Mediaboss Marketing

Let me take a moment to educate the masses, so to speak not to exclude constitutionalists who spend the vast majority of their time analyzing and dissecting each word and phrase in every amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

There exists a formal and dignified principle that, although unstated, is nevertheless etched in stone. Its non-negotiable. Its cold-blooded, hard-boiled fact. The Second Amendment protects all the rest.

Write that on the bedroom mirror so its the first thing you see when you get out of bed in the morning. Attach it to the door of the refrigerator within which is stored the nutrients nutrients that not only nourish your body but also give you the ability to exercise your mind. Nail it to the blackboard (OK, traditionalist I am) in the classroom that your kids attend so that no socialist-indoctrinated chowderhead can erase it and replace it with some sort of Mandan manifesto hogwash.

Understand, please, that once the Second Amendment is toast (done and dusted, to cite an old Scottish clich) and your right to possess and use firearms is effectively gone, the United States spontaneously becomes Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela or China or Argentina or Australia or Canada? OK, omit the last one, although the tyrannical Trudeau delights in shoving his weight around clamping down on freedoms once naturally assumed by Canadians.

No, I dont claim to be an oracle in any sense, able to see into the future and predict the unraveling of events. That is risky business. But, when my wife said to me, Congratulations, you were certainly right about that, her tone reflected a hint of disappointment that precluded my taking her comment as praise. Her reference, incidentally, was to my prediction that the $80 billion in weaponry left in Afghanistan would end up being used against us perhaps in the Middle East.

Despite claims to the contrary by Biden administration officials, including Jake Sullivan (who knows less about foreign policy than does your average CNN or MSNBC pundit) and John Kirby (who manages to come up with a feeble excuse for every boneheaded decision the Biden crew makes), documentation proves that Hamas gunmen had access to that very arsenal. Anyone who is surprised about that result is much too stupid to deserve a cabinet position in the US military.

But, unabashed ignorance appears in vogue nowadays especially on college and university campuses where liberal professors have corrupted the minds of helpless students whose (im)moral compass knows not which way to turn. The rising tide of anti-semitism (taking the side of terrorists who delight in raping women, burning people alive, and beheading mere children) should stand as a clarifying moment for the country. Its a sign of sheer irrationality. Still, why expect anything different given evidence that recent graduates cant read (beyond fifth-grade level), cant write (aside from crude text messages), cant add (absent computer assistance), and cant subtract (5 - 2 = 4)? Critical thinking skills? In your dreams.

Yes, the rot that defines higher education has been made possible by Harvard-type elites and corporate CEOs (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.) who are complicit in its destruction (financial contributions and woke foolishness run amok). Public institutions K-12 are failing, also evidenced by poor performance (near the bottom) in key subject areas compared to other industrialized nations ... which may have something to do with the prolonged disinvestment in history and civics education (averaging $0.05 per pupil).

Frankly, what I find most incredibly shameful and alarming is this. At a time when politics (and politicians?) are more divisive than ever, when America is being torn apart by a myriad of societal issues, when the (social) media is a hotbed of impassioned (misinformed and disinformed) opinion, and when youth are more visible as advocates and activists than ever before (incomprehensible Hamas demonstrations notwithstanding), the knowledge of and appreciation for our countrys history is demonstrably at a dangerously low ebb.

Which tells me that our gratitude and gratefulness for constitutional amendments (freedom of speech, especially) is fleeting if not in dire peril and makes it more crucial than ever that folks understand that the Second Amendment protects all the rest.

More here:
Second Amendment protects the rest | Commentary | norfolkdailynews.com - Norfolk Daily News

It is hard to tell which of the following Colorado Democrats hate more: the Second Amendment, or local control of government. A newly drafted bill sponsored by Dems allows them to continue to attack both.

Fewer than three years ago, Sen. Sonja Jaquez Lewis of Longmont, Sen. Chris Kolker of Littleton and Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial, all Democrats, voted with their party to blow up Colorados long-standing law which ensured a predictable, statewide approach to firearm regulation. Senate Bill 21-256, passed by all Democrats, created a patchwork of local gun laws that create confusion for law-abiding gun owners. The change in the law did not change the behavior of gun-toting criminals, but that is not the goal of the modern Democrat blame-the-guns approach to governance. Purportedly libertarian-ish Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law without hesitation.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

SB 21-256 made clear the General Assembly believes (o)fficials of local governments are uniquely equipped to make determinations as to regulations necessary in their local jurisdictions and to make determinations as to where concealed handguns can be carried in their local jurisdictions.

