Mediaboss Marketing

by Charles C.W. Cooke - Saturday, August 29, 2020

Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms might be forgiven for wondering whether the U.S. Supreme Courts copy of the United States Constitution is missing a few pages.

It has been twelve years since the Court affirmed in D.C. v. Heller that the right of the people to keep and bear arms actually means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ten years since the court affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal governmentand yet, as valuable as those decisions are, the last decade has made it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is not especially interested in ensuring that they are enforced. In June, the justices continued this unfortunate trend by denying certiorari on no fewer than ten Second Amendment cases. For now, then, the right will remain a mere abstraction to the nations network of courts.

This matters, as it is difficult to think of another right that has been so willfully ignored and abused by our lower-court judges. In case after case, panels at the state and circuit levels have elected either to pretend that Heller and McDonald never happened at all, or, alternatively, to parse their language so carefully as to render those cases meaningless. Despite this insubordinationand it is just that: insubordinationthe Court has done nothing.

This abdication of responsibility has not sat well with all of the justices. Teaming up first with Justices Scalia and Alito, and then with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas has taken to dissenting when the Court declines to take an important gun case. The Second Amendment, Thomas has complained, is a disfavored right in this Court, and its steadfast refusal to consider gun-related appeals stands in marked contrast to the Courts willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. Ultimately, Thomas has concluded, the Courts unwillingness to step in has had the effect of relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.

In and of itself, the Courts refusal to do its job is a big problem: A right delayed, we are told, is a right denied. But, as time rolls on, it is hard not to agree with Justice Thomas when he suggests that the continued refusal to hear Second Amendment cases only enables this kind of defiance. In law, as elsewhere, human beings respond to incentives, and at present, the incentives all line up in the wrong direction. Why did the Fourth and Seventh Circuits ignore the plain language of Heller in upholding bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America? Why has the Ninth Circuit allowed California to turn the right to carry into a privilege for the well-connected? Why do New Jerseys flagrantly illegal gun laws still exist? Because the judges who heard those cases knew that the chance of their work being reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court was vanishingly small, and they acted accordingly.

For those of us who believe that the U.S. Constitution should be read and upheld as it is written, it has proven extremely frustrating that the U.S. Supreme Court seems willing to involve itself in all sorts of areas that are not mentioned anywhere in the document, but seems unwilling to protect a right that is explicitly mentioned in the text. That most of Americas progress in restoring the Second Amendment has come from the people themselves is a blessing indeed; the story of the last three decades has been the story of legislatures, at the behest of voters, changing their laws to minimize restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. But we have a Constitution so that the people who are left behind have somewhere to appeal. For now, at least, the Court seems to have shut its doors on them.

See more here:
Parting Shot: The U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Give Us Our Freedom - America's 1st Freedom

August 30, 2020 1:08 PM

CNN

Posted: August 30, 2020 1:08 PM

Kevin Mathewson founded his militia, the Kenosha Guard, in June, as massive demonstrations against police brutality grew across the country, bringing with them spurts of violence.

A former alderman whos raising two children in the lakeside Wisconsin city, Mathewson said in an interview that he wanted to start a spark that let people know there are others out here that want to defend ourselves, our lives, our neighborhoods.

For weeks, the groups charge to defend the community reached only a few dozen followers online and mustered no real-world activity. Then on Sunday, a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, seven times in the back and the epicenter of the summers reckoning over racial injustice shifted to Mathewsons backyard.

Over two nights of protest and unrest, with chants of Black Lives Matter and buildings burned to the ground, the Kenosha Guards online membership ballooned. On Tuesday, a renewed call to arms on Facebook from the group drew thousands of responses. Just before midnight, amid a jumble of protesters, law enforcement, armed citizens and citizen journalists out past a mandated curfew, a 17-year-old whod been standing guard outside a car dealership shot and killed two men, seriously injuring a third. Kyle Rittenhouse, the alleged teenage gunman, now faces multiple counts of homicide. His attorney says it was in self-defense.

While there is no indication that Rittenhouse was a member of the Kenosha Guard (Facebook has said that it has no evidence he was connected to the group online), the bloody escalation follows a striking emergence of gun-toting amateur groups at protests nationwide.

Driven by a patchwork of ideologies and enflamed by the Trump administrations often misleading messaging on far-left agitators, analysts say, the groups are fueling concern among law enforcement and hate group watchers that they could be the cause of more violence. Legal experts are also warning that the militias, with their embrace of high-powered weapons and lack of police training, are on shaky constitutional ground.

