Mediaboss Marketing

Another mass gun murder just happened in America, the seventh in 7 days, and already "Second Amendment legislators" are offering the 2021 version of thoughts and prayers. Lauren Boebert just tweeted, "May God be with them." Standing in front of her wall of assault weapons, most likely.

And, of course, today on rightwing talk radio and Fox News they've already begun lengthy bloviation about the Second Amendment. So, let's just clear a few things up.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the differencesee the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, an action necessary to get Virginia's vote to ratify the Constitution.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with making sure mass murderers could shoot up public venues and schools. Founders including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that, and we all should be too.

In today's America, you have the "right" to a gun, but no "right" to healthcare or education. In every other developed country in the world, the reality is the exact opposite.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South they were called "slave patrols," and were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of CaliforniaLaw Reviewin 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by thecharacter played byLeonardo DiCaprio inDjango Unchainedwhen he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" It was a largely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the answer: Well-regulated militias kept enslaved people in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her brilliant and essentialbookSlave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45including physicians and ministershad to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down uprisings by enslaved men and women. As I detail in my book The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment, slavery can only exist in a police state, which the South had become by the early 1700s, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

Southerners worried that if the anti-slavery folks in the North could figure out a way to disbandor even move out of the statethose southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service enslaved men from the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, along with the southern economic and social "ways of life."

These two possibilities worried southerners like slaveholder James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 enslaved humans) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" Henry (Virginia's largest slaveholder).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise an army, could also allow that federal army to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free their enslaved men, women and children.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through the newly-forming United States offering them military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution]"

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern forPatrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are 236,000 Blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. May Congress not say, that every Black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the new Constitution they were then debating ratifying to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry."And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the 'general defence and welfare'? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper [the Constitution] speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

He added: "This is a local [Southern] matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

"I was struck with surprise,"Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."

But the southern slavemasters' fears wouldn't go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (enslaved humans) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a freecountry[emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState[emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporationswould use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder people in schools, theaters and stores, and use the profits to own their own political party.

In today's America, you have the "right" to a gun, but no "right" to healthcare or education. In every other developed country in the world, the reality is the exact opposite.

Pointing out how ludicrous this has become, David Sirota (and colleagues) writes in his Daily Poster newsletter today: "Last week, the National Rifle Association publicly celebrated its success in striking down an assault weapons ban in Boulder, Colorado. Five days later, Boulder was the scene of a mass shooting, reportedly with the same kind of weapon that the city tried to ban."

The Second Amendment was never meant to make it easier for mass shooters to get assault weapons, and America needs rational gun policy to join the other civilized nations of this planet who aren't the victims of daily mass killings.

It's long past time to overturn Heller, which Ruth Bader Ginsberg repeatedly argued the Court should do, and abolish today's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

This post originally appeared at hartmannreport.com, but is published here with permission of the author.

View original post here:
Boulder: Is it Time to End the Second Amendment? - Common Dreams

Selectman Glenn Bear Zaidman wants to bring his resolution to make Bridgton a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary back before the board and questioned why he was told he couldnt.

I believe that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are under attack in more ways than one, Zaidman reiterated at Tuesdays meeting, two weeks after his resolution failed on a tie vote.

Selectboard members Paul Tworog and Carmen Lone voted March 9 against Zaidmans resolution to create the sanctuary to oppose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its citizens, and Zaidman and Fred Packard voted in favor. Chairperson Liston Lee Eastman, who would have cast the tiebreaking vote, was absent, but said later he would have voted for it.

Declaring the town a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary would have no effect on the law, according to Geoff Bickford, an attorney and director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition.

Some folks have said that some of the Amendments are not under attack, that is their opinion. It might not be under attack in their minds, Zaidman said.

He did not provide details on what the attacks are, nor did any members of the board mention the shootings in the Atlanta area that killed eight people and another mass shooting in Boulder, Colo., that killed 10 one week and one day earlier.

Zaidman said it was not his intention Tuesday to get another vote on the resolution at that meeting, but he questioned Town Manager Bob Peabodys apparent rejection that the resolution could not be renewed.

