If you look at the list of traitors above who broke their oath to uphold the Constitution, you’ll see a common theme.
Many of these representatives are retiring, have lost their primaries, or are extremely likely to lose their primaries, like Liz Cheney, who is now actively courting Democrat voters as a last-ditch effort to save her seat in Congress.
These RINOs stabbed gun owners in the back because they no longer feel any accountability to their gun-owning constituents.
State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis. Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training.
Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, vowed to call the Democrat-led Legislature back for a special session to pass new rules.
“We have a whole lot of ideas,” said Hochul, who said she discussed policy options Thursday with the mayors of the state’s six largest cities.
NY concealed carry case: Sen. Zellnor Myrie
FOX 5 NY speaks with New York state Sen. Zellnor Myrie about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision expanding gun rights and striking down key portions of New York’s gun-licensing law, and how New York lawmakers plan to respond.
New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, also a Democrat, said state lawmakers should ban people from carrying handguns in any place containing more than 10,000 people per square mile (259 hectares), or anywhere within 1,000 feet of mass transit systems, hospitals, parks, government buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, banks, theaters bars, libraries, homeless shelters and courts. That would effectively include the whole city.
While it’s not yet clear what might come of the discussions, what was clear was the sense of urgency that New York’s Democratic leadership feels about retaining some curbs on guns in public places. The officials argue that such restrictions are life-saving: Statistics show the state, and its biggest city, consistently have among the nation’s lowest firearm death rates.
Impact in NY of Supreme Court’s gun ruling
Many people are wondering just how quickly the changes from the Supreme Court’s first major gun control decision in over 10 years will be implemented. FOX 5 NY spoke with local leaders, advocates and officials about what the future holds for carrying a firearm in New York.
“We are prepared to set an example that will lead the country as to: how do we fight back on this decision?” said New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and a former police officer and gun owner.
“We cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” he said.
NY concealed carry case: What ruling means
Richard Aborn, the president of the Citizens Crime Commission, weighs in on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down New York’s concealed carry firearms law. Aborn disagrees with the ruling and expects New York lawmakers to enact new laws that would withstand further scrutiny by the high court.
New York, like many other U.S. cities, has contended with rising concern about violent crime, though New York City police statistics show shootings have declined about 12% and murders 13% so far this year, compared with the same period last year. But murders remain at their second-highest level since 2012.
The high court opinion comes shortly after New York state tightened semi-automatic rifle regulations following a May 14 shooting in Buffalo, where a white gunman with such a weapon killed 10 Black people in a racist attack. Officials said the gun was purchased legally, but New York doesn’t allow sales of the ammunition magazines that were used.
As state leaders reacted to Thursday’s ruling, Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy said it was “disgusting yet highly predictable” that Hochul and other Democrats “are trying to gin up fear and division over a legal gun owner’s right to protect themselves and their family.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican candidate for governor, tweeted that Hochul “better not make her next move on this another assault on law-abiding NYers.”
New York state’s law dates to 1913. It requires people to demonstrate “proper cause” — an actual need to carry the weapon — to get a license to carry a handgun outside their homes.
There are similar standards in a handful of other states, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Hawaii.
Guns limited in sensitive areas
Constitutional attorney Andrew Lieb talks about the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down NY’s concealed carry gun law. Sensitive places would be limited under the law.
New York’s law did not define what proper cause meant, and it gave local authorities — often police — discretion on whether to issue a license. In practice, that meant most applicants had to show a need that went beyond routine public safety concerns, such as being in a profession that put them at special risk.
In New York City, few people beyond retired law enforcement officers and armed guards could get such a license.
In Thursday’s ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court majority said the New York rules prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the decision didn’t bar states from imposing handgun licensing requirements, such as fingerprinting, mental health records checks, firearms training or prohibitions on carrying the weapons in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings.
But the majority opinion suggested there were limits to how sweeping the place-based restrictions could be: “There is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded” and policed, Thomas wrote.
Brooklyn Law School professor Bill Araiza said the court “seemed to suggest that it’s certainly OK for governments to restrict carrying guns in sensitive places,” but “poured cold water” on the idea of expansive gun-free zones.
New York City officials insisted that nothing would change immediately, noting that the high court sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings that could iron out implementation details.
But the decision instantly raised fears among supporters of New York’s handgun limits, saying that loosening the rules could create a marketplace for handguns that now barely exists in the state.
New York has among the nation’s lowest rates of firearm deaths, including from suicides: 3.9 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019 and 5.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020.