Law enforcement officers go through months of training in the use of force, de-escalation of force, defensive tactics, and the use of a firearm to defend themselves and the citizens they are sworn to protect, said Thomas OConnor, a retired FBI special agent who spent much of his career investigating domestic terrorism. A civilian with a firearm on the street during a volatile situation may have the legal right to have that weapon, but that does not always mean it is the wise decision.

Sometimes armed citizens at protests are welcomed by law enforcement, like at early protests in Kenosha where police were seen giving apparent militia members water and thanking them, but Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth has also said that the groups raise tensions.

Part of the problem with this group is they create confrontation, Beth said at a news conference Wednesday after Rittenhouses arrest. If I put out my wife with an AR-15 or my brother with a shotgun or whatever it would be walking through the streets, you guys would wonder what the heck is going on. That doesnt help us.

Many established militias, or civilian forces, have long aligned with anti-government causes in pockets of the US and groups like the Oath Keepers first became an antagonizing presence at protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

Since April, according to researchers who track hate groups, more decentralized and organic outgrowths of the movement have increased in visibility, first at reopen rallies that challenged coronavirus shutdowns, and later at the site of racial justice demonstrations, where they say their patrols meant to deter criminal behavior have led to varying degrees of confrontation.

One survey, by social justice think tanks Political Research Associates and the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, documented 187 appearances of paramilitary and other far-right actors at rallies nationwide from late May to early July.

Armed citizens have squared off with Black Lives Matter protesters in Salt Lake City and stood outside of looted stores in Minneapolis. Hundreds of militia members and far-right group members gathered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, propelled by a threat of flag burning that was likely a hoax.

In Albuquerque, violence erupted and one person was shot when protesters calling for the removal of a statue of a controversial conquistador squared off with members of the New Mexico Civil Guard, a militia. The militia group denied the gunman was a member of the organization, but local leaders roundly criticized the armed group for inflaming tensions that led to the shooting.

Its the logical end of a years long path that weve been on of normalizing the idea that vigilante justice is not just justifiable but is necessary, said Howard Graves, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which studies hate groups. Its not an accident that this resulted in death that is whats going to happen based on what these groups envision themselves doing.

Shared among the variety of groups, which are mainly comprised of White men, is often a disdain for the Black Lives Matter movement and a misplaced emphasis on its ties to radical left-wing violence, though some have more explicit, extreme and at times racist ideologies, said Alex Friedfeld, an investigative researcher at the Anti-Defamation Leagues Center on Extremism who monitors the groups activity online.

Many are also inspired by disinformation they read online about violence and organized looting campaigns tied into the Black Lives Matter movement. President Donald Trump and the leaders of the Justice Department have regularly aggrandized the role of the anarchist group Antifa in the summers unrest without providing much evidence.

Theres this disconnect between what is real on the ground and what people are reading on the internet, where everyone is sharing messages about George Soros paying for buses to go out into the towns and all these types of things that are totally not true, Friedfeld said, referring to the billionaire philanthropist at the center of many anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

The Oath Keepers, which draws its members from the ranks of the military and law enforcement, and adherents to the Three Percenter militia movement organize to confront conspiracies about an overreaching federal government.

Members of the Boogaloo movement range in ideology from anarchists to White supremacists, but have proved to be some of the most violent extremists this summer. The FBI has arrested several this summer, including a pair charged in connection to the murder of a federal security guard at an Oakland, California, courthouse in May amid protests in the city. They have pleaded not guilty.

Mathewson, of the Kenosha guard, denied any ties to an ideological movement and said hes in favor of elements of police reform, like the installation of body cameras, which he advocated for in his time in city office. He said that a teenager like Rittenhouse who may not have been legally able to openly carry a rifle should not have come to Kenosha. Rittenhouse has been charged with illegal possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18. He has not entered a plea to any charge against him.

To me, I guess I hoped it would be common sense that Im not looking for children to come out, Mathewson said.

Facebook later took down the Kenosha Guards pages on the website and admitted that it should have been removed earlier under the companys policy on dangerous groups. Mathewson told CNN he was disappointed in that decision.

While gun laws in 44 states make it legal to openly carry a long gun in public, armed citizens would generally not have a right to use deadly force while protecting someone elses business.

