Mediaboss Marketing

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

President Donald Trump remarked that a Joe Biden presidency would mark an end for your Second Amendment rights. He said this at an event in Jupiter, Fla., on Tuesday.

Well uphold your right to hunt, and we will protect your right to keep and bear armsyour Second Amendment, said President Trump. If Joe Biden gets in, your Second Amendment is gone. Its goneeither obliterated to a point of being gone or gone itself.

Joe Biden clearly supports some of the most anti-freedom proposals ever placed on an official platform by a major partys nominee for president. His anti-gun wish list includes bans on the most-popular firearms and magazines, gun registration, licensing schemes and much more. When Trump said Biden would either obliterate the Second Amendment or render it functionally ineffective, he is clearly just pointing to Bidens official record.

Bidens running mate, Kamala Harris, has also made her stances on the Second Amendment clear. Like Biden, she supports a long list of gun-control measures, but she didnt stop there.

While running for the very nomination Biden secured, Harris said that if Congress did not pass her desired anti-Second Amendment legislation within her first 100 days in office, she would take executive action to make it happen. She even advocated for the confiscation of firearms, which she euphemistically referred to as a mandatory buyback; a position Biden has also said he supports while campaigning.

Meanwhile, Biden said Beto ORourke would help him take care of the gun problem. ORourke, another failed presidential candidate, said Hell, yes were going to take your AR-15, at a primary debate last fall.

President Trump, meanwhile, has remained steadfast in his defense of our rights. And the pressure put on me in the last four years to make massive changes to the Second Amendment, which would have really rendered it worthless. Trump said if he is reelected, Your Second Amendment will remain powerful, will remain strong, will remain with you.

Trumps comments come as Americans are choosing to arm themselves in record-setting numbers. Whether it is due to uncertainty or the potential of a Biden presidency, given what Biden would do with your rights if elected, it is clear that the Second Amendment is being exercised now more than ever.

Such is why the NRA-PVF endorsed President Trump for reelection.

See the article here:
Trump: The Second Amendment Will Be Gone if Biden Elected President - America's 1st Freedom

The opinion holds that even if butterfly or balisong knives are protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a state law banning any possession, manufacture or transport of such knives is constitutionally valid.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The Hawai'i Federal District Court has issued an opinion in Teter v. Connors that guts the Second Amendment.

The opinion holds that even if butterfly or balisong knives are protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a state law banning any possession, manufacture or transport of such knives is constitutionally valid. From the opinion:

The popularity of an all-encompassing class of weapon (the knife, or even the folding knife)is immaterial when only one narrow subset of the class (the butterfly knife) is banned here.The Court declines to treat the ban on butterfly knivesa relatively obscure weaponthe same way the Heller Court viewed the ban on handgunsthe quintessentialself-defense weapon. Doing so would neglect the Supreme Courts emphasis on the regulated weapon at issueand by extension much of the Courts reasoning that led to its ultimate holding. This case simply does not amount to the same level of destruction of the [Second Amendment] right as Heller.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals.

The Supreme Court has been deadlocked and unable or unwilling to protect the exercise of those rights. Without the election of Donald Trump and the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Second Amendment would be dead letter law across the United States. Instead, federal appeals courts in circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been using the lack of SCOTUS action to slice away most meaningful Second Amendment protections in several Circuits, notably the Ninth and the Second Circuits.

The first salami slice is the claim that Heller is a very narrow decision, only protecting the defense of self and others in the home with commonly available handguns.

The Supreme Court has not corrected this extreme position, allowing lower courts to claim Second Amendment protections do not extend outside the home; do not cover semi-automatic rifles; do not cover magazines; do not cover ammunition; do not cover the ability to sell guns, do not cover the ability to store unlocked firearms in the home, ready for use.

This is the core of the argument used in the Hawai'i District Court opinion.

In this extreme view, handguns in the home are the only core of what is protected by Second Amendment rights.