NY leaders plan to mitigate gun law
From Gov. Kathy Hochul to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, leaders in New York say they will take steps to implement restrictions on the Supreme Court ruling striking down NY’s open carry gun law.
Manhattan, a symbol of urban America, had the lowest rate of gun deaths in the state with 1.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2019, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on gun laws, said research indicates that the firearms homicide rate immediately rises in places where restrictions are lifted.
Adams raised the specter of everyday disputes turning into shootouts in New York’s crowded streets and subways. He suggested that police officers would face greater danger, as well as a greater burden of distinguishing between legal and illegal guns in public places.
Some business groups are also concerned. Andrew Rigie of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, a restaurant and nightclub owners’ group, said small businesses should be able to decide what is allowed in their establishments.
Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price, Michael Hill and Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event.
Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.
“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”
On the afternoon of June 27, 2022, DOJ posted updates to the Firearms Dashboard Portal. DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal. After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning. The dashboard and data were available for less than 24 hours.
In the coming days, the Department will notify those individuals whose data was exposed and provide additional information and resources. California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.
DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information. In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)
We are communicating with law enforcement partners throughout the state. In collaboration, we will provide support to those whose information has been exposed.
In an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice will provide credit monitoring services for individuals whose data was exposed as a result of this incident. DOJ will directly contact individuals who have been impacted by this incident and will provide instructions to sign up for this service.
Any Californian may take the following steps to immediately protect their information related to credit:
Monitor your credit. One of the best ways to protect yourself from identity theft is to monitor your credit history. To obtain free copies of your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus go to https://www.annualcreditreport.com.
Consider placing a free credit freeze on your credit report. Identity thieves will not be able to open a new credit account in your name while the freeze is in place. You can place a credit freeze by contacting each of the three major credit bureaus:
Place a fraud alert on your credit report. A fraud alert helps protect you against the possibility of someone opening new credit accounts in your name. A fraud alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed. To post a fraud alert on your credit file, you must contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. Keep in mind that if place a fraud alert with any one of the three major credit reporting agencies, the alert will be automatically added by the other two agencies as well.
Additional Resources. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office right away. You may also report identity theft and generate a recovery plan using the Federal Trade Commission’s website at identitytheft.gov. For more information and resources visit the Attorney General’s website at oag.ca.gov/idtheft.
Citizen of the Planet/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
With the so-called “Red Flag” gun laws looming in many state legislators and possibly on the federal level, a new poll suggests the majority of independents and Republicans — and, yes, even some Democrats — believe those laws could pave the way for government officials to abuse and disarm citizens.
Convention of States Action, a grassroots movement of about 2.4 million supporters to restore self-governance in America, conducted a new national survey in partnership with the polling firm The Trafalgar Group, which asked more than 1,000 likely 2022 election voters about such laws that the Democrats — and, yes, even some Republicans — are working to advance in the Senate.
“Government officials at all levels have spent the last two years demonizing their opponents and using whatever means possible to censor or threaten those who disagree with them,” Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action, said in a statement. “So the idea that we should now trust those same people to not abuse a law that could infringe on basic constitutional rights is laughable.”
The survey asked respondents whether or not they believe that “red flag” gun control laws would cause a slippery slope for government and law enforcement to abuse their authority by disarming political opponents and/or citizens who disagree with them.
Survey results showed that 72.2 percent of Republicans, 52.3 percent of independents, and 16.4 percent of Democrats believe the powers that be would potentially abuse those laws.
However, 14.1 percent of Republicans, 23.3 percent of independents, and 53.5 Democrats believe there is no risk of government officials and local authorities abusing “red flag” gun laws — leaving the remainder undecided.
“Americans want real, workable solutions to the mass shootings we are seeing in this nation, but it’s obvious that they don’t see the proposed ‘red flag’ laws as the answer,” Meckler said. “More and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the government abuses any power it’s given, and they are responding accordingly.”
Earlier this week, more than a dozen Republican senators, including Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), joined the majority of Democrats to pass a procedural vote, 64 to 34, of the controversial 80-page legislation two hours after the bill began circulating.
Fox News reported the bill would provide grants for states that adopt their own red flag laws and offer additional funding for school safety measures and mental health services.
“The measure also creates penalties for straw purchases of firearms, requires more gun sellers to register as Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers, and closes the so-called boyfriend loophole by prohibiting gun access for people convicted of domestic abuse against an intimate partner,” Fox News noted of the legislation.
