Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Out to Pasture: The Man and the Idea: Stevens on the Second Amendment

28 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John Paul Stevens is a different man than John Paul Jones. Both were born around the same time. But Stevens has hung in there longer. His faculties may not have lasted so well however.

Repeal the Second Amendment

– so Stevens penned in the New York Times yesterday.

HERE also in case something happens to Slim’s site.

Let’s see what the old bow tie had to say (entirety):

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Come on, Stevens! In your lifetime? The man has seen a lot. He surely remembers the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil War, and the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Like that latter episode, the current hubbub is as misguided, nefarious, and sure to be as ill-fated.

I’ve covered gun control previously and the kids’ march especially. While not backing off the issue I’ve urged restraint towards the young, uninformed, and naive children. However, I’ve said that those behind the mania should be held to account. Stevens falls into that category. I actually welcomed his editorial position as I figured, aged or not, he is among the very best the grabbers could offer.

I am sorely disappointed.

There’s nothing there. At all.

A sufficient counter argument to this tripe is: BULLSHIT!

Now we have that all settled…

It’s funny, almost. First, Stevens ran his editorial on a digital system – see that above link. This is 21st Century news. It’s different from older newspapers, say, from the 18th century. It’s kind of like the difference highlighted by the Times’s feature picture:

28Stevens-jumbo

NYT. Yes, as corrected, that’s a musket up top….

Their point, his idiotic point, is that the one weapon was available when the 2A was enacted. The other, being a modern creation, was not and, thus, is not protected. Funny.

By the same illogic, the Times’s website, to say nothing of what you’re reading here and now, is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s not free speech nor free press. The only real, legal newsprint is print. If you don’t get news on low quality paper with blotchy ink from some young boy on the street corner, then you’re as bad as the NRA killing all those kids they never kill.

It’s also almost funny that the left wants to repeal something that, for an age, they denied existed. I appreciate their newfound honesty but it’s a little late in coming. They literally used to say the 2A wasn’t really part of the Constitution – despite it’s being right there in black and white. Conversely, they had no problem seeing Abortion floating in some nebulous prenumbra. Maybe one needs a bow tie to see it all clearly.

Prior to 2010 or so most Con Law textbooks were utterly devoid of any mention of the 2A. A few, like Lawrence Friedman’s, may scant mention, usually with a bare citation to Miller v. US (1939).

Why repeal something that’s not even real? My guess is a case of bad losering.

Stevens rests much of his “argument” on Miller. Liberals love to pretend that was the only court decision on the 2A prior to the 21st century. It was not. But it was perhaps the worst decided and most misinterpreted. So the Nine said civilians had no right to non-military quality arms. What does that mean? They didn’t say but one could easily extrapolate that, under their reasoning, only military-grade weapons qualify for legal protection against infringement. Probably not what the left had in mind. Of course, what the Court had in mind in 1939 later fell apart factually. In Vietnam soldiers made copious use of short-barreled shotguns. Hmmm.

At any rate, Heller and MacDonald cured the question of “does the Second Amendment really say what it plainly says?” It does.

Stevens dissented in Heller … and lost. They say, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” He says, now, “if we can’t beat it, repeal it.” Good luck with that.

And, again maybe it’s the age thing – dunno, but here Stevens violates his own canons of legal interpretation. His approach, as detailed in The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Interpretation, J. P. Stevens, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April, 1992:

  1. Read the Statute
  2. Read the Whole Statute
  3. Read the Text in Contemporary Context
  4. Look into Legislative History
  5. Use Some Common Sense

Taking the 2A as what it is, a Super Statute, and applying those rules, one reaches an incontrovertible conclusion: the thing is what it is and means what it says. 1) the language is unambiguous. That should be the end of it. But: 2) it fits with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 3) Temporizing the thought, either then or now, it fits with the idea of individual liberty. 4) the Founders demanded an armed citizenry as deterrent of tyranny. 5) What do the various facts tell us?

No question should remain after the first four steps are utilized. If, however, one needs more proof to affirm the meaning and intent by number five, then one should analyze what’s going on with guns in America. Here, as with most logic, the left fails completely.