According to Roberts Rules of Order, the parliamentary procedures the Selectboard follows, renewing a motion is the only method by which to put a motion back on the table after it has been defeated.

Zaidman said that when he approached Peabody following the March 9 vote about renewing his motion to adopt the resolution, Peabody told him that he would be challenged.

Peabody said defeated motions cannot be brought up again until after the next board is sworn in so that things dont come up meeting after meeting after meeting.

Zaidman said he will not renew this motion at least for the next couple of weeks and would seek clarification.

Tworog, who voted against the resolution, said that resolutions are not typically of a controversial nature.

The usual intent is to do it on an item that the town is basically in agreement on because as soon as this type of resolution passes, it brands the town as a whole with that, he said.

Tworog said he reviewed all of the letters for public comment sent to the board and of those, 30 residents wrote in favor of the resolution and 55 wrote on the record that they were against it.

In this case, those put in writing overwhelmingly rejected the idea of doing this resolution, he said.

Previous

Next

View post:
Bridgton selectman wants reconsideration of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution - pressherald.com

SHAWANO, WI- The Shawano County Board voted to pass the long-awaited 2nd Amendment Resolution with some changes to the original resolution.

The resolution to declare Shawano Countys Vigorous Support of the Peoples Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms passed on a 24-3 vote with Supervisors Kimberly Leffel, William Switalla and Joe Miller voting no.

Prior to the vote, Supervisor Kathy Luepke made a motion to amend the resolution to eliminate the portion that addressed the duty of the County Sheriff in regards to enforcement. Luepkes request to remove the second Be it further resolved section was approved by the board. That vote removed the section that stated;

Be it further resolved that Shawano County shall not appropriate any funds for any enforcement of unconstitutional laws against the people of Shawano County, and requests the Sheriff to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement of any law which unconstitutionally impedes our fundamental Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That vote did not come without discussion. Luepke originally requested having the third piece of the resolution removed as well. That portion states Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second AmendmentSanctuary County.

The board was advised to split the motion for the amendment into two separate votes, one for each section.

Everyone seems to have different opinions on what sentences to leave in, Supervisor Deb Noffke said.

The board voted 20-7 to split the amendment to the resolution into two votes. The board then voted 18-9 in favor of eliminating the language that requests the Sheriff to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement of any law which unconstitutionally impedes our fundamental Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.The next vote was on eliminating the portion that stated Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.That vote failed and it was a 15-12 vote to keep the wording in.

Supervisor Deb Noffke then made a motion to return the wording Be it further resolved that Shawano County shall not appropriate any funds for any enforcement of unconstitutional laws against the people of Shawano County.

Thats a no-brainer, said Noffke. Kathy Luepke said she did not agree. If Shawano County is spending money on laws that are unconstitutional, we have a huge problem, she said. If we do that, we should attach that onto every resolution we pass.Given the strength of our legislature in Madison and their inability to do what is common sense sometimes, I would leave that in there, Jerry Erdmann responded.

Noffke said it is about local enforcement. We could get another one of those madidates that someone dreams up in the bathroom overnight, and the question is Shawano County. Why should we pay for enforcement of things that the court systems might deem unconstitutional anyway? It is possible that we get an unfunded mandate and I think we should say no.

The board voted 16-11, however, not to re-add that line to the resolution.

The discussion then began on the passing of the newly amended resolution. Supervisor Joe Miller addressed his concern of backlash on social media.

If anyone of us vote no on this is automatically raises a red flag that we do not support the constitution, it is not that simple, he said. Miller also addressed a discussion that Sheriff Adam Biebers had with WTCH radio where he expressed his hope to see who votes yes. That could be very easily interpreted as a potential for retaliation. Miller said it is something that he will not tolerate. I can be your best cheerleader but I can be your staunch enemy as well.

Supervisor Jerry Erdmann expressed his desire to defend the constitution. This resolution does nothing more than say that we support the second amendment and I will support it simply on the fact that I had guys next to me that did not make it back and they took an oath to defend the constitution and I am darn well sure that I will make sure that their memory of doing so does not die.

