Mediaboss Marketing

The Constitution was never intended to be a free pass to violate the rules of basic safety and fairness. We have common-sense boundaries on many of its provisions. The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion, but we cant have human sacrifice. The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech, but we cant lie in a contract.

Given the lethal potential of guns, the Second Amendment in particular should not be immune to reasonable boundaries. America has more guns per person, and more gun deaths, than any other advanced nation. The last thing we suffer from is a lack of gun rights.

By opposing any boundaries, the 2nd Amendment Preservation resolution before the Vernon County Board has potential to hurt all of us. And as a nationwide initiative, it could come to your county.

Nobody wants to limit hunting, or a pistol for home-defense, but having an assault rifle hanging from your shoulder is just showing off. Its thuggery. Weve seen this push for unlimited gun privileges produce a sense of entitlement for violence. This attitude created the Wolverine Watchmen, who planned to execute Michigan officials, and the Proud Boys, happy to prepare for violence if given the signal, and the Bundy group, who felt it was their right to exploit, then seize, Federal lands, and most recently, the seditious violence at the Capital.

This resolution fans the flames of that mindset. It commits the county to oppose any law that would in any way regulate gun behavior. More lawlessness! How is that Constitutional? Lets replace this toxic perspective with civil responsibility and common sense. Vernon County Board members, please vote against this destructive resolution.

Read the original here:
Letter to the editor: Vote against Vernon County resolution - La Crosse Tribune

Images from wikipedia, combined, cropped, scaled and text added by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Much of the Bill of Rights may hang on the resolution of two Democrat senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Both states are noted as being strong supporters of the Second Amendment. Both senators have stated they will vote to uphold the Senate filibuster rule. Their votes may determine the future of the Republic.

From thedailycaller.com:

Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster, a spokesperson for Sinema told the Washington Post on Monday.

From thehill.com:

Manchin, speaking to reporters in the Capitol, reiterated that he does not support going nuclear to gut the 60-vote legislative filibuster and indicated that there was no timeline where, if Republicans blocked legislation, he would change his mind.

I do not support doing away with the filibuster under any condition. Its not who I am, Manchin said.

The filibuster is a Senate rule which requires 60 senators to vote to end debate. This creates a requirement for 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.

An exception to the filibuster exists for reconciliation votes on pending matters with the House. Obamacare was passed using the reconciliation process, which many consider an illegitimate use of the process.

The Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments during the Obama regime. The Republicans extended the elimination to Supreme Court appointments, and to limit debate on the appointments of judges.

With 50 Republican and 50 Democrat senators, many leftists are calling for the elimination of the filibuster rule to allow them to force as many radical bills through the Congress as they can, as fast as they can, while they control both chambers of Congress with slim majorities.

Massive numbers of untracked and mail-in ballots would make voter fraud difficult to find and prosecute, which many claim happened in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin. With the partisan leftist Media and Tech Oligarchs having effective control over which elections are investigated, this would bias national elections even more in favor of Democrats.

With the Media and the Tech Oligarchs exposed as far-left partisans, there is movement in the states to preserve voting integrity. The left sees this as a threat. Many Leftists believe their slender control of the Senate is their last chance to pass radical changes through the legislature. The Democrat majority in the House is also slender, with only 10 votes separating the 232 Democrats and the Republicans.

Democrats may lose control of both the House and the Senate in 2022 if the radical changes proposed by the Left are prevented from happening for two years.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema has become a sort of McCain of the Democrats, being willing to reach across the aisle to conservatives from time to time. She has been gaining a reputation for independence from the Democrat herd. Senator Sinema maintains offices at three locations. Comments can be left on answering machines at all three locations.

Senator Manchin has occasionally sided with conservatives as well, but is not considered as independent as Sinema. He maintains offices in four locations. Comments can be left on answering machines at all four locations.

There are 20 Republican senators up for election in 2022 and 14 Democrats.

The entire House of Representatives is up for election every two years.

Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives in 2020, indicating any voter fraud could be overcome at the House of Representative level.

Senators Sinema and Manchin should be encouraged to uphold the long tradition of the Senate filibuster. Their support may be the tenuous string to uphold the Republic, the consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights over the next two years.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

View original post here:
AZ, WV, The Fillibuster, the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

As promised, District 73 state Rep. Kyle Biedermann submitted legislation calling for a statewide election on whether Texas should secede from the United States.