Their ability to band together as a militia and advocate for the use of force is also legally dubious, said Mary McCord, a former senior Justice Department official who is now the legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Despite language about a well-regulated Militia in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has long said that the right to bear arms belongs to individuals alone, and does not prevent states from writing laws that bar the creation of citizen militias.

All 50 states now have similar laws or constitutional provisions that prohibit private military activity, according to McCord, and after the violence in Charlottesville in 2017, her Georgetown group won court orders that barred 23 individuals and organizations from returning to the city in groups of two or more with anything that could be used as a weapon at a rally.

In a letter sent Wednesday to law enforcement and political leaders in Kenosha, McCord pointed to provisions in Wisconsin law that prohibit private paramilitary and unauthorized law enforcement activity and offered to consult with them about how to protect public safety while preserving constitutional rights during public protests and demonstrations.

The Kenosha Guard were falsely assuming this function to protect property that they dont have, McCord said.

THE-CNN-WIRE & 2020 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., A TIME WARNER COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Originally posted here:
Vigilante group activity on the rise, worrying law enforcement and watchdog groups - Channel3000.com - WISC-TV3

The man who called gunmen to gather on the streets of Kenosha Tuesday night culminating in the deaths of two people and an injury to a third says he did so to keep the city safe. Despite the deaths, he believes they made it safer.

Kevin Mathewson is a former Kenosha alder who in June created a Facebook page called Kenosha Guard Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property. On Tuesday, he posted a call to arms as a page event.

Any patriots willing to take up arms and defend out [sic] City tonight from the evil thugs? Nondoubt [sic] they are currently planning on the next part of the City to burn tonight!

In a subsequent public post, under the identity of the page, Mathewson addressed Kenoshas police chief, Daniel Miskinis:

Chief Miskinis, As you know I am the commander of the Kenosha Guard, a local militia. We are mobilizing tonight and have about 3,000 RSVPs. We have volunteers that will be in Uptown, downtown and at the entrances to other neighborhoods.

Despite characterizations in those posts and elsewhere, as Mathewson described the Kenosha Guard in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner, it is little more than a Facebook group with an indeterminate number of self-appointed members.

I started the page, I am the admin of the page, but its a very loose organization. You know, theres no meetings, theres no bylaws the Second Amendment and individual freedom, Mathewson said.

Mathewson said he has never met Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old from Antioch, Ill., who was arrested Wednesday in connection with the shooting deaths of two people Tuesday night in downtown Kenosha and the hospitalization of a third. In the interview, Mathewson was quick to distance himself from the suspect.

He was a child that had no business carrying a gun, so I wonder who condoned him leaving another state to come here carrying a gun without questioning that, Mathewson said.

With regard to the shootings themselves, he said, I dont want to take the position if what he did was self defense or not, because we dont have all the facts. But state laws are very clear: You have to be 18 to possess a long gun and 21 to possess a pistol.

I dont know him, hes not affiliated in any way with me or my Facebook page that I know of. Never met the guy, he continued, calling it always a tragedy when anybody loses their lives, even if its in self-defense.

Authorities have not tied Rittenhouse to a specific militia group, and its not clear whether he came to Kenosha Tuesday because of the Kenosha Guards post, although it drew widespread attention.

Our effort has made national media, stated the post addressed to the Kenosha police chief, linking to the extremist rightwing website InfoWars.

Mathewson is a freelance private detective who works for area lawyers and has a wedding photography business. He was often outspoken and controversial in his two non-consecutive terms on the citys common council. He resigned his seat in 2017 after moving out of the city to the adjacent community of Somers.

Hes always liked controversy, and if theres any controversy to be found, he will find it, said Ald. Jan Michalski, who is still on the council and was a member during Mathewsons time in office. Michalski described him as someone who would pick fights. But he said he was not aware of Mathewsons association with the Kenosha Guard page, adding that he doesnt engage with social media.

Mathewson said the Facebook page is very loose, very loose the page is open to anybody, anybody could like the page, anybody can see all the comments, anybody can comment. So theres not like an application process or approval process. So technically anybody could claim theyre a member.

Mathewson, however, said he is the only one who controls the page itself and the only one who can, and did, issue a call to arms.

Later in the interview he returned to that question. Theres really not my group, right? he said. I cant give a list, Heres members of the Kenosha Guard. So, the Kenosha Guard is basically me sending a message that we need to take control of our city. So, technically, theres no members.

