ability to strip your rights away from you. If the State needs more money for the effort, they simply shuffle money from one account (like the DROS fund) to another. If they run out of money, well guess what, there’s more of that where it came from, YOU.
And let’s not forget the billionaire funded anti-gun “grassroots” groups and lawyers who do not want this case to become precedent for the entire country.
With the ruling stayed pending appeal, the State has everything to gain and nothing to lose by dragging out their appeals. The longer the case go on, the more resources are drained from firearm rights organizations. More dollars spent on this case means less dollars spent in other cases. All they need to do is drag this case out long enough for the 5-4 conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court to be reversed, or the Supreme Court to be packed by liberal appointed Justices, whichever comes first.
This case is FAR from over and it is going to be years before it makes it to the Supreme Court. Even so, there is no guarantee it will be granted a writ of certiorari OR be heard by a Court supportive of Second Amendment protected rights OR be adjudicated in our favor. Even in the absolute best of circumstances, it’s a crapshoot. The chances of getting any law reversed, even a bad one, is slim at best and the only ones who are certain to win are the lawyers.
I will repeat what I have said time and time again, the ONLY way to prevent these kinds of idiotic, non-sensical gun control laws from going into effect is to STOP electing people who are promising to take away your rights.
Bob
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #AssaultWeapons, #FPC, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #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
A Presidential Three Envelope Joke
There’s been a lot of speculation of what was in the envelope POTUS #45 left on the Resolute Desk for POTUS #46. Well, now is the time to reveal it. It was in fact three envelopes. POTUS #45 pulled the Three Envelopes joke on the incoming administration.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Three Envelope joke goes like this.
On the way out, the previous administration leaves three envelopes. The instructions say when things are bad and you don’t know what to do, open the envelopes in order and they will help guide you through the tough times.
Upon entering the White House Oval Office, the POTUS #46 sees the envelopes and, not knowing what else to do, opens the first one. It says, “Blame the previous administration”. Badakathcare, he exclaims! The current administration proceeds to blame everything not going well on the previous administration.
Time goes on and this strategy wears itself out. The country is looking for answers and the administration has none. With a bit of relief, he opens the second envelope, and it says, “Reorganize”. C’mon man, he cries! Despite this, the administration reorganizes and POTUS #46 is quietly slipped out the back door and the VPOTUS is now POTUS #47. The newly woke and reorganized administration goes about undoing and reorganizing everything into a new, “better” way.
A short time later, the reorganization strategy loses steam, and the country is once again looking for leadership. POTUS #47 having none to offer, opens the last envelope. It reads, “Make up three envelopes.”
Bob
#OddStuffing, #BillOfRights, #Constitution, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #3EnvelopsJoke, #2024Elections, #BuhBye46&47, #2024Elections, #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
2021 Federal Gun Control Part 3: H.R. 1207 (Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2021)
In their never-ending quest to systematically diminish and eliminate natural rights protected by the Second Amendment, gun control politicians have introduced H.R. 1207, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2021. Like all of the other gun control bills introduced by this Congress, it is nothing more than a feel good, do nothing attempt to “stop gun violence” that will only increase costs and restrict rights.
This bill would ban online sales and direct delivery of ammunition to consumers, forcing all ammunition sales to be conducted face-to-face. It would also require ammunition retailers to be federally licensed and report purchases of 1000 rounds of ammunition or more to federal, state and local law enforcement authorities.
If you’re wondering where this comes from, look no further than the West coast and the California Department of Justice formerly under the control of the current (Vice) President. Whereas every other jurisdiction that implemented some form of ammunition control and reporting abandoned it for being completely infective, California doubled down and rolled ammunition sales into the state’s DROS (Dealer Record of Sales) system used for firearms background checks and control.
But then California has what gun control extremists lust for, a full name and firearms registration system that tightly controls what can and can’t be purchased and how often purchases can be made. By tying ammo sales by state licensed ammunition vendors into this system, it can not only do background checks on each and every ammunition sale or transfer between individuals, it can also document who buys what kind of ammunition, and how much.
Built into the system but thus far unannounced is the ability to ban any type of ammunition California wants, very similar to the highly restricted California roster of handguns certified for sale. It can also limit the amount of ammunition anyone can purchase in any given time frame as well as restrict the caliber of ammunition purchased to firearms registered with the state.
None of this is a secret. These additional capabilities have all been proposed in previously submitted California gun control legislation. The only reason it hadn’t been enacted was because the system to implement it wasn’t in place. With that hurdle overcome, it won’t be long before these additional controls are nudged into place to eliminate so-called “loopholes” in the law.
It’s not like there aren’t other examples of the progression of government gun control failures. Following New Zealand’s ban and confiscation of tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms, “gun crime hit a new peak” last year. Undeterred by this, the country is fast tracking a new national gun registry and restricting the sale of ammunition to calibers of guns already registered with the government.
H.R. 1207 moves a number of gun control wish list items forward. Eliminating online sales simply increases the cost for consumers and forces them into a local retailer where more government control and tracking can be imposed. By requiring retailers to obtain a federal license (the equivalent of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) required to sell firearms), as well as the additional government tracking paperwork, it will increase the cost of doing business, and therefore the cost of ammunition, causing more retailers to stop selling ammunition.