The facts tell us: armed citizens still stand in the way of tyrants; guns save lives; the innocent lives lost to guns are: few, offset by the many saved, only part of the greater number of regrettable homicides annually, tiny in comparison to lives lost to other means/things, etc.; having the highest number and percentage of private guns in the world, the US still has one of the lowest gun murder rates on the planet, and; even with all those guns, and with all the hideous social, economic, and legal changes in the country, there has been no great or noticeable change in gun usage of late.

But why look at the law and the facts? Heck, that’s what judges do. Maybe it’s better to listen to young know-nothings scream about anecdotes. Maybe it’s better to blame the NRA for things it had nothing to do with. Promote a little fear. A little hysteria. Some lies.

And, for what? The Second Amendment will not be repealed any time soon. Good luck assembling a Convention of the States. Better luck getting super majorities in Congress and the State Houses. They can’t even get more “meaningful” gun control through in regular statutory form – though they try.

What would the Stevens’s Amendment say? A plain repeal? How would that work or be worded? “The rights of the people are hereby infringed.” That’s what he’s suggesting. The natural right to arms is independent of any amendment or law. It’s just that in some places it is infringed upon, violated. Simply repealing the 2A would not necessarily ban guns from private hands.

Maybe he means to include that ban explicitly in the new language. “The right is infringed and the people are barred from keeping and bearing arms.” Perhaps there could be a specific exemption for 18th century antiques or the swords and slings of Stevens’s youth…

I’m glad Stevens spoke up. It’s good to know what the enemy is thinking, what they want. They want to disarm you and leave you utterly helpless before their other plans and actions. Once more, see the thoughts, words, and acts of [pick your favorite murderous dictator from history].

In his final decade on the Court Stevens voted to extend at least some basic rights to Americans declared and held as enemy combatants, enemies of the government and the people. That might work out well for him. Some, like Vox Day, suggest Stevens has, via his First-Amendment-unprotected speech, committed treason and should be arrested for it. Debbie Gun Control-Schultz (and any co-signers) too. It’s a strange new world we’ve entered. I’ll leave that alone except to say: 1) enemy combatants do not have to be arrested..., and; 2) hey, Stevens is old, 97 going on 1,000; why bother?

If this was their best, then their best won’t do. A rock group told me so. However, now that they’re being honest about the thoughts and desires, we had best keep an eye on these anti-freedom types. Freedom: defend it or lose it.

*This subject shall be the focus of a video retort for FP tomorrow, likely to be linked and reposted here. Stay tuned.

Advertisements

Dream of Judicial Overreach

26 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Only trouble is, gee whiz

I’m dreamin’ my [country] away…

The DACA Dreamer “kids” stay in administrative limbo; so say the Supremes (not Don Everly):

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that requires the government to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program going.

Under a lower court order that remains in effect, the Department of Homeland Security must continue to accept renewal applications from the roughly 700,000 young people who are currently enrolled in the program, known as DACA. The administration had intended to shut the program down by March 5, but that deadline is now largely meaningless.

In a brief order, the court said simply, “It is assumed the court of appeals will act expeditiously to decide this case.”

Someone once said that when you assume something, you make an ass out of “u” and me. In this case, it’s you, me, immigration law, the rule of law, separation of powers, and the rest of the America.

Not to worry, the wise Trump proposes to administratively ban bump stocks!

A Shotgun in an Oyster House … or … Water Wars Heat Up in the Cold South

09 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Florida vs. Georgia isn’t just an October football classic. It’s now a Supreme Court case – one which might have ramifications for the rest of the USA too. It’s a fight over water.

Every 45 seconds or so, oystermen plunge their long-handled tongs into the shallow blue-gray waters of Apalachicola Bay, rake the bottom and deposit meager-looking piles on the bow of their flat-bottomed boat. A gloved co-worker culls the keepers from the empty shells and immature oysters, which are tossed back.

“See these guys here?” asked Shannon Hartsfield, whose family has fished and oystered and crabbed and shrimped here for four generations. He pointed to a nearby boat.

“Three tongers and one culler? Usually you’d have one tonger and two or three cullers. That’s the flip-flop. Used to, that man right there’d keep two cullers busy all day long.”