As of Wednesday, the Kenosha Guard Facebook page had been taken down, but another Mathewson Facebook page, associated with his former role as a Kenosha alder, includes videos and commentary also referring to unrest in Kenosha and pictures of Mathewson and others with weapons, guarding a residential area.

Theres no way to really know how many people came downtown with guns Tuesday night, said Mathewson. He was downtown early in the evening before dark, when there were at least 30 to 50 of us.

Mathewson started the page in June, when we had businesses being destroyed and looted for the George Floyd incident, he said. Although interest was slow initially, it took off, reaching 4,000 page followers.

Tuesdays event came together on the fly.

When he posted the event notice that same day, I think there were 6,000 that hit the interested button and over 1,000 that committed to going last I looked, Mathewson said. Other militia-style groups also were in Downtown Kenosha Tuesday night, he said, and some armed people have been there every night since Sunday, although he had not posted about the unrest before Tuesday.

Mathewson said he left downtown before dark and returned to his own residential neighborhood. I just kind of hung out at the entrance to my subdivision so I wasnt in the thick of things at night, he said.

Like him, others who responded to the event took up posts in groups outside area subdivisions around the city, he said: Were talking at least a few hundred that were outside, armed and trying to help the community.

It would be nice to have a well-regulated militia, he said, but we didnt have enough time to really prepare and organize just a general call to arms.

The message he sought to convey, he said, was Hey, are you a patriot? Do you want to defend our city, grab your gun, go outside, defend your neighborhood, your home, your store. Lets supplement the police because theyre outnumbered.

And thats why I think we were appreciated, Mathewson said, when some people on the street started throwing rocks, bricks and Molotov cocktails at the police. Those officers are scared and I think thats why were welcomed so warmly Giving us water, telling us thank you.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said he had been asked about deputizing armed civilians. Beth did not state what group or individuals had specifically made the request, but said that he opposed the idea.

Once I deputize somebody they fall under the constitution of the state of Wisconsin. They fall under the county of Kenosha, they fall under my guidance, they have to follow my policy, they have to follow my supervisors, Beth said. They are a liability to me, and the county and the state of Wisconsin.

If the person who fired the fatal shots had been deputized, he said, that would have been, in reality [a] deputy sheriff who killed two people, Beth said. And the liability that goes with that would have been immense. Theres no way that I would have deputized people.

In his interview, Mathewson who has clashed with Beth over the departments handling of deputy misconduct allegations criticized the sheriffs rejection of deputizing armed civilians, although he also acknowledged that you cant just go around deputizing people because youve got to vet somebody who has the time? But the conversation should have to happen.

Mathewson said he talks regularly with Miskinis, the Kenosha police chief, however.

He made the Kenosha Guard post on Tuesday that directly addressed Miskinis because I wanted to make at least that communication reaching out, he said. Maybe he had advice for us. Maybe he needed us in certain places.

There was no response, he said, and I dont blame him because theres probably liability issues. If he responds, people can say its condoning the militia.

Miskinis declined to directly answer questions at Wednesdays news conference about his departments officers interactions with militia members seen on videos that have circulated on social media.

Mathewson continued: But by definition, we dont need the governments permission. We dont need to be told we can do it. In fact, the Constitution tells us we can do it. And the Second Amendment was put in there for instances like this when were at war and under siege.

On both the now-defunct Kenosha Guard page and Mathewsons own public page, some who posted comments about the Tuesday night shooting deaths praised the gunman. Others, however, told Mathewson that he bore responsibility for the deaths. A MoveOn online petition is calling on authorities to charge Mathewson as an accessory to the killings.

Mathewson rejected the accusation.

Nobody is responsible for somebodys behavior except for that person, he told the Wisconsin Examiner. This was a child who had no business carrying a gun. To suggest that I in some way am responsible for the death simply because I asked my fellow countrymen to arm themselves and defend themselves against murdering, scumbag, criminal looters is preposterous. I had nothing to do with that. I did not inspire that.

Mathewson said that he believes the presence of dozens of armed people downtown Tuesday made the area definitely more safe.

Im trying to put myself in the shoes of a criminal who wants to burn a building down, Mathewson said. Id probably want to do it away from armed people probably want to do it somewhere where its just criminals, not citizens carrying weapons. Certainly if I was a criminal I would not want to attack somebody carrying a gun, thats for sure.

He rejected the suggestion that the two deaths Tuesday night, the first fatalities in three nights of unrest, contradict the idea that armed militia members made the city safer.

