Tag: #NaturalRights

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

2020 Gun Vote – Defending The Second Amendment

Some have called me a single-issue voter. Of course, that’s not true. Like everyone else I have strong opinions about the full breadth of issues facing our country. I just happen to place my first priority on Constitutional / Bill of Rights issues. If a candidate or party platform can’t say they support our natural rights UNCONDITIONALLY, then why would I entrust anything else to them?  Call it a shibboleth if you will, but how a candidate responds to a simple question like “Do you support the Second Amendment?” is going to determine if I want to listen to anything else they have to say. 

For me, when the answer to that vital question is “Yes, but… “ or “Yes, and… “ it’s a warning. The but or and is usually followed by ‘I also support reasonable gun safety/gun control laws’. Beyond that you’ll hear the usual lies about how “common sense gun safety” laws being proven to save lives. They are not. 

It’s no secret that many of the extremist left politicians and zealots would like to see the Second Amendment repealed altogether. Others simply prefer to assign creative interpretations to it such as, the right to bear arms was only intended to be for those in state militia (today’s National Guard) or that it was never meant to include modern arms, only those in existence (muskets) at the time it was written. Still others believe it was intended only for hunting. They see the Heller and McDonald United States Supreme Court decisions as the first time the right to bear arms was granted to an individual instead of the first time the existing natural right for individuals was upheld. 

So, when I see a political platform threating to infringe on our Second Amendment protected rights like I am now, I become very concerned.  The Democratic platform include such things as: 

A ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines”. Dealing with those already in circulation includes registering them as NFA (National Firearm Act) items with a $200 fee per firearm or magazine OR turning them into the government at a mandatory buy-back, a.k.a. confiscation. 

The flawed logic for the NFA registration option is because of the background check, NFA items are rarely used in crimes. Of course, this has nothing to do with it. With the exception of submitting fingerprints, there isn’t really a difference in the background check other than the $200 fee and up to a year of waiting for the results. The difference is NFA items cost a LOT more. Legally transferable fully automatic firearms, of which there are a finite number in existence since no more are legally available after 1986, range anywhere from $10,000 to $50,00 or more. 

Registration as a NFA item would of course eliminate anyone who is not wealthy enough to afford to pay for their ‘privilege’ of owning a common firearm. It would also eliminate ownership in states such as California where NFA items are outlawed. 

The other issue there is the ever-expanding definition of “assault weapons”. When the term was first coined, it included only a certain number of described firearms. Then it expanded to firearm types, then the features found on firearms and now in some places includes any semi-automatic firearm. There is no one definition of “assault weapon” and it is always evolving to include more. The popular political misconception of it being a “weapons of war” is a lie and only meant to evoke emotions about how supposedly dangerous they are. 

Another aspect of the proposed gun control plan is nationwide Universal Background Checks. This would eliminate the so-called “private sale loophole” by requiring all sales go through a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee). With this comes the less advertised Universal Firearms Registration scheme where all firearms are now registered with the government, generally considered a precursor to widespread confiscation. 

Other points of the gun control plan include provisions to: “prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.” Online firearm sales are of course a lie since firearms must be sent through a local FFL, but everyone already knows that.  Banning the online sales of ammunition, kits and gun parts on the other hand is something straight from the State of California. Ammunition there can ONLY be purchased through a licensed “ammunition vendor”, along with the appropriate background check (registration) and fees. Kits and gun parts will soon be treated the same, only being available through FFLs with a background check (registration) and fees. 

There is a lot more, including limiting purchases of firearms to one per month, incentivizing states to enact so-called “red flag” no due process confiscation laws as well as state and local licenses for individuals before they can purchase a firearm.  

As there always is with gun control, there is more.  But remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

If this concerns you, then I suggest you take one last read of the Second Amendment before you head into the voting booth. If your government is willing to take away your natural rights, do you really want to trust them with everything else? 

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.

Vote wisely. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #NaturalRights, #GunVote, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com