Donald Trump Just Restricted The Second Amendment More Than Barack Obama

Although he is still endorsed by the NRA, President Trump just presided over the biggest federal restriction on the Second Amendment since President Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994. On Tuesday, the Trump Administration officially banned bump stocks in a regulatory move that bypassed Congress.

In a scenario reminiscent of the worst fears of gun owners, the new federal regulation makes it illegal to possess a bump stock. Any person who possesses one of the rapid-fire devices must either surrender it to authorities or destroy it when the new regulation takes effect. Per the Associated Press, the deadline to comply will be 90 days after the regulation is published in the Federal Register. That is expected to happen Friday, meaning that bump stock owners will have until late March to decide how to dispose of their property.

The regulation was signed into law by President Trump’s newly appointed Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. The president had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” last February. CNN reported in November after the election that the regulation had been finalized and would be issued soon.

The bump stock ban seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The devices, which use the recoil of the gun to help the shooter pull the trigger rapidly, are not typically used in crimes. The exception was the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre in which the murderer used a rifle with a bump stock to kill 59 people. Bump stocks make it difficult to aim and shoot accurately, but concert-goers in Las Vegas were packed into such a tight area that aiming was hardly necessary.

Ironically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under Barack Obama determined that a regulatory bump stock ban was not legal under current law. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act. In the expert opinion of the ATF, a bump stock ban would require Congress to pass new legislation.

Now, five years later, the Trump Administration is arguing that the Obama-era ATF was wrong and that bump stocks are in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. The laws of physics have not changed over the past five years. Guns with bump stocks still require separate trigger pulls to fire multiple times. Neither has the Federal Firearms Act changed. The only thing that has changed is the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the law.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told the AP that the organization was “disappointed” by the ban. Baker said that the regulation “fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans” who bought the devices before the Trump Administration deemed them to be illegal and argued that current owners should be grandfathered in with an amnesty.

The Trump bump stock ban contains many of the worst aspects of liberal gun control plans and sets a dangerous precedent. First, the ban is arbitrary and will have little, if any, effect on public safety. The rationale for the ban, that no one really needs a bump stock, is the same rationale that many liberals use to advocate banning AR-15s and guns in general. Proponents say that bump stocks are a gun accessory and not protected by the Second Amendment, but the same argument could be made for many other items including scopes, reloading equipment, magazines, and ammunition.

More disturbing is that the Trump Administration is bypassing Congress to invoke the ban in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. Current law defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” However, as the ATF pointed out in 2013, that does not describe a bump stock’s operation. Reading the law to mean something that it does not say is usually strongly criticized by conservatives.

The new regulation goes further in restricting the Second Amendment than anything successfully enacted by Barack Obama, who was notoriously anti-gun. The Republican Congress killed Obama’s proposed gun restrictions limiting the former president to issuing a series of Executive Orders that fell short of banning any weapon or accessory.

President Trump’s bump stock ban is a blueprint that future anti-gun Democrat presidents can use to bypass Congress and further restrict the Second Amendment. In addition to being an anti-gun measure, the move is a flagrant abuse of executive authority.

There is no word on whether the NRA will endorse President Trump for reelection.

Report: Trump To Issue Order Banning Bump Stocks

Now that the election is over, President Trump is reportedly ready to issue his long-promised ban on bump stocks.

You may remember that the president ordered then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.” Trump added that he expected the regulations to be finalize soon. That was in February.

Now CNN is reporting that the moment of truth has finally arrived. In March, the Department of Justice submitted a proposed rule that would reinterpret an Obama-era regulatory interpretation that allowed the devices. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to Congress that bump stocks were not subject to the Federal Firearms Act because they required “continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot.”

Per CNN’s report, the ban will be announced within a few days. As part of the rule change, owners of bump stocks would be required to either turn in or discard their devices.