In this view, knives are not mentioned in Heller, therefore the court is free to declare that certain knives are not as protected as handguns.

The particular Hawaii law only bans a particular type of knife. The Court's opinion in Teter v. Connors is the law is Constitutional because it does not ban all knives. Heller rejected this viewpoint with Caetano, unanimously clarifying the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms.

With the salami approach to the Second Amendment, laws banning all magazines which hold more than one round of ammunition, all ammunition of greater power than a .22 short, and all knives except for butter knives, could be banned, bit by bit, and pass Constitutional muster.

Laws banning carry outside the home are already in effect in New York City and Hawaii.

It is absurd. It shows the arrogance of the District Court, and its belief the Supreme Court will do nothing to prevent a wholesale ban of most weapons in most circumstances, as long as it is done salami slice by salami slice.

The District Court mentioned the Caetano decision, which makes clear knives are protected by the Second Amendment. The Hawai'i opinion defines the protection of the Second Amendment as so close to zero, in its view, as to be effectively meaningless.

The logic, as such, is this: even though butterfly knives are covered by the Second Amendment, they are not part of the core right: therefore they may be banned by the state.

The District Court goes on to say intermediate scrutiny applies; it cites appellate courts where intermediate scrutiny has devolved to a mere rational basis.

The Court repeatedly cites the N.Y.State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. City of N.Y., N.Y., (N.Y.S.R.P.A.). The N.Y.S.R.P.A. case was so certain of being overturned by the Supreme Court, the City of New York and the State of New York changed their law and regulatory framework, to moot the case, so the Supreme Court would not hear it.

The opinion in Teter, from Hawai'i, cites N.Y.S.R.P.A. no less than nine times.

For those unfamiliar with the scrutiny framework, strict scrutiny means the court can deny the exercise of the right in only the most extreme circumstances. For example, the exercise of Second Amendment rights can be denied to a prisoner.

The next level is intermediate scrutiny. This is supposed to be a somewhat lower standard. The law or regulation being considered is supposed to affect the Constitutional right in a peripheral way. Intermediate scrutiny is supposed to require the government to prove the particular law serves an important government objective, and the law is substantially related to achieving that objective. In intermediate scrutiny, the government is to bear the burden of proof.

The lowest level of scrutiny is rational basis. Almost all laws pass this level. At this level, the plaintiff, not the government, must prove the law is not related to any rational objective in any way. It is an almost impossible burden.

Several appellate court decisions have degraded intermediate scrutiny, as applied to the Second Amendment, to a mere rational basis, which Heller explicitly forbids. The Circuit courts avoid the ban on the use of rational basis, by calling their rational basis scrutiny intermediate scrutiny.

An important government interest is safety. Safety has become a catchall reason in any Second Amendment case. No court has required the government to show whether safety is actually improved with a law infringing on the Second Amendment. As for whether the law is substantially related to achieving the objective of greater safety, the court simply takes the government's word for it.

For infringements on the Second Amendment, no proof has been required. In the Hawai'i case, the government did not show a single crime where a butterfly knife was used.

The opinion cites several appellate court cases to justify its definition of intermediate scrutiny as no more than a different name for rational basis.

If intermediate scrutiny were to have any actual bite in this case, the government would have to prove banning butterfly knives, while leaving the vast majority of knives unregulated, would have an actual effect on crime. The opinion does not require proof. It assumes the government knows best.

If these definitions are accepted as the correct way to determine what level of regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment, it is difficult to imagine what arms are forbidden for the government to ban. Perhaps we would be allowed five shot .22 revolvers, which would be required to be unloaded and locked up, separate from any ammunition, when not actually carried on our person, in our home.

These arguments make the Second Amendment dead letter law, by reducing the limits on government power to irrelevant and minuscule restrictions, which have little practical effect.

It is the long-running dispute between two philosophical views of the Constitution.