Apalachicola Bay, an estuary recognized by the United Nations for its uniqueness, once produced 10 percent of the nation’s oysters and 90 percent of those from Florida. Why it doesn’t anymore – why its oyster production has fallen so dramatically – has been the subject of decades of litigation, which now has landed before the Supreme Court.

Florida v. Georgia, which is to be argued Monday, is a water fight that pits the thirsty megalopolis of Atlanta and the farmers of southeastern Georgia against conservationists and seafood producers in this stretch of the Florida Panhandle called the Forgotten Coast. Both states need the fresh water that starts in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains – as well as in a spring just south of the Atlanta airport – and meanders hundreds of miles before finding its way into the Gulf of Mexico via the Apalachicola River.

So far, Georgia has been the big winner, aided by decisions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that allow it to keep the lion’s share of the water.

Often in such Supreme Court fights, each state wants water for growth. But in Apalachicola, leaders say getting a greater share is necessary to allow the place to stay as it is. The fresh water provides the perfect degree of bay salinity required to sustain the seafood industry, they say, and thus a way of life.

I crossed Apalachicola Bay a week or two ago, as I have many times the past two decades. I have two connections to the above story. One, I used to live in metro Atlanta; I used some of that water. Two, I’ve eaten my share of the Oysters, maybe the best in the world and in one of the best settings. I can kind of see each side of the issues here.

One time, maybe 15 years ago, I took a water tour up the Apalachicola River, from “downtown” Apalachicola, home of Caroline’s. It was a shockingly cold, windy December day. Luckily, formerly fat Perrin was well insulated.

The guide was great as he pointed out trees, other boats, and alligators. Then he mentioned the water war. His solution was simple: they should bomb Atlanta. Okay. It made a little sense, considering his perspective; we were on his river, recipient of whatever flow ATL dictated at the time. I was mildly alarmed as, at that time, I lived in the proposed target area. He jested, I was almost sure.

The point here, well, I don’t really have a point about the matter at bar. The greater point is that, as urban areas grow, they need water. My Western readers are acutely aware of this issue. It has to come from somewhere.

Atlanta, its political leaders (or what passes…) have proposed all manner of wacky solutions. I’ve heard of: piping water in from other states, in from the mountains, building new reservoirs, salt water refineries, and, or course, continuing to drain the Apalachicola, via the Chattahoochee (lot of vowels there).

This is all something to consider when decided where and how to live. Water is a must and, again, it must come from somewhere.

The wise Nine shall surely tell us all the business…

Now, on an even more remote, cold December morning, I had trekked across the Bay on a different, yet somewhat related mission. I and my good Brother-in-Law needed oysters. Appropriately fueled, we arrived in East Point for procurement.

We entered a dockside oyster house. Therein a heated discussion unfolded. One party held aloft a shotgun. Why such a tool was needed given the circumstances escaped us, even as we escaped via the front door. I suppose oysters, unhappy at their capture, may become rowdy. Maybe it was the water war. I’m not sure. But, that is a story for another day.

nimbus-image-1515524003988

Yep.

Not 25 Years but Close Enough: The Time has Come

02 Wednesday Aug 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

In Grutter v. Bolliger,  539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Supreme Court somehow upheld the continuing discrimination of affirmative action in higher education. In that particular case, it directly regarded law school admission at the University of Michigan. White students, like Barbara Grutter, were (are) systematically denied opportunities based on the color of their skin despite having superior test scores, grades, and IQs.

Sandra Day O’Connor, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Grutter, at 310.

It’s only been 14 years but that is close enough, long enough (too long really). The Trump Administration is ready to direct the DOJ to uphold the honest principles that Justice Thomas urged in his Grutter dissent:

I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School’s educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to “‘eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'” discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there. [citation omitted] The Court defines this time limit in terms of narrow tailoring, [internal citation omitted] but I believe this arises from its refusal to define rigorously the broad state interest vindicated today. [internal citation omitted]. With these observations, I join the last sentence of Part III of the opinion of the Court.

For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 527, 559, […] (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). It has been nearly 140 years since Frederick Douglass asked the intellectual ancestors of the Law School to “[d]o nothing with us!” and the Nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Now we must wait another 25 years to see this principle of equality vindicated. I therefore respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Court’s opinion and the judgment.

The time is now. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will begin pursuing schools engaging in this hideous practice.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.

Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.

The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.

Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.

“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.

I once brushed off the possible chance to work for the DOJ. This is one of the few times I wish I had gone through and was still there. I’d volunteer in a heartbeat.

End it!

Executive Order Travel Ban Upheld (Mostly and Temporarily)

26 Monday Jun 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

A victory for President Trump. The Supreme Court, with a few limits, upheld his EO Travel Ban from terror-prone countries.

President Donald Trump took a victory lap on Monday after the Supreme Court restored most of his executive order banning incoming travel from six terror-prone countries.

‘Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,’ the president said in a statement shortly after the high court ruled. ‘It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.’

The Supreme Court said it will decide in the fall whether or not the travel ban is constitutional. Liberal state attorneys general have argued that it amounts to a religious test for entry into the U.S. since the affected countries all have Muslim majorities.

The court said that while the wheels of justice turn, the Trump administration can enforce the executive order against anyone from those nations who doesn’t already have a ‘bona fide relationship’ with a U.S. citizen or legal resident.

The stopgap measure, announced Monday morning, is largely a victory for Trump, who will be allowed – at least temporarily – to stem the flow of immigrants and refugees from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Trump has said he would put his ban into effect 72 hours after the Supreme Court gives him a green light.

The case is Trump v. Int’l. “Refugee” Assistance Project, Et Al,  582 U. S. ____ (2017).

Opinion HERE.

nimbus-image-1498500727974

The Court will fully address the matter in October. Until then, we’ll have to look to our own for “scholar, teachers, and researchers.” ISIS is said to be disheartened…

The Slant on the Redskins and Other Offensive Names

20 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Deal with them. Good news for free speech: the Supreme Court rules against arbitrary and capricious bureaucrats and in favor of the First Amendment.

In a decision likely to bolster the Washington Redskins’ efforts to protect their trademarks, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the government may not refuse to register potentially offensive names. A law denying protection to disparaging trademarks, the court said, violated the First Amendment.

The decision was unanimous, but the justices were divided on the reasoning.

The decision, concerning an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants, was viewed by a lawyer for the Washington Redskins as a strong indication that the football team will win its fight to retain federal trademark protection.

Lisa S. Blatt, a lawyer for the team, said the decision “resolves the Redskins’ longstanding dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” she said.

Like me, you may have never heard of The Slants and you may have forgotten that Washington has a football team. This is still a win for freedom.

The OPINION.

nimbus-image-1498008977485

U.S. Supreme Court.

Gunning for the Truth

15 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the wake of the false flag Battle of Orlando the satanic government and it’s supporters are running around mad trying to disarm would-be victims of terrorism. Senate Democrats, President Hussein Obama, and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson are pushing S.551 which would allow the Attorney General to ban ANYONE from purchasing or owning firearms. Democrats and Republicans are both working to close “loopholes” that don’t exist. The closing will make it harder for decent people to buy guns. The mighty NRA has caved (again) and is backing a scheme partially similar to S.551. The Donald, who used to back gun control, now says he’s against it. The politically altered Supreme Court is once again examining another set of illegal firearms laws and conflicting rulings from the Fourth and Seventh Circuits. Both of those rulings concern “assault rifles” which, along with all other types of rifles, account for less than half the yearly number of murders attributed to punches and kicks.

The storm clouds formed pretty quick over sunny Second Amendment Land.

It’s not just politicians and lawyers attacking firearms. The sorry excuse for a media industry in America is hard at work too. Gersch Kuntzman (… these names …) is a wimp at the New York Daily News. Following the Battle of Orlando he went to a gun range to shoot an AR-15. The experience traumatized the poor man. “It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon,” Kuntzman cried, “I was terrified.” I’m sure he was.

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. If modified to fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

All it takes is the will to do it.

Forty nine people can be gone in 60 seconds.

His point is: guns are bad. Guns killed forty-nine people in 60 seconds. Actually, it took 3 hours but who’s keeping track of time.

Back to why he’s terrified … I know why. He loved shooting that AR and he’s ashamed to admit it. No black rifle variant is anything like a cannon. There is next to no recoil from a .223/5.56. They’re just plain fun. I have personally converted several “liberal” anti-gun types through the sheer magic of shooting an AR (and/or a fully automatic sub-machine gun). You have to drag them away from the range with great effort. Kuntzman left feeling like he’s just done a line off coke while racing a Formula One car. Then, as he dragged himself away, he realized he must either switch sides or lie about his experience. Hats off to him for maintaining his leftist identity.