A senior DOJ official told CNN, “Bump stocks turn semiautomatic guns into illegal machine guns. This final rule sends a clear message: Illegal guns have no place in a law-and-order society, and we will continue to vigorously enforce the law to keep these illegal weapons off the street.”

Democrats support a bump stock ban but argue that an executive ban would be subject to legal challenges in the courts. Republicans typically oppose new gun controls, but many have urged the Justice Department to enact a bureaucratic ban, arguing that bump stocks are a gun accessory that is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Shockingly, even the National Rifle Association has called for increased regulation of the devices. In a statement released after the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, the NRA said, “Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” The Las Vegas massacre appears to be the only crime of note that has been committed with a bump stock.

Along with the obvious questions of what the Administration hopes to gain by banning a device that has almost no history of use in violent crimes and whether it is constitutional for a president to unilaterally decide to reinterpret existing law to accomplish his dubious policy goal, another question should haunt Second Amendment activists as they prepare to bid their bump stocks goodbye:

Isn’t ammunition also a firearms accessory?

Originally published Nov. 29, 2018

In Defense Of Bump Stocks

In the days since the Parkland school shooting, politicians of both parties have lined up in favor of a ban on bump stocks. Even many Republicans voters have given their assent to a ban on the rapid fire devices without much more than a whimper.

 

Two things make the matter of Republicans favoring gun control even more odd. First is that the proposed ban is an emotional reaction from a party that typically counsels against quick, emotional legislating after tragedies. Second, the Parkland massacre did not involve a bump stock.

 

A maxim of aviation is “don’t just do something, sit there.” It is very seldom that that any action needs to be taken so quickly that the consequences cannot be considered. In that spirit, let us take time out from the cacophony to look at the issue logically.

Bump stocks may be rare in crimes because they decrease the accuracy of the weapon. Andrew Wickerham, who trains police and security guards, told the Christian Science Monitor, “I’ve always thought these bump stocks were just a novelty. They’re not that good, and they’re hard as hell to control.”

 

A bump stock ban would almost certainly be ineffective because a modestly handy gun owner can craft a bump stock from common parts cheaply and quickly. It took me about two minutes to find the instructions on the internet.

 

In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act.

 

Marianos’ change of heart is exactly why the rule of law is important. Laws should be objective and consistent, not subject to the changing whims of regulators. If the Federal Firearms Act did not apply to bump stocks in 2013, it doesn’t apply now just because the president wants to ban them.

 

If President Trump and the rest of the nation decides that a bump stock ban is what the people want, there is a constitutional process in place to make it so. This is How A Bill Becomes a Law.

 

President Trump is falling into the same trap of abusing executive authority that plagued President Obama. The difference now is that Republicans at least tried to hold President Obama accountable.

 

What President Trump and other pro-gun control Republicans don’t consider is the precedent that they are setting. A presidential bump stock ban would begin a pattern of emotionally regulating policies that would make no difference to the overall problem of mass shootings. It would reinforce the Obama-era model of presidents bypassing Congress to decree laws from the Oval Office. Further, the argument that “no one needs a bump stock” sounds suspiciously like the left’s argument for a total gun ban.

 

President Trump’s bump stock ban won’t reduce the crime rate or solve the problem of school shootings. It also won’t placate the anti-gun left. It will, however, force Republicans to live with themselves after violating their principles on multiple levels.

Originally published Feb. 25, 2018

It’s National Shooting Sports Month: Here’s Why It Should Be Celebrated

The 2nd annual month celebration highlights the importance shooting sports play in our economy and our culture.

August marks the return of National Shooting Sports Month. It was established last year to encourage more Americans to responsibly partake in the shooting sports. Those who preach the gospel of disarmament or fake gun safety won’t be willing participants, due to their desires to strip ordinary Americans of their rights to own firearms. Nevertheless, this month could be the perfect opportunity to show our opponents and those undecided what real firearms safety looks like.