Progressives state the Constitution is living document, the meaning of which is whatever a set of judges wants it to mean, at any given time. Words mean whatever they wish them to mean. In the view of Progressives, the Constitution is an impediment to government power, which can easily be worked around with sufficient legislative wordsmithing.

The corrosive effect of the Supreme Court refusing to correct the obvious error by the lower courts is well illustrated by the opinion in Teter v. Connors, citing of the N.Y.S.R.P.A. case. All parties understood N.Y.S.R.P.A. was a terrible decision, obviously violating Second Amendment protections.

By refusing to hear the case after the City and State went to great lengths to make it moot, the case is now being cited to restrict and degrade Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit case in Hawaii.

The appellate courts showing open hostility to the Second Amendment must be corrected. Teter v. Connors may be a way for the court to correct them. The case involves knives, not guns. The court was willing to hear Caetano, which was about electric stun guns, not firearms.

It is possible a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit will reverse Teter.

Both avenues of redress become moot if President Trump loses the election. Supreme Court justices hostile to the Second Amendment will be added to the Supreme Court. The court will start hearing Second Amendment cases, in order to reverse Heller.

If the Senate is flipped to Democrat, the court will likely be packed with six more Progressive judges to bring the total to 15 justices. Both the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and the electoral college will be effectively destroyed.

Unfortunately, our liberties rest on the outcome of the 2020 election.

This is what happens when a philosophy hostile to the idea of limited government has been taught in the schools for three generations.

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.

Visit link:
Second Amendment Knife Case in Hawaii: Dangerous Opinion - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

This weeks publication of Inside the NRA: A Tell-All Account of Corruption, Greed, and Paranoia Within the Most Powerful Political Group in America is a new blow to the reeling organization.

Written by Joshua L. Powell, the former second-in-command to Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, the book is a full-throated indictment of the National Rifle Association and its leader, who is likened to a con man.

Wayne abandoned the advocacy of the Second Amendment years ago and became exactly what he himself had once railed against in countless speeches and commercials the elite, the Establishment, lost in a made-up dystopian world that he had created and sold to our members, writes Powell, whom the NRA fired last winter, allegedly for improper spending.

In August, New York State Attorney General Letitia James brought a complaint against the NRA that seeks the gun groups dissolution. Powell and LaPierre are named in the complaint, which details years of waste, fraud, and self-enrichment implicating NRA leadership.

In an interview with USA Today, Powell disputed some of the allegations in Jamess complaint and expressed desire to cooperate with her. In an interview with The New York Times, Powells attorney suggested that his clients expenditures only became an issue after the organization turned on Powell and that restitution was made.

The National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful special interest groups in America.We're investigating how it spends its money.

Im neither the villain nor the hero of this story, Powell writes. Instead, I feel like Im kind of a pilgrim who lost his way, who abandoned his principles and lost his footing, for a time.

The NRAs default approach to raising money and rousing the faithful, he writes, has been to stoke anxiety and fear of stricter gun laws, violent crime, civil disorder while remaining defiant. We only knew one speed and one direction: Sell the fear, Powell writes. LaPierre used the tactic time and again to boost flagging donations. A boogeyman, like a Democrat in the White House, always helped. It was a crazy time, Powell writes of President Barack Obamas eight years in office. The membership money and donations were an open spigot at that point. And if we needed more, Wayne would just pour gasoline on the fire, as he put it.

Powell describes the NRA as dysfunctional. I saw incredible incompetence, a culture of political backbiting and a Game of Thrones atmosphere that people outside our Merchants of Death bubble would never believe. Rather than being a well-oiled, data-driven lobbying machine, we were stuck back in the Dark Ages. There was no war room at the NRA, no coordinated effort between our lobbyists. There was no data machine that kicked out metrics the way a top-notch lobbying shop would have. As Wayne said to me on many occasions, Josh, come on, you know its all smoke and mirrors. The Wizard of Oz, just pull back the green curtain.