The question was called by Noffke that vote took place. In the end, the approved resolution reads:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Shawano County Board of Supervisors, in session this 24th day of March, 2021, that it hereby opposes the enactment of any legislation unlawfully infringing on our rights under the Second Amendment, and further makes clear that all law-makers are hereby urged tohonor the Second Amendment, as well as Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and to be vigilant in their duty to avoid improperly or unconstitutionally abridging a citizens right thereunder to keep and bear arms.Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.

Prior to the vote, three members of the community spoke in favor of not passing the resolution.

Usually it is court that determines if a law in unlawful, but this resolution makes us read between the lines, said John Culhane.

Jackie Miller addressed her concern with giving Sheriff Adam Bieber the ability to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement I am an avid hunter and my entire family owns guns but I think the board passing this resolution is very ill advised, she said. We have a Sheriff who, in my opinion, he runs around like a class clown, and you are going to allow that person to determine if a law is unconstitutional, she asked? I am not sure he is all there and if you do something that he does like, he will retaliate.

Nearly two dozen members of the community we present for the discussion and the vote. Prior to the vote, County Board Chairman Tom Kautza said he felt it was his duty to bring the issue to full board after it was requested in committee last year before COVID-19 hit. The discussions on the issue have been ongoing in Shawano County for nearly a year since it was first brought up.

Go here to read the rest:
Shawano Board Passes Amended Version of 2nd Amendment Resolution - tchdailynews.com

Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

CARIBOU, Maine Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

Caribou is now the third municipality in Aroostook County and the fourth in Maine to become a Second Amendment sanctuary city. Fort Fairfield was the first in The County, making the declaration on Jan. 20, and Van Buren did the same on March 2. Paris passed its resolution in 2019. And while the other two Aroostook towns passed the resolution unanimously, Caribous city council was split on the matter.

The topic was first brought to the council on March 8. Mayor Jody Smith said Deputy Mayor Thomas Ayer suggested putting the item on the agenda for councils consideration, and that he supported the resolution.

Four of the seven councilors expressed support for the resolution during the first read. Ayer and councilor Doug Morrell in particular explained their position during this meeting.

What were saying is, when it comes to the grand scheme of things, coming in and taking our firearms, any sort of magazine restriction were saying you cant do it, Ayer said in early March.

Morrell, during this meeting, said he was 150 percent behind the resolution, adding that stopping gun crimes is just as futile as the war on drugs.

Its not going to stop the criminals, he said, never has and never was. And what would I put up against that as proof? Look at the drug battle. We spent billions with a B and havent made a dent in it. The road to Hells paved in good intentions, but taking away somebodys right? I cant see that happening. I think thats one of the catalysts for the whole country to go in a very rough spot if they attempt to do that.

The remaining three councilors Joan Therieault, Lou Willey and Courtney Boma asked for more time to look into the matter before making a formal vote.

And when the matter was taken up again on March 22, Theriault, Willey, and Boma expressed opposition while the other councilors voted in favor but did not make any additional comments on the matter.

Theriault said that while she has no problem with the Second Amendment, she opposed the resolution.

This is a big declaration, and for seven people to make that decision for 7,000-plus in the community, I dont think we should be doing this, she said.

Theriault said the decision should be made by the will of the people, one way or the other.

I think its sending the wrong message, perhaps, that if you dont like a specific law that mightve been passed or whatever, that youre going to deem it unconstitutional and youre not going to obey those laws, Theriault said. And actually its the [U.S.] Supreme Court that can decide whats unconstitutional.

Councilor Doug Morrell, who voted in favor of the motion, suggested that the council at a future meeting make Caribou a sanctuary city for the whole constitution.

Willey agreed with Morrells sentiment, but said it may be a superfluous gesture as councilors already swear to uphold the constitution. She added that she was opposed to the Second Amendment sanctuary resolution as it would likely not have any real impact.

Its probably not worth the paper youre signing it on, she said. When the government and state decide to change laws, theyre not going to say Oh, everyone but Caribou. Theyre going to change the laws and were going to have to abide by them like everyone else.

Willey said shes discussed this resolution with residents and that it has left many feeling angry, frightened and disappointed.

One person told her that the city might as well advertise bringing guns into Caribou on their welcome sign, and another woman in her 90s told Willey the resolution scared her.