What is National Shooting Sports Month? It’s hosted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — arguably the largest firearms trade association out there in existence. The goal of the month is to encourage even more participation in the shooting sports than what normally takes place year-round. Per NSSF, the reason behind establishing a month for firearms enthusiasts is this:

Firearms owners deserve a dedicated time that draws positive attention to their sports and its many benefits, and to simply serve as a reminder to make time to enjoy a day at the range whether by themselves or with a friend or family member.

NSSF also host the annual SHOT Show trade show that draws nearly 80,000 people to Las Vegas

Their goals for National Shooting Sports Month in 2018 are listed as the following:

  • 500 range/retailer hosting events/promotions
  • 50 First Shots events
  • 100,000 unique visitors to the Shooting Sports Month site
  • 50 Companies/Organizations serving as sponsors and partners
  • 10000 sweepstakes participants
  • Attract at least 5000 people new to the shooting sports
  • Reactivate at least 5000 lapsed participants
  • Social Media Campaign generation = 5 Million impressions, 50,000 engagements and 20,000 post clicks

It was affirmed by the Department of Interior last year, and President Trump also issued this proclamation in support of the occasion:

The proclamation reads:

During National Shooting Sports Month, we celebrate the wonderful American tradition of shooting sports. Shooting sports are a terrific reminder of our constitutional liberty and the attendant benefits that accrue to a free people: active friendship within families, between peers, and among communities, and the opportunity for Americans living in small towns and large cities to experience the bounty of America’s great outdoors.

Shooting sports help reinforce many of the bedrock values of our people, such as the free exercise of the Second Amendment. Mastery of shooting sports requires rigor, discipline, and training. State and local shooting sports programs—and instruction by trained family members and mentors—affirm the role of local communities as the primary teacher of the rule of law and personal responsibility.

This month, we recognize the sportsmen and hunters who practice and teach firearm safety and exercise proper stewardship of our land. Sportsmen and hunters not only help others to understand the responsibilities of owning and using a firearm, but they also ensure that our open space and natural resources are safeguarded. Under existing Federal law, for example, a portion of Federal excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition is dedicated to American wildlife research and habitat conservation. That is one reason why my Administration has prioritized making it easier for Americans to participate in shooting sports on public lands. By doing so, we are enhancing Americans’ ability to experience the unsurpassed beauty of our blessed Nation and we are better protecting our national treasures for future generations.

I encourage all Americans engaged in shooting sports to continue promoting a culture of safety and to continue exercising the responsibility and duty associated with the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Despite being maligned by antagonists and gun prohibitionists as perpetrators of crimes carried out by criminals, the firearms industry has a rightful place in society to promote safe and responsible firearms use. After all, they host firearms trainings and instructional courses. Can the same be said for Moms Demand Action or Everytown for Gun Safety? There are no links to gun trainings whatsoever on their websites. Talk is cheap.

Roughly 50 million Americans participate in shooting sports—of all ages, abilities, genders, or geographical regions. They participate in different forms of shooting, as described as “action pistol shooting, long-range rifle shooting, the shotgun clay target sports of skeet, trap and sporting clays, blackpowder shooting, Cowboy Action shooting and competitive shooting with handgun, rifle and shotgun.” Why? They want to spend quality time with family members, significant others, or friends. More importantly, they want to be knowledgeable about properly handling and using firearms.

In a recent report on the firearms industry’s economic impact, it was estimated that $51.41 billion in economic activity is accounted for by this industry. More importantly, from this comes strong employment indicators—with this industry supplying roughly 161,795 jobs, averaging in $49,749 in wages and benefits per job.

Furthermore, excise taxes collected on firearms and ammunition help fund conservation efforts through the Pittman-Robertson Act. Imagine the toll gun control would have to conservation funding? It’d be disastrous.

I hope you join me in celebrating National Shooting Sports Month. Learn more about this month at LetsGoShooting.org.

YETI Responds to NRA Backlash in Email to Dealers, Ambassadors

Per an email issued to YETI ambassadors and dealers, the embattled company says they still support conservation and 2A.