LaPierre is intelligent and shrewd about politics, according to Powell, but an abysmal leader. He fears confrontation, Powell says, and is unable to manage the organizations many egos, allowing crises of all sorts to fester. Powell describes La Pierre as temperamentally ill-suited to his post, and writes that he would often disappear, to God knows where, for a few days, or a week or two at a time, checking in but not divulging where he was. LaPierre feels little duty to others, Powell suggests, and has failed to acknowledge how his own missteps have contributed to the NRAs current predicament. Wayne feels that he has sacrificed everything to the NRA, Powell writes. That he is the NRA. That he is owed something, somehow. That he is the Jesus Christ of the Second Amendment, hands nailed to the cross. And that is how he justifies his actions in his mind. Why do I think that? Because I heard it from him for years.

Most surprisingly, Powell faults the organization for its reluctance to give even modest ground in the debate over firearms in America. In the book he states his support for a slew of measures, from improved data collection and research on gun violence to implementing universal background checks, which he predicts could move the debate in a more productive direction. At the top of Powells list however, is regime change at the NRA, which he alleges has fueled a toxic debate by appealing to the paranoia and darkest side of our members, in a way that has torn at the very fabric of America.

More:
NRA Tell-All Says Wayne LaPierre Sees Himself as Jesus of the Second Amendment - The Trace

Crook County resident hosting event to encourage conservatives to get informed, get engaged and get connected

In a time where the COVID pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement and gun control legislation remain ongoing hot-button issues, a Crook County resident is hoping to encourage politically conservative locals to "rise up."

Chuck Banks, who has called Prineville home since 2012, is a registered Republican who feels that now is an important time for his fellow conservatives to get informed, get engaged and get connected. To spur that action, he has launched "Rise Up America Wake the Sleeping Giant," a local rally that will feature patriotic music, three guest speakers, and a question and answer forum. It will take place at 5 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 17 in Ochoco Creek Park.

Banks believes the U.S. is under attack, but unlike the Pearl Harbor attack where the country faced a foreign invader, he contends America is battling domestic forces from within.

"They seek to overthrow our constitution, our republic and our American way of life," he said. "Their goal is to change our form of government into socialism or communism."

The rally is intended to bring conservatives together, arm them with reputable information and encourage them to use what they learn to speak up and affect change. What Banks hopes to avoid, however, is the shouting matches and altercations that have marred other recent protests, locally and throughout the country. He contends that no minds were changed by that behavior and the heated, personal attacks prevented the intended message from being heard.

Banks said that he has seen a lot of people address the personal issues of elected officials, speaking out against their personality or other decisions and traits that are not directly related to public policy.

"I don't make my decisions based that way. I base them on policy issues," he said. "When I look at policy issues, the bottom line is who do you agree with and place your vote according to who you agree with."

The rally is geared toward conservatives, although Banks said people of any political leaning are welcome. It will lead off with the playing of patriotic music. A local pastor will then give an invocation and then a local resident will sing the national anthem. Guest speakers will take the stage next. Chris Brumbles from Oregon Federation of Firearms will lead off, speaking on Second Amendment and constitutional issues. Dr. Vern Saboe Jr., whom Banks said will be flown in by Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, will speak next, addressing the current COVID pandemic. The final speaker will be current Oregon House District 55 Rep. Vikki Breese-Iverson. The Prineville-based Republican took office 2019.

The event will conclude with a question and answer session during which audience members can ask questions or offer comments to the guest speakers or to the audience.

Banks expects the rally to last about two and a half to three hours depending on when it starts getting dark. He said he has been in communication with local law enforcement throughout the planning process, and he hopes the way the event is organized an informative presentation rather than a protest will keep it civil.