Biedermann, R-Fredericksburg, filed House Bill 1359, officially titled the Texas Independence Referendum Act, on Tuesday.

If approved by the 87th Legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, voters could decide to assign a joint legislative committee to draft plans for Texas independence.

In legislative lingo, the bill proposes a referendum to the people of the State of Texas on the question of whether this state should leave the United States of America and establish (its own) independence.

This Act simply lets Texans vote, Biedermann said. This decision is too big to be monopolized solely by the power brokers in our Capitol. We need to let Texans voices be heard!

In December, Biedermann asked supporters to sign a Texit petition supporting independence, and pledged to let voters decide.

As is the right of any people to dissolve the political bonds that bind them to another, it is time to allow the people of Texas to choose if we will once again assert the right of independence, Biedermann stated in his preamble to the petition, which totaled more than 9,500 supporters through Wednesday.

Biedermann said that he didnt see the issue as a left or right one.

Voters of all political persuasions in Texas can agree on one thing, Washington D.C. is and has been broken, he said. Our federal government continuously fails our working families, seniors, taxpayers, veterans and small business owners. For decades, the promises of America and our individual liberties have been eroding.

He said Texans should have the right to decide their own future, which has a long history.

Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 and joined the Union in 1845. It seceded in March 1861 and joined the Confederacy for the Civil War. It rejoined the Union in the wake of the war after the Confederate States dissolved in 1865 but it took until 1870 before the state was readmitted to the Union.

The Texas Tribune reported U.S. Supreme Court precedents on the issue of secession have been clear, with an 1869 case, Texas v. White, holding that states could not unilaterally secede from the union.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, asked if there is a legal basis for secession in 2006, responded: The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, one Nation, indivisible.)

Firearm bill

Last week, Biedermann filed HB 1238, which he said would preserve the right of every Texan who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it to protect themselves.

The bill proposes governing the carrying of a firearm by a person who is not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing the firearm and to other provisions related to the carrying, possessing, transporting, or storing of a firearm.

Biedermann said self-defense should be a fundamental right and free from relying on the government to access that right. He said the state capital in Austin is experiencing increased crimes, especially what one U.S. attorney termed skyrocketing violent crimes.

With the current political climate, personal safety is a serious concern for Texans, Biedermann said. Talks to defund the police and rioting around the country all point to the need for Texans to have every ability to protect themselves and their families.

Forcing our citizens to ask the government for permission to exercise this right reduces its status to a privilege, and then making us pay for it adds insult to injury.

Biedermann said more than 70 of the states 254 counties have declared themselves as Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties. He said Abbott recently announced the need for Texas to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary State, adding HB 1238 falls right in line with that goal for Texas.

Biedermann said the measure has the support of many Second Amendment and gun rights organizations such as the Gun Owners of America and National Association for Gun Rights.

He expects lawmakers who backed Constitutional Carry efforts in previous legislative sessions to back the bill, which he said has tremendous support.

Campbell co-sponsoring 3 bills

District 25 state Sen. Donna Campbell has yet to get an authored bill on the docket but as of Wednesday she was listed in filings of three bills.

Senate Bill 207, filed in November, relates to the recovery of medical or health care expenses through civil actions. The latter two were filed Jan. 14 and Jan. 22.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 condemns Chinas practice of involuntary organ harvesting. SB 391 relates to the prohibition of abortion, with offenders facing civil actions and criminal penalties.

I am proud to jointly author two pieces of legislation committed to protecting life in Texas and around the world, said Campbell, R-New Braunfels. Our values and our faith make us who we are as a people as Texans, she said. We must stand up for our values of protecting life from conception to natural death.

Campbell, a medical doctor, said the atrocities committed by the Chinese Communist Party and the vile practice of forcibly removing human organs for transplant are an appalling disregard of basic human rights and human life.

As a woman of faith, I feel it is of the utmost importance that we continue our fight to protect the unborn here in Texas. The Human Life Protection Act, if passed, would mark a significant moment in our states commitment to protecting life.