According to Austrailian bowhunter Adam Greentree, YETI ambassadors received this email explaining how YETI Coolers amended its legacy vendor program—which now excludes NRA Foundation and also Safari Club International (both of whom are closely tied to the NRA).

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bh5aIIYHIbR/?utm_source=ig_embed

In the email blast, YETI says they continue to “actively support hunters, anglers, and the broader hunting community.” They also stressed they “believe in the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.” They claim their restructuring of their legacy vendor program is a business decision, and not a political one—stressing they still support conservation.

Not sure if YETI will issue a public release explaining why they ditched their legacy vendor programs with NRA-affiliated groups NRA Foundation and Safari Club International. Did they increase ties with more lefty conservation groups? Did they do a massive sweep of conservation groups of all political stripes? Time with tell.

However, a lot of damage has been done by YETI. We shall see what pans out.

UPDATE I: One YETI ambassador, Rachel Athila, claims the company made a statement, yet there’s no word it’s from HQ themselves:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160249072495704&set=a.10151570907345704&type=3&theater

​UPDATE II: YETI put out an official statement in response to the media attention it’s been getting

​https://www.facebook.com/Yeti/photos/a.115182725943/10156095306920944/?type=3&theater

YETI

ACLU Tosses Second Amendment Under the Bus




The American Civil Liberties Union is a group that was founded to protect the constitutional freedoms of Americans. The ACLU website brags, “For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Yet there seems to be one freedom that is too controversial for the ACLU to protect.

After the Virginia branch of the ACLU aided the alt-right groups that participated in the riot in Charlottesville last weekend, the Wall Street Journal reports that the ACLU will not defend the right of “hate groups” to march with firearms. The group will also consider the potential for violence when considering whether to work with potential clients.



“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” said Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else.”

There were many pictures of the white supremacist marchers openly carrying guns, which is legal in Virginia. At this point, it is unclear if any of these guns were fired during the riot, but photographer Zach Roberts did photograph an alt-right militant using a pistol to provide cover to the white supremacists who savagely beat Deandre Harris, a black special education teacher, with metal poles.

In an online statement, the ACLU said, “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.”

The question is one of intent. How can the ACLU determine whether marchers are peacefully exercising their Second Amendment rights or using guns to intimidate political opponents? Without evidence, the answer to that question is in the eye of the beholder.

Until they show intent to break the law, white supremacists have the same rights as any other American. The ACLU has recognized this for decades. As far back as 1978, the group defended the right of neo-Nazis in to march in Skokie, Illinois.

The problem seems to be on the Second Amendment, where the ACLU has long been ambivalent. The group historically considered the right to bear arms to be a government right to arm the militia. In 1980, the ACLU said, “With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual’s interest in freedom of choice.”

The freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are both enshrined in the Constitution that the ACLU claims to protect. These rights apply to neo-Nazis and Klan members just as they do to every other American. The ACLU has said that it would continue to deal with requests for aid by white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis, but it is disingenuous to protect one right and not the other, even after Charlottesville.

No right is absolute. Just as freedom of speech does not include yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the right to carry is subject to reasonable limits. It should be up to state and local governments to learn from Charlottesville and, if they see a legitimate need, enact constitutional legislation that restrict weapons under certain conditions. Virginia law already contains restrictions on the right to carry in certain circumstances.

If anyone, white supremacist or otherwise, abuses their right to bear arms by using legal guns to commit crimes, they should face stiff penalties. If this gunman, who used his gun to aid in the assault and battery of Deandre Harris, can be identified, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including the loss of his Second Amendment rights if he is convicted of a felony.

If the alt-right had not exercised their right to freely assemble and speak their minds, the Charlottesville riot would never have happened. In spite of that, the ACLU is not denying First Amendment aid to racist groups. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

Despite Gorsuch, is SCOTUS Backtracking on the Second Amendment?