As far as reporting sales of 1000 rounds of ammunition or more, it’s anyone’s guess as to where that number came from. No doubt it’s from the same place that determined 10 rounds in a magazine is safe enough for civilians. People buy ammunition in bulk to save money, not only on the ammo but the shipping. Despite the shocking news coverage of some politician-with-a-badge saying, ‘I’ve never seen such as huge stockpile of ammunition’, 1000 rounds is not that uncommon of a number. Competitive shooters, instructors, students who take a multi-day class or someone who enjoys shooting can easily burn through 1000 rounds very quickly.
Is someone having more than 1000 rounds more dangerous than someone having a single box of 50 rounds? No, of course not. The logistical limitations of weight and space restricts how much anyone can carry. As far as I know, the only person to fire that many rounds in a criminal act was the shooter in Las Vegas who had days to secrete that much ammo in his room. You are far more likely to be shot in an urban environment by someone with a single handgun firing only a few shots.
This bill only increases costs, reduces choice and enables more government tracking and control. It is only the beginning of federal ammunition 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.
Bob
#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #HR1207, #AmmoControl, #GunControlFails, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #gab, #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
Executive Actions, Gun Control Extremists and the ATF
Last Thursday, the Harris-Biden [sic] administration announced six gun control Executive Actions. The first five were simple requests that quite honestly could have been handled by a phone call or email. But then that wouldn’t have been as flashy as a televised Rose Garden event with the gun control crowd. The final one however, is of the most concern. The nomination of a gun control extremist / spokesperson and oath breaker to lead the federal agency responsible for the regulation of the firearm industry foreshadows what we can expect from this administration on gun control.
The photo is of ATF Director Nominee David Chipman proudly posing for a picture in front of the still smoldering ashes of the Branch Davidian compound and the bodies of 76 American citizens, including 20 children burned alive in Waco, TX, the end result of the botched ATF raid on the compound.
The announcement ceremony of the Executive Actions was exactly what you would expect from this administration. It included the now all-to-common unintelligible Presidential speaking gaffs as well as outright lies about the Constitution, the Second Amendment, American history, firearms laws and the impact of gun control. Yes, I said lies. Not misspeaks or things that could be interpreted in multiple ways, lies. These were statements that are factually wrong.
All of the Executive Actions announced on Thursday are of concern for the Second Amendment community and are already attracting broad opposition across the country. However, it is the last one, the nomination of Chipman for Director of the ATF that is the most troublesome.
Chipman is a 25-year veteran of the ATF, notably being the case agent for the Branch Davidian raid. Upon retiring from the ATF, he went on to be a senior policy advisor for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and provided training and support for gun control groups such as The Joyce Foundation, Americans for Responsible Solutions, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Center for American Progress. He later became the senior policy advisor for the Giffords gun control group.
Chipman, who describes himself as “proud and responsible gun owner” says “I am also permitted to carry a concealed handgun.” Please note his use of the word “permitted” here vs. ‘I have a right to carry a firearm.’ Allowing only a select, chosen few to carry a firearm outside their homes is a common goal of gun control extremists like Chipman. It is also important to realize that as a retired law enforcement officer, Chipman has a 50-state concealed carry permit granted to him through the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). Yet national concealed carry permit reciprocity is denied the average American citizen.
Then there are the lies. Chipman lied when he said “At Waco, cult members used 2 .50 caliber Barretts to shoot down two Texas Air National Guard helicopters. Point, it is true we are fortunate they are not used in crime more often.” The record is clear on this. No helicopters were shot down.
Chipman lied when he testified before Congress and claimed that the American gun market was “flooded” with “foreign made ARs.” Nearly all AR pattern rifles are American made, something a seasoned ATF veteran would know.
Chipman falsely testified that the reason why NFA (National Firearm Act) weapons are seldom used in crimes is because there is a background check with photos and fingerprints taken, along with a $200 tax. The real reason NFA firearms and accessories are not used in crimes is they range from rather to extraordinarily expensive and are owned by law-abiding citizens. Criminals, who possess and use the EXACT SAME type of firearms and accessories in crimes DO NOT register them with the NFA.
While referring to so-called “assault weapons”, Chipman testified “I believe we should ban the future production and sale to civilians and afford current owners of these firearms the ability to license these particular guns with ATF under the National Firearms Act.” He is quoted as saying “What I support is treating them just like machine guns.”
Now consider the current push for universal background checks which is touted as being the ONLY way to keep guns out of the hand of criminals. Keep in mind all commercially made firearms must be initially purchased through a federally licensed firearms dealer WITH a background check. But if that background check is insufficient to prevent them from being used in crimes like NFA firearms, then how long will it be before ALL firearm ownership and purchases will be subjected to NFA requirements including the registration, transfer and transport restrictions and tax?
Chipman has falsely described firearm suppressors as “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.” In reality, the 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.
David Chipman is a prime example of the type of “proud and responsible gun owner” gun control organizations love. He is willing to turn his back on his oath and use his reputation to restrict and eliminate the very same type of firearms he owns, uses and surrounds himself with for his protection, all in the finest tradition of the gun control elite.
Finally, handing over the reins of a government agency to a paid gun control extremist who has not only endorsed but participated in the heavy-handed enforcement efforts the ATF has regrettably become infamous for should be a signal for all law-abiding firearm owners of what we can expect from the Harris-Biden administration beyond these “initial” gun control measures.
Bob
#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #NFA, #AssaultWeapons, #ATF, #GunControlFails, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com