Meanwhile the real attacks continue. Officials say the Somalian muslin “refugee” terrorist in Amarillo wasn’t a terrorist at all – merely a disgruntled employee passed over for a promotion.

Police Sgt. Brent Barbee says the suspect, 54-year-old Mohammad Moghaddam, took his manager and another person hostage over a dispute related to a promotion. Barbee says Moghaddam was a current employee at the Wal-Mart store.

Police say officers responded to the incident around 11 a.m. Authorities say a police SWAT crew entered the area of the store where the hostages were located around 12:20 p.m. and fatally shot Moghaddam.

Barbee says Moghaddam was armed with a handgun.

This may be true but I imagine the hostages felt terrorized, stout Texans though they be.

Elsewhere in Texas another jihadi, Peshwaz Azad Waise, was arrested without much incident after making Allah-laced threats at the local courthouse.

Peshwaz later arrived at the Denton County Court House at 1415 E. McKinney. He went inside and was stopped at the security checkpoint. He told security officers he was “the King.” [And he looks nothing like Elvis].

Sheriff’s Office deputies were summoned and they escorted him outside the building. While being detained, Peshwaz became agitated and said, “I’m imposing the death penalty (on the officers who were dealing with him.)” He later told them, “Anybody who touches me is going to bleed.”

Denton Police officers obtained an arrest warrant for terroristic threat for Peshwaz. He was placed under arrest and transported to the Denton City Jail. He remains in custody at this time.

Over in New Mexico another “refugee,” an illegal alien muslim, was arrested on suspicion of planning a pipeline bombing.

Police in a U.S. town bordering Mexico have apprehended an undocumented, Middle Eastern woman in possession of the region’s gas pipeline plans, law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch. Authorities describe the woman as an “Islamic refugee” pulled over during a traffic stop by a deputy sheriff in Luna County, New Mexico which shares a 54-mile border with Mexico. County authorities alerted the U.S. Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) has been deployed to the area to investigate, sources with firsthand knowledge of the probe confirm.

I’m sure that was all workplace related too.

The JTTF is being deployed all over the place. Post Orlando tips are pouring in and the FBI has about 10,000 open terrorism investigations.

For the FBI many of these are more than just investigations. Many are false flag/entrapment operations. Such was the case with Omar Mateen:

New York Daily News in their article, “FBI spied on Orlando gay club terrorist Omar Mateen for 10 months in 2013: FBI Director James Comey,” would admit (emphasis added):
Mateen first appeared on authorities’ radar in 2013 after the security guard’s colleagues alerted the FBI to inflammatory statements he made to colleagues claiming “family connections to Al Qaeda,” according to Comey.

Mateen also told coworkers he had a family member who belonged to Hezbollah, a Shia network that is a bitter enemy of ISIS — the network he pledged allegiance to the night of the carnage, Comey noted.

The FBI’s Miami office opened an inquiry into Mateen.

“He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so he could martyr himself,” Comey said.

Nevertheless, FBI investigators investigated Mateen, who was born in New York, for 10 months. They introduced him to confidential informants, spied on his communications and followed him. They also interviewed him twice.
Informants Posing as Handlers

The significance of this cannot be understated. “Informants” in this context, according to FBI affidavits regarding similar counterterrorism investigations, refers to individuals posing as members of terrorist organizations who approach suspects, coerce them into planning and preparing for terrorist attacks, before finally aiding the FBI in the suspect’s arrest before the attack is finally carried out.

Read this FBI warrant affidavit from a similar terror case in Florida. The FBI goes all out in some of these cases, supplying would-be attackers with weapons, bombs, tactics, training, ideas, plots, and targets. The idea is to intercept them just before they carry out an attack and charge them with something like Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction, 18 U.S.C.A. 2332(a), a 40-year to life felony. Sometimes that works. Sometimes things slip. Sometimes 49 people die.

nimbus-image-1466020085464

The Mateen family has a long history of playing along in these state terrorism games. The American people have a history of suffering because of them. The truth is that the games must stop and that we must keep our arms until and after they do.