On June 26, 2017, the SCOTUS declined certiorari to Peruta v. California, a case that met all the criteria for a review.

Why? After Heller and McDonald, this seemed like the perfect opportunity to clarify themselves, but during the entire legal process, it seemed the courts were acting as though neither were applicable.

The following article is a bit scholarly, but it explains what may be behind this phenomenon. It’s worth bookmarking in your browser for future reference. It is reprinted here with permission of the author, Mike Rana, who publishes his own blog, RightWinger.buzz.

 


 

Generally, the high court uses a few criteria to determine what to accept: When there are multiple Courts of Appeal in conflict, multiple state Supreme Courts in conflict, and important federal questions to be answered.  Another consideration is how the case at hand will impact national policy.

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights at ratification.  In this nation’s 228+ year history, the justices have only been confronted twice with it.  Heller affirmed the civilian right to bear arms for self-defense in the home, but only as applied to the federal government.  McDonald affirmed Heller and incorporated that right to the states, forbidding any city or state from completely banning firearms.

In his and Justice Thomas’ dissent, they said:

“Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the ones below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue.”

See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010).

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“ Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”).

The Court has not heard arguments in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard arguments in roughly 35 Second Amendment-related cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment, and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment.”

While one could easily write a book on how the judicial branch has cherry-picked from the Second Amendment, but has vigorously protected other fundamental rights (and unconstitutionally created and gone to lengths to defend others) it’s not hard to see how gun rights seem to be the one that legislatures and courts want to ignore.

I offer three hypotheses on why the Court decided to deny certiorari:

GRANTING CERTIORARI USUALLY IMPLIES A CHANGE IN POLICY IS POSSIBLE

Where the SCOTUS is the court of last resort for the nation and has a pint-sized docket compared to the breadth of petitions it receives, typically they only take major things.  The only exception to this rule might be Bush v. Gore.

The issue at hand in Peruta is whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Precedent has only held that cities and states cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, but as Heller and McDonald tell us, states are allowed to enact reasonable regulations on that right.  As it is right now, five states have banned open carry:  California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina, but allow concealed carry with a permit.

For those that want a popsicle headache, the Peterson v. Martinez decision ruled the following:

  • Concealed carry is not a protected right under the Second Amendment due to 19th century case law that has long prohibited the practice.
  • Mr. Peterson’s claim that he’s disarmed when traveling to another state because his permit is not recognized isn’t unconstitutional because the state he traveled to at the time of the claim allowed open carry.
  • Even if Second Amendment case law yielded to protecting the right to concealed carry, the state has an interest in public safety by regulating the issuance of permits on the grounds of legal suitability (I.E. not prohibited by state or federal law).

THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME RIGHTS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN OTHERS

The Court has had no issue bringing the iron fist to campus administrators who create free speech policies against disagreeable views. The same court has upheld offensive speech such as flag burning and Westboro without flinching, but they seem to be allergic to a piece of metal on the hip.

Other notable rulings include:

The Court has ruled that religious employers can receive an exemption from the healthcare mandate.

The Court has afforded wide latitude to the press in terms of what they publish.

The Court has ruled that abortion is a fundamental right as it applies to privacy and medical treatment.

The Court has ruled on things relating to cellphone searches, vehicle searches, not concocting reasons to stop someone just to pry further, and prohibiting a traffic stop from lasting longer than is reasonable to enforce the violation the person committed.

Multiple lower courts have ruled repeatedly that campus administrators cannot ban political speech on the grounds of a divergent viewpoint.

The Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right due to free association and the freedom of choice.

The Court has ruled that speech construed as offensive speech is still free speech.

You can see how these rulings could impact Second Amendment rights, if the court were intellectually consistent. While the Courts haven’t defended gun rights as vigorously as they have free speech, religious freedom, search and seizure, due process, and going as far as equal protection challenges, they have cordially taken cases involving each.