The National Association for Gun Rights posted a tweet Tuesday that accused nine out of the top 11 highest NRA-funded Republican senators of “selling out” Americans’ gun rights.
Those senators include Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Richard Burr (R-NC), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).
The bill is expected to pass later this week by the Senate and head to the House before landing on President Biden’s desk.
Trenton Democrats desperately want to pass something, anything. They just are not sure what. So far, their approach has been to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Make no mistake, Gov. Phil Murphy loaded them up with plenty of bad ideas, and now, they seem destined to intertwine their political fortunes (or misfortunes) with his.
As previously reported, your NRA testified against a package of gun bills on Wednesday in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. With less than 24-hours-notice, we were back to do the same in the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee on Thursday. The late schedule change was accompanied by late amendments and bill drafts, which in some cases, were being handed out as lawmakers were still shuffling into the room. In addition, two sitting members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were late scratches, with Sen. Joe Cryan and Senate President Nicholas Scutari sitting in to fill the vacancies. Perhaps all of their members do not want to be forced to vote for unworkable and unconstitutional gun control bills? We will never know what the motivation was for the swap-out. Regular committee members were not the only thing scratched for the day. Several bills did not make the cut in the Senate Committee either, including bills to require mandatory storage and a bill to raise the age for long gun purchases from 18 to 20. This does not mean they are dead; far from it. Ultimately, there is a lot to be sorted out. Some bills have passed one chamber but not the other. Some haven’t passed either chamber and yet others have been amended. Remember, for a bill to go to the Governor, it has to pass both chambers in identical form.
At the end of the week, every single Democrat on both panels voted in favor of the gun bills, moving them to the Appropriations Committee before sending them to the floor in both chambers. As Thursday’s hearing was happening, the Supreme Court released its Bruen decision which seemed to inject another layer of uncertainty into the plans of Trenton gun grabbers. New Jersey, of course, was one of six states specifically mentioned in that decision. The decision is going to force the state to make some changes with how it has been issuing (or not issuing) concealed carry permits.
There are Senate and Assembly sessions scheduled for next Thursday and Friday. They are trying to finish up the budget, and these are the days when this package of bills could potentially move before a brief summer recess.
They don’t know what they are doing in Trenton, but we do! We are opposing any and all gun control in the Garden State. New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and enough is enough. Please continue your sustained pressure and contact your Assembly member and Senator today!
Last week the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to direct the county attorneys to determine if the county can legally pass additional infringements upon Second Amendment rights, including age discrimination, additional background checks, court orders to suspend Second Amendment rights without due process, and banning arbitrary categories of firearms. The Board approved a similar proposal in 2018, and decided to not take action at that time. The new measure calls for county attorneys to provide an updated legal review of the 2018 report and recommendations on “how to improve the efficacy of existing gun control and safety measures.”
————————————————————————————-Gee does the phrase CYA come to mind for anybody else out there? Grumpy
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation.
One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?
Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.
Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added.]
As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character. [Emphasis added.]
As Volokh goes on to explain, this entire scheme appears to be completely unconstitutional. It’s a violation of the First Amendment before we even begin to examine how it would hold up under the Second Amendment. The government is not allowed to restrict your actions or suspend your Constitutional rights based on the viewpoints you express, even if they are unpopular with the current regime.
This is an even more critical distinction to make in an era where the government is busy redefining words and appointing people to decide what is or isn’t “misinformation.” If you spoke out against the violence on display during the BLM riots, you’ve already been defined as a “racist.” Based on that alone, the California AG could determine that you are of insufficiently good moral character to be approved for a permit. If you applauded the overturning of Roe v Wade you are no doubt already on a list of “haters” of some sort so you can be similarly denied.
Volokh correctly describes the words “hatred” and “racism” as being “potentially extraordinarily broad and vague terms.” Of course they are. And that’s more true than ever in the current climate as I described above.
The problem is that this clause has been on the books in California for years. Nobody really noticed it, however, because the state government was too busy denying carry permits to people because of their supposed lack of a “good cause.” They didn’t need to bother checking into your “good moral character” because most people never made it that far in the process. And the ruling in Bruen didn’t address this point.