I know you guys wont agree, but I just feel this degrades our city, she said. Caribou has always been, I cant say polished, but weve always been a proud community, and this is like bringing us down a level.

Boma said she has also received several messages and emails from community members who are opposed to the resolution.

I think Doug might have a good point if we look at this as more of a constitutional declaration, that might be one thing, but I think really honing in on this as a gun sanctuary is just not a good idea for our community, Boma said. I think this does send the wrong message to people who might be considering coming to this community, not just to the people who already live here, so I dont support it either.

Councilors Theriault, Willey, and Boma were opposed to the motion while Thomas Ayer, Morrell, and Mark Goughan voted in favor. Mayor Jody Smith broke the tie by voting in favor of the resolution.

Continue reading here:
Caribou narrowly becomes Aroostook's third Second Amendment sanctuary city - The County

The following op-ed is written by State Rep. Savannah Maddox (R-Dry Ridge).

Nearly a decade has passed since the Obama administration implemented Operation Chokepoint, under which the Department of Justice sought to discourage banks from doing business with industries, like the firearm industry, that the administration opposed. The Trump administration rightly discontinued this initiative in 2017. However, financial institutions have continued to cave to political pressure applied by anti-gun billionaires and gun control groups and are refusing to conduct business with the firearm industry more frequently than before.

A recent survey of firearm industry members conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., demonstrated nearly 75% of surveyed businesses reported being denied financial services solely because of their affiliation with the firearm industry. Manufacturers of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), firearms which are deceptively labeled assault rifles by anti-gun groups, are not the only ones impacted. You do not have to look far to find a shooting range offering gun safety classes that has been denied the ability to process credit cards or manufacturers of hunting equipment that have been denied business loans.

These denials are not based onlegitimate credit worthiness or credit risk, but simply on political bias. This political bias on behalf of banks exists even as they receive an extraordinary amount of taxpayer-funded financial support through agencies and programs including the FDIC, Automated Clearing House, Open Window, the Federal Reserve System, and more. It is wholly inappropriate for the taxpayer- supported financial services industry to discriminate against any lawful business that provides goods which are necessary to the exercise of the Second Amendment rights of those same taxpayers.

In recent years, however, lawmakers at the state and federal level have begun to push back against this financial discrimination. For instance, a law was enacted in Georgia to prohibit discrimination against the firearm industry in 2016. In 2018, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder helped keep Citigroup, Inc. and Bank of America from participating in bond sales because of their policies that discriminate against the firearm industry.

The Freedom Financing Act was introduced in the last Congress by U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and in the House by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX). Finally, earlier this month the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized a rule that prohibits banking discrimination against lawful industries like the firearm industry. Acting Director of the OCC Brian Brooks summed up the threat succinctly in an op-ed recently published inGame & Fish Magazine; If successful, the powerful interests at work will restrict Second Amendment rights and availability of sporting arms by suffocating the industry from capital and financing that make them possible. Rather than winning national policy debates through elections and facing the legal substrate of our great Constitution, loud factions are simply pestering bankers to succumb to their political will.

As a legislator in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I have a responsibility to stand up for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens I represent. Allowing financial discrimination against the firearms industry poses just as much of a threat to the people who seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms as it does to the entities that supply the goods which enable them to do so. That is why I introducedHouse Bill 175 this Session, which passed the house earlier this week and awaits consideration in the Kentucky Senate. This bill does not prevent any bank or financial institution from making standard business decisions, nor does it preclude them from making legitimate determinations pertaining to credit worthiness or credit risk. It does, however, stipulate that financial institutions may not implement a policy of discriminating against the firearm industry at large. This bill was filed in support of over 4,000 Kentuckians who are currently employed by the firearm industry, as well as several thousand law enforcement and military personnel who rely on equipment and facilities that the Kentucky firearm industry supports. This legislation is for all Kentuckians who exercise their Second Amendment rights today, and for all who will do so in the future.

Representative SavannahMaddox(R) represents Kentuckys District 61 in the Commonwealths General Assembly.

The rest is here:
Op-Ed: To Protect 2nd Amendment Rights, Kentuckians Should Support Fair Access to Financial Services - The River City News