Although Peterson was decided in 2013, the legal framework hasn’t changed.  Concealed carry is still NOT considered a constitutionally-protected form of carry in SCOTUS case law. While the right to carry has been ruled acceptable, it hasn’t been ruled protected.

Some state supreme courts since Peterson have acknowledged, much like Justice Gorsuch did, that the right to carry is inferred from the right to keep and bear; the presence of inconsistent acknowledgement in other courts made Peruta a good candidate for a hearing, and this latest dismissal complicates policy.

For instance:

  • The Constitution protects the right to bear arms, but only with weapons that were in use at the time of the amendment’s passing.
  • The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, but public safety concerns allow the state to regulate it.
  • Citizens cannot carry firearms into government buildings because on the grounds that all should feel safe accessing.
  • Permits are a constitutional exercise of the government’s compelling interest of ensuring public safety and ensuring that prohibited persons aren’t able to purchase firearms.
  • Since a state allows one form of carry, it’s not a total infringement, as state regulations are reasonable for public safety.
  • States aren’t required to recognize each other’s permits on the grounds that one state’s policies and training requirements may be inferior to another’s.

THEY WOULD RATHER THE STATES DEAL WITH IT

Imagine if your right to petition your state representative required a permit costing $100 in Florida, and was banned unless you held an affiliation with an organization in Washington?

Imagine if your right to be free from search and seizure was fully protected in Montana, but didn’t apply to computers or cellphones in Nebraska?

Imagine if the Boston Globe criticized the governor of Massachusetts and it was protected speech, but the Los Angeles Times mocked California’s governor’s policy on climate change, and the blogger or journalist was charged with a hate crime?

I can’t think of a court in the nation that would tolerate or uphold any of those scenarios since each one is widely understood to be a protected right. Ironically, the Court itself acknowledges that gun rights aren’t an inferior second-class right, yet, here we are.

Given the case law behind our disfavored right, state legislatures have had to do the brunt of the work.  Considering twelve states have enacted permit-less carry with a dozen more with proposals out there, three-quarters of the states allow open carry without a permit, only five states outright banning open carry, and with each successive legislative session, more states are dismantling gun control schemes, what more would the courts need to do considering they’re not authorized or empowered by the Constitution to make law.

While the case law is correct in that no right is absolute, there is no enumerated fundamental right more cherry picked than the right to bear arms – something that needs to change.

 

Caitlyn Jenner: ‘Liberals Can’t Even Shoot Straight’

TV star Caitlyn Jenner threw in a nice burn when commenting about the Congressional baseball shooting.

A featured guest at the College Republican National Committee’s convention on Friday, Jenner spoke at length about the targeted shooting of Congressional Republicans last week during their baseball practice. She gave her condolences to the victims and to Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who remains in serious condition. She also made a dig at the shooter, James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter and avowed Republican hater.

“Nobody deserves what happened out there. There’s no justification. There’s crazy people, we have to minimize that kind of stuff. But as far as people that were injured, it’s an absolute shame. Fortunately, the guy was a really bad shot. Liberals can’t even shoot straight.”

The line drew huge laughs from the crowd.

Hodgkinson showed up to the GOP baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia with the apparent intention of killing as many Republicans as possible. He was armed with an SKS rifle and a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun. Despite an estimated 50 to 100 shots fired between him and Capitol Hill police, the only person to have died was Hodgkinson himself.

Jenner has become a seemingly-unlikely supporter of conservative values. Originally Olympic track star Bruce Jenner – she now identifies as a woman and is perhaps the most famous member of the transgender community. However, she has said coming out as a Republican in Hollywood was harder than coming out as transgender.

Jenner gave an address to the 2016 Republican National Convention and has since spoken numerous times to media outlets about her political worldview. While splitting with the GOP on LGBT issues, Jenner is a supporter of Donald Trump and holds many conservative positions – including support for the Second Amendment.