Fewer than 30 months later and without any data to support a change Jacquez Lewis, Kolker and Sullivan have changed their minds and now believe local governments are too stupid to determine what laws are necessary in their communities and too untrustworthy to determine where concealed handguns can be carried. No legislator has yet explained what happened to the uniquely equipped local governments. Once again, Democrats show up to save the day with a solution in search of a problem.

Sans any data let alone new data justifying the need for change the bill drafters hijack local control of the regulation of firearms at parks, playgrounds, rec centers, stadiums for any sport and at every level of competition, amusement parks, carnivals, circuses, water parks and any property in any way connected to local government or the grounds next to it. No joke.

This bill draft is the equivalent of the energy-company-crushing setbacks for oil rigs in Colorado. Remember that one? The proposed ballot measure excluded drilling from so many places by creating setbacks from so many sensitive areas that oil production could have lawfully only occurred in Weld County Sheriff Steve Reamss driveway and nowhere else.

This bill draft seeks to push Colorado toward becoming a statewide sensitive space.

Current law prohibits the open carrying of firearms at a polling place, because it may intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters The new law prohibits concealed carrying of weapons for the exact same reasons. To be clear: these gun-hating Dem law makers believe voters may become intimidated, threatened, scared to death, or worse by firearms they cannot see and do not know are there.

After the property owners suck approach of the special legislative session last year, this years legislature and Polis continue their assault on private property rights with this bill. This would-be legislation would ban carrying firearms at numerous private businesses, organizations and on private property, to include: private colleges; churches, synagogues, or other places of worship unless expressly authorized; private nursing homes; any private hospital or place at which medical or health care services are provided, and others.

The most insidious and potentially life-threatening provision of the law is the intended elimination of local school districts authority to protect the children in their charge. For 20 years, rural districts across Colorado the ones with schools 25-plus minutes from law enforcement response to emergencies have had the ability to provide an on-site, immediate response through highly-trained school faculty. Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response (FASTER) has trained more than 400 people to carry concealed in their schools across 41 districts in Colorado. The participating schools and school districts have eagerly jumped on the opportunity to better protect their students and faculty. But that is not enough, when it comes to those who hate guns.

Despite not a single bad incident having occurred in the seven years FASTER has been training faculty, the Dems under the Gold Dome appear poised to eliminate it as an option for those communities whose law enforcement protectors are relative eons away.

What could be the penalty for the commission of such damning acts with firearms at sensitive places? In 2021, a concealed carry holder who ran afoul of local gun regulations faced only a civil penalty of no more than $50. The new bill by the same folks who voted in the 2021 bill ups the ante to a criminal misdemeanor and a $250 fine. That's 500% more than the just-enacted bill. There is a bigger question here: If carrying concealed in places prohibited by local or state law is a matter of such supreme importance, that as the bill claims it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, why a small fine? Why no chance for jail and there is none no matter how many times the law is violated?

The answer is obvious. The Democrats in the legislature (and Polis) hate guns and do not value the Second Amendment. Instead, they take any and every opportunity to chisel away at that right.

Whether this draft bill becomes official or not, the one constant in Colorados experience with Democrat-dominant rule in state government is the gun-hating ends always justify the hypocritical means when it comes to hating firearms and infringing on Second Amendment rights.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. He hosts The George Brauchler Show on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter(X): @GeorgeBrauchler.

See the original post here:
Dems bow to local control on guns then take it away | BRAUCHLER - coloradopolitics.com

As they ring in 2024, New Yorks concealed-carry pistol permit holders will have a little something to celebrate besides the start of the New Year.

A panel of federal judges recently struck down key parts of the states misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act, thus giving these law-abiding gun owners some of their constitutional rights back.

Unfortunately, though, in upholding other sections of the draconian law, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals split a baby that never should have been birthed in the first place.

Still, if youre a gun owner in New York, where Democrats control all three branches of executive and legislative power, you take your victories where you can get them.

This one comes in the 2nd Circuits ruling striking down part of the law prohibiting concealed-carry in so-called restricted places open to the public. That catch-all provision would have banned permit holders from carrying their weapons anywhere in the state without the expressed consent of property owners, turning on its head the idea of a constitutional right actually guaranteeing the right to do something.

The three-judge panel also knocked down a ban on bringing guns into houses of worship.