Nicholas Eastwood, her communications director, said Campbell is waiting with other legislators to see bills cleared with legislative committees. COVID-19 protocols have slowed processing House members had filed 1,749 bills and senators filed 501 bills through Wednesday.

The House and Senate recessed Tuesday but continue to hold public hearings on impending legislation. Both bodies will resume full sessions on Feb. 9.

Follow this link:
Biedermann files 'Texit' bill for election on whether state should secede from the United States - Herald Zeitung

TRAVERSE CITY Grand Traverse County residents who turned out for public comment overwhelmingly demanded the resignations of commissioners Ron Clous and Rob Hentschel during a special meeting Thursday.

Many demanded an apology for the actions of Clous, who displayed a rifle at the Jan. 20 commission meeting during public comment, and Hentschel, who laughed at Clous behavior.

And many said they were disgusted that the board has not denounced the Proud Boys, a far-right group, whose members were featured during a public comment session at a board meeting last year.

No resignation, no apology and no denouncement was forthcoming from either commissioner. But after nearly five hours of public comment from more than 70 people a Resolution of Redress brought forward by Hentschel was taken off the agenda on a vote of 5-1, with Hentschel voting no.

Commissioner Brad Jewett left the meeting early because of a prior commitment.

The resolution, written by Hentschel, would have declared the display of weapons while members of the public are speaking inappropriate. It also called on commissioners to use the same professional behavior in video meetings as they would in a traditional meeting.

Members of the public called the resolution inadequate and unapologetic, that it whitewashes the issue or simply sweeps it under the rug.

They called Clous display of the rifle intentionally intimidating and coming as it did during a discussion of the Proud Boys and the Second Amendment, associates the county with the group whose members have been tied to the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt at the U.S. Capitol.

What happened on the 20th, I accept that a lot of people saw that situation differently than I did at that moment, Hentschel said of the incident.

Clous made no comment. Clous has returned just one call to the Record-Eagle since the incident, but Hentschel has given radio and television interviews.

Immediately after the incident Hentschel said he saw nothing wrong with what Clous did, saying he laughed because he found it ironic that the commenter was talking about the Second Amendment when Clous picked up the gun. He has not changed that opinion during the backlash since.

County attorney Kit Tholen told board members that an investigation has been started and that the county has received notice that at least one attorney is looking into a lawsuit against the county.

Some residents asked the board to instead pass another Resolution of Censure that will likely be presented at a Feb. 3 regular meeting.

The alternate resolution was written by newly-seated Commissioner Darryl V. Nelson and says that the two commissioners actions violated an ethics policy that all employees and appointed and elected officials are required to follow.

Some said the Resolution of Redress presented Thursday was meant to circumvent Nelsons resolution and avoid censure. It is unclear if it will be presented again at the February meeting.

Many commenters at Thursdays meeting said the Jan. 20 incident, which has received wide national and international media coverage, was shameful, embarrassing and unacceptable.

People all over the world are watching, said Christine Uribe.

I am disgusted by the actions of this board, Uribe said.

Many commenters also signed a letter calling for Hentschel and Clous to resign. The letter had been signed by more than 1,400 people as of Thursday, including every member of the Traverse City Commission.

As the public comment session wore on, some people unmuted their microphones to interrupt speakers with music, jeers and swearing.

Hentschel invited IT director Cliff DuPuy to put them in the lobby or remove them from the meeting.

Many of those giving public comment said they did not want to give their names, as they were afraid of repercussions.

A high school student who declined to give her name or where she went to school said Clous is more than 25 years old with a fully-developed brain that should have registered that what he was doing was wrong.

You are an adult and you should be acting as such, the student said. There are students who look up to you and you represent our community.

Bob Brown said he approves of gun rights and said that what Clous does in his own home is his business.

That was his home, but it was a public meeting, Brown said, who recommended censuring Clous and Hentschel and moving on.

He also called on them to take responsibility for their actions.

Stand up, be men, apologize, Brown said. Its just disturbing to see people acting like junior high school locker room boys in a public meeting.

T.J. Andrews said the process of calling the special meeting seemed meant to discourage attendance. It was held at an irregular time 1 p.m. instead of the normal 8 a.m. with less than 24 hours notice, she said.

It appears this meeting was intended to limit public engagement, Andrews said.