Lock and Load: Guns News Coast to Coast

24 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chelsea Clinton recently spoke to a group of communists and hoplophobes in Maryland about how her dear old Mom will use the Supreme Court to bring us a definitive ruling on gun control and some good old “common sense” regulation. Common sense – like what passed for common sense security in Benghazi. It seems like the court Mom should be concentrating on is the criminal court that may try her for those emails (just kidding, she’s in the Club).

Chelsea is much more attractive than her mommy and her voice isn’t nearly as irritating. Still, she marches to a similar drum. Her remarks were based in enough callousness and condescension to make her mother proud. Said the young Clinton: “With that greasy old wop [Justice Scalia] out of the way … mommy and I can take all the guns from those dumb Bible-thumpers and tax slaves…” Her line was cut short by a wild, howling chorus of cackles and mindless, violent-sounding chants; someone screamed “Allah Akbar!” See and hear for yourself.

Elsewhere, other fascists praised the actions of the territorial government of the Northern Mariana Islands and its institution of a $1,000 per item tax on gun sales. The Islands are one of those American territories that are only so that the natives may collect entitlement payments and people like Governor Ralph Torres can have jobs and a non-straw house to live in. I support independence for the Islands! As a free state they could enact whatever laws they choose. Gun control, cannibalism, anything they like. Our problem is that they want their law to be a model for the 50 States and other jurisdictions.

Chelsea’s Mom once supported a similar tax scheme. Maybe that’s the common sense definition she wants. The idea is that even if Herr Hillary’s Court can’t ban guns, the guns can be taxed out of the reach of most “ordinary” people. By the way, I’ve heard these islanders were the inspiration for the various headhunters on Gilligan’s Island.

Another Second Amendment end-around is to make financial transactions impossible for gun dealers and manufacturers. The Department of Justice [SIC] has a lovely program called Operation Choke Point. It is designed to make it rather difficult for risky or criminal enterprises to do banking business through the Federal Reserve’s risky, criminal organized banking business. The DOJ increasingly wants to lump gun makers into the same category with drug dealers, cartels (NOT to include the Fed), the mafia, and certain terrorist groups. They also want to include cigar companies. I’m sure military armament companies will have no problems cashing our tax checks and the State Department and CIA will keep bringing in those Cubans to give as gifts to the MIC reps at the trade shows (seen it myself). The rest of us be damned; Mommy knows best.

As is today, one doesn’t even need a gun to run afoul of the anti-freedom nut cases. A college student in south Alabama got in trouble with the campus rent-a-cop for wearing an empty holster during a political protest. The raincoat clad storm trooper even admitted the student did not violate any laws or rules but still cited him for causing a disturbance and threatened administrative action from the school. In south Alabama! Free people in Chicago and Boston are doomed.

Next door in Georgia we’re still waiting to see if Nathan “Captain Cave-in” Deal will sign or veto the State’s campus carry law. No word yet. No speculation either about the status of empty, as opposed to full, holsters in the Peach State. Peachy, Nathan, just peachy.

Now the good news. Some parts of America still somewhat resemble America regarding gun rights. Mississippi’s Governor just signed into law state-wide permitless carry of firearms. That means you’re free to be free. Mississippi joins a growing number of such unrestricted jurisdictions. These places tend to have lower crime rates than locales infected with that “common sense” nonsense. If you want safety and sanity, it may be time to move to a place where people are free to be free. Leave the rest of the continent to the cacklers and the headhunters. Or, molon labe!

permitless carry, mississippi permitless carry, concealed carry

Personal Defense World/NRA photo.

 

Eternal Dissent: RIP Antonin Scalia

14 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Yesterday Senior Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at a resort in Texas. So passes the last originalist champion of the old Constitution.

download

Wikipedia.

Scalia was recognized, even by his detractors, as perhaps the most intelligent, well reasoned man ever on the Court. Frequently his words, majority or minority, were the only ones worth reading in opinions. His dissenting opinion, often all alone, was legendary.

Political speculation abounds regarding his potential replacement. Obama or the next President will fill the now open seat. However, this man’s legacy and position are irreplaceable.

Thank you and God rest you, Justice Scalia.

 

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).