On the other hand, the court upheld prohibitions on carrying in so-called sensitive locations such as government buildings, schools, theaters, parks and other places in a list too long to enumerate here but which includes practically anywhere people might congregate. The law, and the 2nd Circuits concurrence, means that only criminals will be able to carry guns in such places.

This split-the-baby approach could also be seen in other aspects of the ruling. For instance, it struck down a requirement that people applying for a permit give licensing officers access to their social media posts, including pseudonyms. The judges said such overreach violates Second Amendment rights while also presenting serious First Amendment concerns because it is uncontroversial that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously.

Yet the judges upheld the laws requirement that applicants be of good moral character. While a lower court judge had struck down that provision as unconstitutionally vague, the appeals court judges deemed it a proxy for dangerousness.

In fact, a district court judge had excoriated practically the entire law, but let it stand on purely technical grounds pending appeals. The 2nd Circuit judges agreed in part and disagreed on other parts all of which underscores the ideological fragility of what are supposed to be fundamental American rights.

The cases stem from last years U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down New Yorks prior law that required law-abiding citizens to show proper cause before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon for protection outside the home.

That decision in the so-called Bruen case, named for one of the government defendants, prompted Hochul and the Legislature to ram through the draconian CCIA in response, stripping New Yorkers of practically any ability to carry a concealed weapon. They took such steps despite clear warnings from the justices against using the latitude granted in Bruen to go to such extremes.

Now the 2nd Circuit panel has knocked down at least of some those unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners who just want a chance to protect themselves against criminals who, by definition, will ignore any such law.

With the appeals court doing only half the job, it will be up to the Supreme Court to strike down the rest of Hochuls prohibitions, once the case reaches its docket again.

Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, said that in restoring the rights of law-abiding gun owners to carry their weapons in some public places such as gas stations and grocery stores it seems the 2nd Circuit judges were sensitive to events like the massacre at the Tops supermarket here. Even though the stores armed security guard was thwarted by the fact that the killer had scouted the site and had on body armor, most such murderers will not be so well-prepared.

GOA, which has been out front helping plaintiffs oppose laws like the CCIA, will back an appeal, but is still deciding whether to ask the full 2nd Circuit to take up the case or to take it directly to the Supreme Court.

The Hochul administration did not respond to a request for comment. But Hammond said that if gun rights advocates appeal the parts of the ruling they dont like, the administration would probably file a cross-appeal opposing the restoration of some Second Amendment rights which New York Democrats obviously dont believe in.

That means the Supreme Court could end up revisiting the whole issue all over again. In fact, it already is considering another case resulting from its Bruen framework, which determined that current gun laws have to be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. That has led to some obviously misguided lower court rulings, such as ones allowing domestic abusers to own guns because there were no domestic violence laws when the Constitution was written.

But New York officials should take little confidence from that limited reconsideration, given that the CCIAs overreach is so clearly at odds with the entirety of what the justices laid out in restoring meaning to the Second Amendment.

It would be nice if the governor and state legislators would just make a New Years resolution to respect the Constitution and the rights of law-abiding gun owners not to mention respect taxpayers by not making them pay state lawyers to defend the indefensible.

But dont hold your breath waiting on that. Instead, wait for a more thorough judicial restoration of the right to defend yourself once New Yorks misguided law again reaches the high court.

In the meantime, when confronted by a mugger in one of New Yorks so-called sensitive places, you can just call the police. They will do a very thorough job of collecting evidence, after drawing a chalk outline around your body.

Or you can hire security, like the governor does, if you think your life is as valuable as hers. The only difference is, you wont be able to charge the taxpayers for having someone else defend what you should be able to defend yourself.

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

See the article here:
Rod Watson: In gun ruling, court splits a baby that should never have been birthed - Buffalo News

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling upheld most of New York state's new restrictions on acquiring and carrying concealed handguns in public.

Nobodys expecting that to be the final word.

The Dec. 8 ruling by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit was the most significant decision on firearms since the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. v. Bruen struck down the state's highly restrictive, century-old handgun law in June 2022.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Legislature quickly followed the Supreme Court decision by enacting a host of new restrictions on acquiring and carrying concealed handguns in public measures the appellate court has now largely approved.

"All Things Considered" host Sean Carlson recently discussed the appellate courts ruling and whats ahead with Jacob Charles, a constitutional scholar and gun law expert at Pepperdine University's Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles who's been following the New York case.

Heres a transcript of their conversation, which has been lightly edited for clarity.