What that means is that if California simply begins denying carry permit applications in massive numbers based on this clause, a challenge will have to be brought against them and the whole process will have to start all over again. The Bruen case had been grinding its way through the courts since 2018 before finally reaching a conclusion last week. If someone has to start over from scratch in California, the state will be able to continue flaunting the Constitutional rights of citizens for years to come.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) spoke with Breitbart News about the current push for gun control in the House and warned us to be ready to see gun controllers “go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”
Biggs noted a number of gun controls have been passed by the Democrat-controlled House, and even though those controls have not passed the Senate he believes the House will pass even more.
He explained, “I expect some additional gun control legislation to come out of the House. I expect there will be an attempt to do an ‘assault weapons’ ban, I think they’re going to continue to try to eliminate liability protections on gun manufacturers, and I think they’re also going to go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”
Biggs then talked about gun control in the Senate, where he said, “When gun control reared its head again, after Uvalde, I expected 20 members of Senate Republicans to cave and give things like red flag laws and whatever else that the House pushing. But I’m sure what, if anything, is going to get out now, because it has taken so long and they have no language.”
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., speaks during the Due Process Denied news conference on the January 6 trials and DC jail treatment outside the Capitol on Wednesday, June 15, 2022. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, is in the background. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
He added, “When you have no language to look at, they start working off what is called a framework, and that leads to infighting where some Senators want certain things but not other things, and that indicates a lack a consensus.”
And Biggs stressed the more time passes the less chance there is consensus will occur.
He also noted the way Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was booed on Friday at the Texas GOP Convention, and said, “That response indicates that gun owners are not real pleased with the Republicans that are undermining the Second Amendment.”
Biggs emphasized the launch of a watchdog group, the Arizona Second Amendment Coalition, a coalition of people he has pulled together to stay on top of the fight for Second Amendment rights.
Members of the coalition include elected officials, student advocates, individuals who work in the firearm industry, and members of pro-2A groups like the DC Project, among others.
Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, listens during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas, Texas, U.S., on Friday, July 9, 2021. (Dylan Hollingsworth/Bloomberg via Getty)
Biggs said, “We’re trying to make it a broad-based coalition where we talk about challenges to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Whether that is an ATF challenge, something the Biden administration is doing, or what policies–local, state, and federal–that may either positively or negatively impact the Second Amendment.”
On January 3, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biggs stressing that carrying a gun for self-defense is part of being a “free American.”
Biggs said, “When you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”
He then added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
“It is time for us to think outside the box and form two countries. Instead of civil war I propose civil separation. We are two countries, so ideologically opposed that each feels victimized and dominated by the other. Political leaders need to step up and brainstorm next steps. Clearly lay out the two ideologies and give each state a vote as to where they belong.” ~“Opinion Letter” from reader of The New York Times posted on June 5, 2022, responding to May 27, 2022 “America May Be Broken Beyond Repair,” by the Political Progressive Columnist for the Times, Michelle Goldberg. The letter writer, Dawn Menken, a Psychologist, from Portland, Oregon, is the author of “Facilitating a More Perfect Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders,” published in 2021*
If the American public didn’t know the truth before, it knows it now: the battle for the very Soul of the Country is on the line, and Ground Zero of that battle isn’t Uvalde, Texas. It’s New York City, New York, with the Bruen case shortly coming down the pike.
The Nation is indeed “two Countries,”—no less so now than at the time of the American Civil War: friend against friend, brother against brother, uncle against cousin, father against son. But what is different today is that ideologies cut across and into the very notion of what it means to be an American. There are those who hold to the meaning and purport of our Nation as set forth in our Constitution and especially in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. And there are those who wish to jettison all of it in the erroneous belief that our Nation is at its core, immoral, even evil. They wish to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic.
But the salient difference between these two Countries rests on this:
Those Americans who embrace and cherish their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and others who do not.
Those who embrace and cherish their fundamental right to keep and bear arms also recognize and embrace their sovereignty over Government. They understand that government exists to serve the interests of the people. They recognize that Government is the servant and the American people are the sole master.
Unfortunately, many Americans are of a different mindset. Such Americans have bought into the psychological conditioning programmed into them that guns are awful and gun owners are to be despised. Such Americans care not that Government is their servant, not their master. They recognize not and care not that by ceding their God-Given right to keep and bear arms, they have laid the foundation for their own demise: loss of Selfhood, loss of Dignity, loss of Self-Reliance, loss of mastery over their own destiny.
But what does the Government Tyrant do about the population of gun owners? That places the Tyrant in a quandary. The Tyrant cannot gain control over those who have the will and means to effectively resist the insinuation of tyranny over them. And, while two-thirds of the population has apparently capitulated, that still leaves a goodly third of Americans who have not and will not capitulate. One hundred million people is a lot of people by any reckoning.