Notice of the special meeting was posted within the 18 hours required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

The Resolution of Redress states the pandemic has forced people to use new technologies such video conferencing, for which standards of appropriate behavior and professional etiquette have not yet been universally established.

Andrews said livestreamed meetings have been going on for months now and even schoolchildren understand what their behavior should be when they are in class on Zoom.

Some people said calling for the two commissioners to resign goes too far, that Clous actions are being blown out of proportion by liberal snowflakes. Clous may have used bad judgement, but it doesnt justify losing his board seat, they said.

Clous brought his gun out while Keli MacIntosh was speaking out about the Second Amendment resolution. She also objected to the boards refusal to denounce the Proud Boys, a group whose members played a role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

MacIntosh has filed a complaint with the Michigan State Police, saying she felt threatened by Clous actions. She is now receiving threatening calls, and the MSP is making regular checks on her at her home.

One caller who gave only his first name, Chris, said he was disappointed at the hate directed toward Clous.

To say or imply that this was in any way threatening is idiotic, he said.

Tholen at the start of the meeting said he regretted that there was not an invocation listed on the agenda.

The reason an invocation is allowed at a meeting is because it encourages people to focus on shared values and respect for each other, something that is in short supply lately, Tholen said.

But board members are there to do the publics business, he said.

You are not going to agree with everything you hear in public comment, Tholen said. But as your attorney I ask that you listen to people and treat their thoughts with respect.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original here:
Resolution of Redress removed from GT board agenda - Traverse City Record Eagle

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

The Second Amendment of the United States reads: 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. It may be surprising, but prior to 2008, the Second Amendment did not give any individual the right to own a weapon.

In 2008, the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), for the very first time, recognized the Second Amendment gives an individual a right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) the U.S. Supreme Court also affirmed the Heller decision and made the Second Amendment applicable to state governments.

In the Heller case, the majority opinion, written by one of the most distinguished conservative justices, Justice Antonin Scalia, stated: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

Justice Scalia also specified, The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Justice Scalias comments simply mean that there are well-established limitations on any persons right to bear arms.

For example, a law enforcement officer investigating a potential crime has the right to frisk a person for (the) officers safety and remove any weapon that individual may have in their possession. Furthermore, if the weapon is part of the evidence being gathered during the investigation, the officer has a right to keep the weapon until further determination by the courts. In New Mexico, anyone carrying a concealed handgun needs a license. Thus, if anyone is concealing a handgun without a license and an officer stops that person, the officer may keep the gun as evidence of a crime. Law enforcement officials also have the right to request search warrants from a judge to seize any weapon that may be part of an investigation.

In New Mexico property owners can prohibit the carrying of firearms onto property they lawfully possess by either posting signage or verbally notifying people that guns are not allowed. Thus, if anyone is carrying a gun in violation of the property owners prohibitions, an officer is legally permitted to impound the gun as evidence of a crime. As Justice Scalia explained, carrying a firearm, with or without a permit, is also restricted in many locations or by convicted felons or the mentally ill. Thus, these are just some of the circumstances where law enforcement officers currently have the right to remove and keep firearms until further determination by the courts.

In May of last year, the governor signed into law another gun regulation which many call the Red Flag Law. This law is intended to provide a process, with judicial oversight, that allows law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms when there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to themselves or others. This law is reminiscent of practices in Old West movies where the sheriff would confiscate weapons and require everyone to remove their side arms before entering the town in order to maintain public safety or avoid trouble.

................................................................

Some argue the Red Flag Law is simply another tool for law enforcement to maintain public safety, and a more sophisticated attempt to revisit these Old West practices, with added protections of judicial oversight and review. Others argue this law is an infringement of the Second Amendment.

There is little doubt our New Mexico Supreme Court will be asked to resolve this dispute some day in order to protect and define the rights contained in the Constitution. Whatever the outcome, Im sure everyone can agree that great care should be taken to ensure everyones safety. We all know that any weapon, including guns, and some of the people that use them, can be dangerous. Lets remember that the courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, is the proper place to present, argue and resolve any differences because no one wants any more shootouts at the O.K. Corral.

Judge Frank Sedillo presides over the civil division of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the judge individually and not those of the court.

Go here to read the rest:
OPINION | Squaring the 2nd Amendment and Red Flag Law - Albuquerque Journal