Charles: There are three main parts to this opinion. One is that the court analyzed the changes to the handgun licensing law that New York made in direct response to the decision that struck down the states handgun law. In response, New York enacted provisions that restricted guns from a whole host of locations that it deemed sensitive. And then, finally, the appellate court addressed one other aspect of the law, which presumptively made it off limits to carry guns on private property unless you had an owner's permission to do so.

And in each one of those aspects, the court upheld most of the provisions and struck down some parts of it. So, with the licensing law, the court said it's OK for New York to require an individual to show good moral character in order to get a permit to carry a gun in public, but New York can't require individuals to disclose all of their social media accounts as part of that review, including those that they might use anonymously.

With respect to sensitive places, the court said it's OK for New York to restrict guns in places like behavioral health centers and public parks and zoos. But the court did say that the First Amendment, the free exercise clause of religion, restricts the state from banning guns in places of worship.

And with respect to restricted locations, the court said that New York cannot tell gun owners that it's presumptively off limits to carry guns in private places that are open to the public, like say malls, unless a property owner gives permission to do so. Instead, a property owner can object to that and can say no guns on the property, but New York can't change the default presumption about allowing guns on that property.

I think what we've seen in lower courts as a response to the Supreme Court's decision last year is that there's a lot of difficulty applying this new historical methodology, where the court requires a regulation today to be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation in order to be constitutional.

What the Second Circuit does in this opinion is it views the historical record at a higher level of generality. And it reads the Supreme Court's decision to say, "We look at that record holistically," not looking for, "Was there a regulation on guns in parks in 1791? Instead, we say, "What was the rationale for restricting guns in certain places in the olden days? And does that rationale support regulations today?"

So to give just one example, the court said, Well, we find from the historical record that there's a tradition of regulating guns in public forums in quintessentially crowded places, and that kind of principle can support a modern regulation.

I think one of the flashpoints, if this does go up to the Supreme Court, is going to be this good moral character requirement. One of the things that the Supreme Court faulted in New York's prior licensing law was for having too much discretion in the hands of licensing agents.

Here, the good moral character requirement has a statutory definition, so it kind of constrains discretion more than the prior framework had. And the Second Circuit here read that as just a proxy for dangerousness. But I think there could be debate. So the flashpoint, I think, if there's further appeal on that licensing provision, will be whether this good moral character requirement actually does constrain the discretion of licensing officials to the extent that the Supreme Court seems to suggest the Second Amendment demands.

Yeah, I think certainly as a result of the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court's decision that struck down the old licensing law, there is undoubtedly going to be more guns in public spaces.

As a result of this ruling, [however,] I'm not quite sure that's right, because the only places that this ruling says that New York cannot restrict guns to are places of worship and private property that's held open to the public. But the opinion also makes clear that those private property owners can themselves prohibit guns in those spaces.

So if a place of worship doesn't want guns, they can just say, "No guns are allowed here." If a mall or shopping center or other business that's held open to the public doesn't want guns, this ruling doesn't make them accept guns on their property. So, as a result of this decision, it's only those places that actually want guns on their property, that the decision mandates they have those guns.

Read the original here:
Handguns in public places: where a 2nd Amendment expert sees NY headed - Gothamist

The Second Amendment wasnt written to preserve hunting rights or to promote self-defense. It was penned by men who had just liberated a nation and were oriented toward maintaining the rights and freedoms of the people. One of the hurdles they had to overcome from the beginning of the Revolutionary War was largely because of a British ban on firearms and ammunition, making it nearly impossible to fight against an oppressive governing body.

The Founding Fathers built a system of checks and balances. Executive, legislative and judicial branches were designed to be able to provide some accountability. The Second Amendment was the ultimate check and balance on government, where power was designed to remain in the hands of the people if things ran amok.

Situations like what happened in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Israel and Gaza are hard to fathom in America, but not impossible. It doesnt take a lot of imagination to envision a president refusing to yield the executive branch of government after losing an election. That is exactly the type of situation that the Second Amendment was designed to empower us to fight against.

We all agree that mass shootings are horrific abominations. School-aged children are currently taught to live in perpetual fear and anxiety and have never been more mentally strained. Students need to be assured that we can keep the monsters at bay. Practical solutions must be sought without giving up our most fundamental of rights.

Ted Bennett Scarborough

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Follow this link:
Letter to the editor: Second Amendment exists for a reason - Press Herald