No were very fortunate that no one was killed on nights one or two Buildings were torched with apartments above, he said. And thats an inherent risk of loss of life right there.

He added: People who disagree with the Second Amendment, they dont realize that the fact that people can be armed in itself is a deterrent.

At the city-county news conference, however, Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian offered a very different assessment.

No, I dont need more guns on the street in the community, when were trying to make sure that we keep people safe, Antaramian said. Law enforcement is trained, theyre the ones who are responsible. Theyre the ones we have faith will do their jobs to make sure it gets done. And it would be beneficial and helpful to everyone to realize that.

See original here:
A 'call to arms' that filled Kenosha with combat weapons - Wisconsin Examiner

The county commissioners and Sheriff Duane Burgess stopped short of declaring Johnson County a Second Amendment sanctuary, but declared that county resources would not be used to enforce laws that infringe on gun rights.

Burgess was asked by residents to clarify his stance on the issue, so he put his thoughts to paper in a legal document as a promise to county residents, he said.

The people have rights and must be protected, and people must know where their elected sheriff and officials stand," Burgess said. "People have the right to protect themselves and their property. They have the right to keep and bear arms.

Locally, the ordinance declares, Johnson County shall be a county in which the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is deeply honored and protected against unlawful infringement; and that the Johnson County Commissioners and Johnson County Sheriff hereby declare their opposition to any law or regulation that unlawfully infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall, therefore, be the policy of the Johnson County commissioners and the Johnson County sheriff not to utilize county resources in a manner that unlawfully infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2013 ordinance did not include a pledge from the sheriff to not enforce laws that infringe on gun rights such as a mass gun seizure, instead saying the commissioners would oppose rights infringements they believe are contrary to the constitution. The new resolution cements the countys commitment further, with Burgesss declaration that any such laws would not be enforced.

Burgess and Johnson County commissioner Brian Baird said county officials are of the opinion that additional gun rights should not be taken away, but existing gun laws will continue to be enforced. For example, Baird said the sheriffs office would respond to and take action against individuals who possess illegal guns such as automatic weapons or those who carry a gun in public without a license.

The most likely way this resolution could be put into action is some type of mass guns seizure, Burgess said. He and Baird said the county feels strongly that any weapon seizure should not be undertaken without modifying the constitution.

As sheriff, Burgess knows that many gun laws are necessary, for example, the Jake Laird Law, also known as the Red Flag Law, which allows law enforcement to take guns from someone who is mentally unstable or poses a potential threat to society. For him, the distinction between laws such as this and a mass seizure is that the latter would impact law-abiding citizens. Rather than any specific potential legislation, the resolution is meant to protect law-abiding citizens from having guns taken from them unconstitutionally, Burgess said.

Legal experts doubt the validity of local resolutions promising to not enforce gun laws, given that municipalities are superseded by state and federal laws. Under the state constitution, counties operate exclusively on the powers that are endowed to the units of government by the General Assembly, according to a guide on county government from the Indiana Association of Counties. Experts say, because laws would either come via the executive or legislative branch, county government would be beholden to uphold the law.

However, is not clear what consequences there would be if a state or federal law passed and Burgess refused to enforce it, Baird said.

Until something would come up, you dont know what is going to happen; everybody knows that. I hope this is never tested, Baird said. I swore an oath to protect the constitution and I will do that until my last breath.

In 2013, Johnson County became one of the first in the state to pass a Second Amendment protection ordinance. Since the first of this year, Burgess, Baird and Greg Ileko, a Bargersville man involved with the countys Second Amendment protection group, have been working with legal counsel to update the ordinance and clarify the countys stance.

Baird and Burgess have been discussing this new resolution, which the Johnson County Board of Commissioners passed unanimously, since Burgess took office last year, Baird said.

Passing the resolution moved up the priority list when the Second Amendment sanctuary movement ignited across the country after controversial gun laws were passed in Virginia, said Ilko.

Indianas Second Amendment sanctuary movement is led by a group called Indiana 2a United. The groups members have convinced 25 counties to pass some type of 2a protection measure, according to pro-2a sanctuary website, sanctuarycounties.com. As many as 959 counties across the country have passed similar measures with encouragement from local gun rights activists, the website says.

Not all counties that have had Second Amendment protection measures proposed have passed legislation. For example, Bartholomew County commissioners and the Columbus mayor declined to pass proposed sanctuary legislation in January.

Bartholomew County officials saw sanctuary legislation as an attempt to bypass the court system, according to a statement they provided to the Columbus Republic.

The question of whether the Constitution has been followed is within the sole province of the Courts to determine. It appears that the intent and purpose of this proposed Ordinance is to attempt to usurp or supersede the authority of the Courts, the statement read.

For activists like Ilko, a commitment from the county government to protect gun rights means a lot at a time when many fear further infringement, he said. Though a resolution has a less powerful statement than an ordinance, Ilko said the gesture is important to local gun owners. An ordinance is a piece of legislation that carries more weight, whereas a resolution is a formally expressed opinion that is agreed upon with a vote.

It is the opportunity for the silent majority to not be silent anymore. There is a big push and an anti-2a facet out there, Ilko said. Having our sheriff and public officials stand up takes some moxy and I appreciate it.

On gun rights or any issue, Burgess said his door is always open when residents have concerns about law enforcement issues.

As the sheriff of Johnson County, I feel that it is important to be proactive and look at all sides when making a decision, Burgess said. We all may not agree on certain things or issues, but at the end of the day, you have to be willing to accept that persons view and continue to work toward a solution.

View original post here:
Sheriff declares he will not enforce laws that infringe on Second Amendment - Daily Journal

A man inspects a handgun at the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Indianapolis, Ind., April 28, 2019.(Lucas Jackson/Reuters)Youre not paranoid: Democrats do want to take your guns away.

There are many great reasons to contribute to the National Reviewwebathon, but I believe that none is more important than the publications steadfast defense of the Second Amendment.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus, millions of Americans, feeling helpless and besieged by forces outside their control, began purchasing firearms to protect their families, property, and community. Once the lawlessness and fanaticism of the Antifa protests began spreading across the country, the number of gun owners continued to climb. When Democrats began embracing the notion of defunding the police, even more citizens saw gun ownership as a necessity of contemporary life.

All of this has added up to the largest surge in gun ownership in American history. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, gun sales have nearly doubled in the first six months of 2020 compared with sales a year ago. If gun manufacturers could keep up with demand, there would probably be an even bigger buying spree.

The spike in gun ownership has occurred within diverse populations, creating millions of first-time gun owners, many of them women and minorities. All of which means that making the philosophical, legal, and historical case for the Second Amendment a right that undergirds all our other liberties has never been more important.

No one does it as well as National Review. And were busy. Attacks on the Second Amendment have been coming from all sides. As Mairead McArdle recently reported, it is likely that conservative justices declined to take up an important Second Amendment case after John Roberts signaled he would side with the left-wing faction of the court. Even before the pandemic broke out, David B. Kopel, one of the nations leading intellectuals on gun issues, warned that District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, was in a precarious legal situation, as courts abdicate their responsibility to uphold the rights of gun owners around the country.

As the pandemic spread, and states began using COVID-19 as a pretext to shutter gun shops, attorney Howard Slugh made the case that such intrusions were unconstitutional, especially given that Americans had an even greater need to protect themselves in the middle of a national emergency.

The gun historian and lawyer Stephen P. Halbrook warned that history has proven that tyrannical government diktats, like the ones being signed by governors and mayors in many municipalities, might long outlast the crisis that inspired them.

Second Amendment champion and editor of NRO, Charles C. W. Cooke, argued that only the cops need guns and cops are racist and will kill you are irreconcilable positions. The right to defend your life and property, whether you are abandoned by the authorities or not, should be nonnegotiable.

One of most vital ways that National Reviewfights against gun restrictionists is by exposing the torrent of misleading coverage from the corporate media. As I recently noted in a piece about Politicos coverage of background checks, there is no issue in political life that is covered as poorly and dishonestly as guns, with the possible exception of religion. Reporters might let the mayor of Chicago deflect from her incompetence by blaming law-abiding gun owners. We dont.

If we dont debunk the New York Times 1619 Project fabulists, who now claim that the Second Amendment was adopted only so that Southerners could use guns to subdue slaves, who will?

With an election coming, its also crucial to point out the increasingly radical position that Democrats have staked out on the guns issue. At National Review, we understand that Joe Bidens often hysterical and inaccurate rhetoric on firearms is merely a warning sign for the type of harmful policies he and his party would support if Biden were to become president.

Since National Reviewhas no sugar daddy, no giant corporate sponsors, we rely on your generosity to keep doing our work. Please support us here, knowing you have our deep appreciation.

View post:
Help Us Safeguard the Second Amendment - National Review