"My hope is it is going to be an encouragement to conservatives to do your homework, get engaged in the process and basically vote and let your voice be heard," he said.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

See the original post here:
Local rally to focus on Second Amendment, COVID and more - Pamplin Media Group

Tetra Tech will continue its work on the Mandalay Bay seawalls and perform a geotechnical investigation and seismic analysis. (File photo by Chris Frost)

By Chris Frostchris@tricountysentry.com

Oxnard-- The Public Works and Transportation Committee, Sept 8, approved a second amendment to its agreement with TetraTech, Inc. for geotechnical investigation and seismic analysis of seawalls at Mandalay Bay.

The $121,319 amendment shall not exceed the contract amount of $296,801 and extends the agreement term from March 14, 2021, to March 14, 2022.

The city approved developing 740 attached and detached single-family homes and 37 greenbelts that became Mandalay Bay in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The developer installed reinforced concrete Boise and Zurn style seawalls to create the Oxnard waterways portion of the Channel Islands Harbor and allowed residential lots by the water.

The seawalls started to degrade because of their adverse reaction to the marine environment and needed repair.

Tetra Tech recommended installing panels and waler tiebacks or installing cantilever sheet piles.

The tie-back option installs a new panel in front of the existing wall, filling the space between the wall and installing tiebacks that dig into the non-liquefiable soils.

These tiebacks are similar to the ones in place now but would extend to 80 feet deep, which is deeper.

The cantilever sheet pile installs new sheets over the existing one using a pressing method. That means less vibrations and noise for homeowners.

The new seawalls will withstand seismic activity.

City Engineer Tatiana Arnoudt presented the item to the committee, and she said Tetra Tech would do seismic work and technical analysis in the development.

The second amendment confirms the tie back method feasibility before initiating phase two of the original contract: the plans and specs for the Hemlock St repairs.

"The second amendment to the Tetra Tech agreement will allow the consultant to confirm this feasibility of the tie-back method prior to initiating phase two of the original contract, which are the plans and specs for the repairs along Hemlock St," she said. "The scope for this amendment includes due technical field exploration, four exploratory borings across the site to the depth of 40-50 feet below the ground surface. Two of the borings are planned in vacant lots, and two are planned in the street right-of-way. The final locations will be determined based on the consultant's coordination with the individual property owners."

The scope also calls for laboratory testing of the boring samples, she said, along with inspecting the existing piles to determine their current condition and completing the seismic vulnerability study of the existing seawalls and the development of the structural design of the tie-back panel.

"With the approval of the FEMA HMDP Grant recognition, and the appropriation for $132,000 in grant funds from the FEMA staff report that goes to council on Oct. 26, there will be sufficient money for this amendment," Arnoudt said.

Committee Member Tim Flynn said he's anxious to get the work started.

Chairman Bert Perello asked about observing the walls in low tide in the report, and he wanted to know if that happens once a year.

"It happened to land on the low tide, but we were looking at it on a quarterly basis," Arnoudt said. "We did on it the next lowest tide in the next quarter after the city manager approved the first amendment. It happened to land on the annual low tide."

Perello asked about ongoing work between 3900-3966 W Hemlock St, and he wanted to know if there is potential litigation at those addresses.

City Attorney Stephen Fischer said there'd been litigation relating to certain repairs.

"As far as those addresses, I don't have that particular case file with me to see how those relate to the plaintiffs in that matter," he said.

Perello appreciates the sheet pile press down method.

"One of the big concerns of the neighbors is not the noise, but the potential for vibration and what that would do to the foundations," he said. "On this pressing of the items into the ground, how is the pressure exerted, so it does it not cause vibrations?"

Arnoudt said the sheet pile gets pushed down very slowly.

"It's a slow, arduous process," she said. "It's a giant machine pushing this thing down, so you won't have something constantly hitting against it. It's like trying to drive a credit card through the sand."

The estimated completion date is 20 weeks, plus six months for the construction documentation.

The motion passed unanimously.

See the original post here:
Seawall repair amendment gets approved by Public Works and Transportation - Tri County Sentry