What, then, does a Tyrannical Government do?
How does the Tyrant go about separating an estimated 400 million firearms (according to American Gun Facts) in the hands of roughly one-third of the population?
The American public is routinely bombarded with viral memes. Injected with and subjected to verbal and visual memes on a daily basis, many Americans develop a phobic reaction toward guns and toward those who possess them: word phrases such as “Gun Violence,” “Gun Culture,” “Mass Shootings,” “Assault Weapons,” “AR-15 Rifles,” “Weapons of War,” “Large Capacity Magazines,” and other such nomenclature, when coupled with images of violence, operate as visual and auditory cues, that induce a neurotic reaction in the target population. This is to be expected; in fact, this is intended. The goal is to create in the mind of the target audience a feeling of physical revulsion and repulsion toward guns.
But is it really a concern over the safety of innocent people that motivates a vigorous response against firearms and firearms ownership, misguided though that be, or is there something more sinister at play? If it were the former, one would expect a harsh response toward the massive wave of everyday criminal violence infecting and infesting our Country, especially in the major urban areas. But we see no such response.
Those State and municipal Government officials and legislators, who rabidly attack guns in the hands of average, rational, responsible, individuals, handle rampant violent and vicious crime infecting their locales with diffidence and an air of casual indifference.
So, it cannot be violent crime generally or violent gun crime committed by drug-crazed lunatics, psychopathic and psychotic gangbangers, and garden-variety criminals, particularly, that motivate these officials.
What might it be, then? Why would Globalist Government officials, along with their compatriots in the Press, go off half-cocked whenever a rare occurrence, invariably avoidable, of “mass violence” arises, occasioned by the actions of a solitary lunatic?
Why would Government officials and legislators shriek for more nonsensical gun laws, targeting tens of millions of average Americans, predicating the need for all of it on the lowest common denominator among us: the lone wolf psychotic.
The answer is plain. The actions of that lone wolf psychotic merely provide a convenient pretext. It isn’t the criminal actions of the lone wolf killer that Government is concerned about. For he doesn’t pose a viable threat to Government. Rather, it is the armed citizenry that poses a threat to a Tyrannical Government and poses a threat by virtue of the mere fact of being armed.
But why should Government fear its own armed citizenry? It shouldn’t and wouldn’t unless Government seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the citizenry, as it clearly aims to do here.
A perspicacious Tyrant would know it is a Tyrant. But this Federal Government doesn’t know it.
The Federal Government has amassed power and authority that doesn’t belong to it; power and authority that never did belong to it, believing, wrongly, that the power it has usurped from the people is rightfully its own. And the Government has become jealous in guarding this power, hoarding it.
The Federal Government has come to perceive the armed citizenry as a potential rival that must be crushed, and not as a master to whom it must serve. And we, gun owners, for our part, would do well to view this present Government as a rival to our rightful claim of sovereignty over the Federal Government.
Our claim of sole sovereignty over Government is grounded on the Constitution, and on fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal God-given natural law Rights. And, what, then, does the Federal Government presume to claim its sovereignty over us on? What can it presume to claim sovereignty over the American people on? Nothing but a set of limited, contingent, demarcated powers and authority handed through us to it, conditioned on the fact that Government exists to serve our interests, not its own.
Whose claim of sovereignty is superior? And, if one falls back on the aphorism, “might makes right,” well, then, the Government is not alone as the bearer of arms.
*Menken’s book purports to be a guide for political leaders on how to bring the Country together to resolve the Nation’s differences. Yet, one year after the publication of her book, it is clear from her NYTimes letter Times, that Menken has had a change of heart; surrendered to the truth that reconciliation is impossible. That should have been obvious to her all along. It wasn’t.
There are two antithetical ideologies at play. One ideology is grounded on the principles, precepts, and tenets laid down in our Nation’s sacred documents. The other intends to cast it out. One ideology was forged in the Nation’s struggle for independence from tyranny. The proponents of that ideology seek to preserve the Natural Law Rights and Liberties of the people. They intend to maintain and preserve the success of the American Revolution.
The other ideology, grounded on the principles, tenets, and precepts of Collectivism, much in evidence today, seeks to upend the hard-fought battle for Independence from tyranny. For Collectivism is predicated on Tyranny. It is inextricably tied to it. On our website, we discussed all of this in several articles some time ago. See, e.g., our article posted four years ago, in 2018, titled: “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki
