Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform

I think there's something basically wrong with a politician (especially a proposed candidate for the presidency) who espouses an infringement on our essential liberties.

Eric Swalwell touts gun-control reform in North Liberty – The Daily Iowan: NORTH LIBERTY — U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rounded out his first visit to Iowa since announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president with a house party event in North Liberty, where he called for a ban and buy back policy for assault rifles.

Well, he's a Californian, so we cannot fault him for being true to his Democratic principles of his culture and his party (Democratic).

Still, he's an American first, and one would hope that he is cognizant of the ...nuances .. of the Constitution of the United States. 

As in: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

I'm not picking on this candidate in particular, except that he has recently made public his disdain for the Constitutional rights which we all enjoy ... so far.

You want to conduct a "buy back campaign" for "assault rifles"?  (One wonders how he defines them.)  Fine.  As long as it's voluntary, rather than mandatory.

But we all know that he's just one more Democrat who thinks that if he has the power to enact laws which affect every citizen in America, he will do so with absolutely NO regard for the Constitution.

I'm disinclined to address his thoughts on non-constitutional rights such as "abortion" or "illegal immigrants" or "Water Rights in Parched Counties" (speaking off the top of my head); but when he openly espouses denying the rights of citizens to Constitutionally protected rights (aka: Second Amendment"), he self-identifies himself as someone who has no respect for his fellow citizens.

It seems redundant for me to encourage Californians to denounce him for his WRONG political philosophy; but those who are eligible to vote for a candidate in California might wonder what OTHER rights he is willing to throw under the political bus in furtherance of his candidacy.

A "Buy-Back" policy?  That leaves it up to the individual firearms owner whether to yield his liberties to the state;

But a "BAN"?   That moves into the area where citizens of The State (here .. the Nation) have no alternative other than to yield to political pressure and conduct themselves according to a dictator who would undermine your RIGHTS ... whether or not you value them.

First a gun ban; what's next?  Would a Swalwell presidency require us to (for example)  present National Identity Cards when crossing state lines?

Who knows?  A President who feels comfortable with undermining one Constitutional right could conceivably segue to denying any other Constitutional right.

Just saying.

Why in the WORLD should NRA back a ban on "Plastic Guns"?

The very idea that the NRA should "back the ban" on ANY kind of firearms restriction ("infringement") is absolutely ridiculous!

"Shall not be infringed"

COD, August 15, 2018: NRA should back ban on plastic guns | YOUR OPINION | richmond.com:

NRA should back ban on plastic guns Editor, Times-Dispatch: The National Rifle Association has a wonderful opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those of us who are in the “center” of the gun control debate. By the center, I’m talking about the majority of people who support individual gun ownership rights but also see a need for more controls on certain types of weapons.

In the first place, the concept that the NRA should "back the plan" on ANY kind of firearms infringement is abhorrent to firearms owners ... who rely on the NRA to support the ideal of the Second Amendment. 

The Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from those who do not agree with the concept of freedom of Americans.   You are an obnoxious herb-eather who has no respect for the basic rights which we all enjoy.   You prefer to lower us to your level.
Which is not only obnoxious and demeaning, but also (when you suggest we should yield our rights to POLITICIANS) ... disgusting.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

At Last, an "Honest" Gun Grabber!.

For those of you who believe Democrats when they protest that they "... don't want to take your guns away ..."


NRA-ILA | Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After "Resisters":

The headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

The Australian Solution (clipped from the above article):

... the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation. Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails. The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense – which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Chilling thoughts, to citizens of a Constitutional Nation
(oh, did I mention that Australian Constitution doesn't include a right to keep and bear arms??)

There's a problem with Gun Control Movements: they don't work!

Honest people with the best of intent have causee more havoc than the most avaricious warlords.

I’ve spent 18 years fighting for gun control. Here’s how we win: 

Eighteen years ago I applied for a permit to march on Washington, called it the “Million Mom March,” and scheduled the protest for Mother’s Day 2000. More than 750,000 protestors turned out on the National Mall. Another 250,000 poured into sister marches across the country. This spring, the March for Our Lives surpassed those numbers. It was a promising sign that the gun control movement is finally regaining momentum after failing miserably to keep Americans safe.

Honest, well-intentioned people have worked for decades to eliminate gun-predation on innocent civilians, and their efforts have proved to be ineffective.  (See Below)

Why don't these heart-felt pleas failed to accomplish their goals?

Because the only tools in their box is to either:

(A) take away guns from EVERYONE, or;
(B) conflate honest, law-abiding gun owners with criminals.

(These attitudes are interchangeable; you can't have one without the other.)

These noble goals are not undermined by the criminals in our society, who are their legitimate target: they are defeated by the law-abiding among us.

And "the solution" as you have suggested is doomed to fail, because just saying "NO" has no effect on either the Criminal Class, or the citizens whose (Second Amendment) constitutional rights are zealously defended by citizens who are as honest and caring as you are.

Here are the only two things you can do to get all guns off the streets of America::

(1) Delete the Second Amendment rights for honest citizens to defend themselves, their property, their homes, their families and their country
(2) Initiate a nation-wide program where police will invade every home in America with the goal of searching out, and confiscating, every firearm they can find.

You will have to perform both miracles simultaneously, of course.
                                One is no good without the other.

The abrogation of a constitutional "RIGHT" will be politically unpopular; any federal lawmaker who voted for such a bill would never spend another day in office, after his current turn ran out.  Of course, if it is "the right thing to do", they would obviously sacrifice their political future to bring about the the measure you favor.
(NOT!)

And how many Americans are willing to go from door to door, merrily confiscating firearms from Second Amendment advocates?    Will YOU?

Criminals will not give up your guns; nor will honest citizens who expect their government to protect their Constitutional Rights.   Have you even read the Second Amendment?

The World is over-endowed with Unicorns who expect to solve complex issues with simplistic solutions; this is just one of many "Dreamer" solutions which are probably not expected to be enacted. but are only proposed as "talking points".

Here's the talk which your proposition generates:

Are you trying to start another Civil War?  Making felons of law-abiding citizens is a great start.

It may have worked in Australia  (with notable exceptions) but Australia was started as a nation penal colony of convicted felons who were sent there as penalty for violating British Law.

America is a nation which started (and won!) a war with Great Britain because they  (the British) tried to confiscate our firearms .. among other grievances.
You may march for any purpose you wish, and nobody will seriously object.  Because America marched for the greatest cause .. the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Florida to espouse States Rights v The Constitution?

In an Opinion Article published in the Miami Herald, the author suggests that:

The NRA suing the Florida Legislature is like a parent suing the children. That’s Mom and Dad taking Johnny to court because he won’t eat his broccoli.

(Link and full quote below the fold)

(The reference is to Florida's attempt to limit the rights of its citizens to own firearms; the state has more "rigorous" restrictions on just who, when and why its citizens may possess guns.)

I have no idea what point the author was trying to make in the above quote; but I quite comprehend the rancor which is illustrated in the following quote:

Of course, the NRA picked as its target a patsy who probably won’t fight back too hard. It doesn’t have the guts to go after its real enemy, the courageous children of Parkland.

The NRA, as a representative organization of sportsmen and other legal firearms owners, is unlikely to "go after its real enemy" identified by the Author as "courageous children".   The NRA is all about civil and constitutional rights, and its members demand that it protect the First Amendment as assiduously as the Second Amendment.

The very idea that this membership would continence an attack on patriotic teenagers ... even those who (wrongly) accuse the NRA of fomenting firearms violence ... is anathema.    The author of this article has a private agenda, and has resorted to distortion of the truth and condemnation of strangers in an attempt to paint them with a bloody brush.

In point of fact, the Federal Government does have the power to impose Constitutional Rights on states which have historically denied them.  Witness SELMA ( do your  homework), where President Dwight David Eisenhower sent troops into Alabama to protect the rights of African-American children to get the SAME educational opportunities as white children ... as opposed to the "Separate-but equal" sham (which was far from equal, but certainly separate) acts of southern states who tried to maintain their apartheid restrictions on many of their citizens.

(The ACLU is great on protecting the First Amendment, but few rights supporters stand up for the Second.   That's why Americans rely on the Constitution, instead of the sometimes-misguided efforts of states.)

It's not about "GUTS", and the author is wrong (and knows he's wrong) to suggest it.

The NRA's only enemies are those who would undermine or deny Constitutional Rights to its citizens.   That's the reason for its existence, and the reason why over five million (that's 5,000,000 to those who are unfamiliar with, or don't understand the Bill of Rights) law-abiding American Citizens accept the National Rifle Association as their representatives in combating anti-constitutional laws at the local, state and national level.  

Taxing a Constitutional Right?

Paying for the Second Amendment – Baptist News Global:

What about a Second Amendment Reparations Tax, levied on all American households and corporations? If the Second Amendment is essential to American identity, and if additional firearm-related legislation is a long time coming (if ever), then why not create a communal fund to assist those families and institutions devastated by inevitable gun violence? Such a FEMA-administered reparations tax would commit all of us to the task of “binding up the wounds” created by firearm violence. If we can’t affect the laws, the least we can do is help pay for the funerals.

I was raised a Baptist; this kind of "Holier-Than-Thou" mindset is why I am no longer a Baptist.

Here's an alternative solution:  What about a First Amendment Reparations Tax?   How about we remove the tax exemption for churches whose ministers preach against Rights guaranteed by the same constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and religion?    If you feel that strongly about “binding up the wounds”, pay for it out of your own pocket.   Don't steal from mine.

 And don't demonize Second Amendment supporters with one side of your face while you want to tax us with the other side.   Your article bemoans the attack of innocents in a church, and rightly so; it was a heinous crime.    If you want to be safe from this kind of attack, hold church in a National Guard Armory.   That's where gun shows are held, and they're not being subjected to violence.

Because everybody has guns there, nobody uses them.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.  I bet you know that song.
It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it.  I give it an 85% rating.

"Common Ground" on the Second Amendment?

Three Ways to Find Common Ground of Guns

Democrats want longer waiting periods to buy a gun, a limit on gun magazines, a ban on “assault weapons” (though most have trouble describing them), a limit on the number of firearms you can own, etc.   Second Amendment supporters staunchly oppose all of those things.

uh huh.

Like that's gonna happen!
 Bunch of know-nothing libtards who are willing to give up ANY Constitutional Rights that they're not currently using.  Wait until their FIRST Amendment Rights are infringed!

Blessed are the peace-makers?

More like "Damned if they do/Dammed if they don't"!

For the Liberal anti-gunners, Vegas is just another talking point.  The rest of us damn the asshole with a gun all to hell.  He killed good people and at the same time provided yet another excuse for "Gun Control"  (hiss!) 

As if laws are going to stop an outlaw.

The Second Amendment is, always has been, always will be the most tendentious/controversial part of the Constitution ... and for good reason.

People who own guns are for it; people who don't own guns are against it.

Both sides have their reasons, present their arguments (sometimes reasonably; more often emotionally) and "... never the twain shall meet".

People who are determined to kill innocents won't be deterred by any law; that's why they're called OUTLAWS!
------------------------------------ *the bulk of the article is below the fold* --------------

"High Capacity Magazines"

 I can reload my pistol from magazine carriers on my belt  in two seconds.  That's almost the time it takes me to draw my pistol from my belt holster and engage a target ... and hit it ... at point-blank range.

Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:

Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:

 Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.

I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades.  They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws?  That's simple possession, right?

The Guardian Article:

Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.

Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines".  Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds.  This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal

If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?

What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine?  For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.

The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested.  It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.

These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to  accomplish.

In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure.  He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.

Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie.   People will do what they do, and will always  find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.

Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own  them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?

*(|No confiscation without compensation")

What are they going to do?  Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine?  They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what  magazines!  And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time.   It's not enforceable, and cops know that!

Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.

Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"?  Good luck with that!

It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office.   But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way:  Graft.

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control? Dialogue!

Surfing through Gun Blogs, I found this interesting dialogue:

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control . . . Then Doesn't? - The Truth About Guns:

A says:

 After this mass murder, the NFA will never be repealed. Zero chance today or ever. 50 years from now, the politicians will use this event as an example of why it should not be repealed. At this point the NRA will be fighting to keep what few rights we still have. There will be no repeals of existing restrictions and the NRA will be in a huge battle with the next President which will be a Democrat. This was event was really bad for 2nd Amendment supporters.

B says:

 If they make a peaceful return of our rights impossible they will make a violent return inevitable. I’m waiting for this clown’s connection to the alt-left to get released. 

C says:

 Oh cut em some slack. Vegas is in shock. Let them make some mistakes, Their contributions to the gun cause is exceptional. i’ve used their services. And after a few rounds with all the major full autos, I’ve decided that what happens in Vegas….probably shouldn’t. 

D says:

 the next president will be trump, stop buying the media garbage democrats have no teeth anymore

I'm not familiar with the general tone of comments on this gun blog;  I'm not a full-auto enthusiast, so my priorities probably don't mesh comfortably with the Usual Suspects here.

But I find their comments (anonymous) to be an interesting cross-section of Second Amendment concerns as a consequence of the Vegas shooting.

My analysis:

A:  Negative expectations
B:  Reactionary, combative
C: Ameliorative, neutral
D: Positive expectations/Political

I think this defines the range of reactions which is to be expected from Second Amendment supporters in America. 

Generally speaking; some of us expect that The Feds will come down critically on our rights ... hard! 
Others of us expect that our government will consider the Vegas tragedy to be the work of an anomalous actor, and ignore the "act-which-could-not-have-been-foreseen".

And some of us have no confidence in our government, and are inclined to react quite negatively to what we  the consider an abridgement of our inalienable rights.

We have he CONSTITUTION on our side!

CDC and WHO: They're At It Again

Should Gun Violence Be Considered a Public Health Issue? 
[newsy.com]

Gun violence kills and injures tens of thousands of people every year, and some doctors and health professionals say that's enough to consider it a public health issue. There's just one small hurdle: politics.

Actually, the "problem" described here is not politics.   The problem is "The Inconvenient Second Amendment".

Uber Liberal Alan Derschowitz recently wrote about the Second Amendment, saying that if he was rewriting the Constitution, he would omit the second Amendment:

“If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution,” said Dershowitz. “We have to live with it.”
Invoking the text of the Second Amendment, Dershowitz suggested that guns should be more heavily restricted.
“Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution,” he said.

THAT  is the real "problem" with the Second Amendment; too many Americans are willing to throw one of our Constitutional Rights "under the bus" because it's inconvenient.   Derschowitz is entirely too eager to throw out the baby with the bath-water.   His "solution" is to penalize the law abiding.

(Curiously, Derschowitz once wrote an article about "The Inconvenient Second Amendment", which is no long available on the Internet. IIRC, his point then was that the Second Amendment was in the Constitution and carried the weight of law.  Apparently, he found this opinion piece ... inconvenient.   However, his point ... that if we start trashing the Second Amendment, that opens the door to amendment or trashing of other Constitutional Rights, which he likes 'better' ... is well taken..  Well, thank you for that much, sir.   Even if you don't like it; even if you disagree with it; you recognize the danger of trying to rewrite the Constitution.)

Cully Stimson wrote about this in 2016 in reference to the shadow "no-fly list":

But so many liberals would like to write the inconvenient Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights, that they see no problem with treating it as simply a privilege that the government can take away at will.

Let us be clear about this:   the Second Amendment protects the right of any sane, law-abiding mature citizen of the United States to keep and bear arms ... including firearms.  It is not a right which is PROTECTED by the Constitution; it is a right which is RECOGNIZED in the Constitution.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization already consider violence a public health threat, whether it involves a firearm or another tool. Some physicians argue approaching gun violence as a public health issue might help curb the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in the United States each year.

Their logic if flawed.  Violence is not contagious, except that societal aberrations in our culture allow people to violate the laws which protect the innocent.

Why should we accept laws which penalize the law-abiding?  We already have laws forbidding firearms possession by criminals; these laws aren't achieving the desired result.    The argument is not that we should obviate the laws because they are ineffective; we have laws against speeding, too, but people still break these laws ... and the violators pay the price when they're caught.

We cannot make a law which will prevent criminals, terrorists, madmen from acquiring weapons; the only laws we can create are whose which will restrict "The Good Guys".

Violence ... including violence with a firearm ... is not a legal problem; it's a societal problem

Arrogance Repaid

SOUR GRAPES: Hillary Clinton Trashes Trump as a 'Deplorable' 'Reality TV Star': “

Well, I thought Trump was behaving in a deplorable manner. I thought a lot of his appeals to voters were deplorable. I thought his behavior as we saw on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape was deplorable,” Clinton told CBS’s “Sunday Morning.” “And there were a large number of people who didn’t care. It did not matter to them. And he turned out to be a very effective reality TV star,” she added. Clinton referred to her previous statements trashing Trump and his supporters on the 2016 campaign trail, doubling down on her claims that Trump voters are a “basket of deplorables” who are “irredeemable.”

During the latest Presidential campaign, I blogged that I was truly torn about which candidate to vote against;   I was not impressed by either Trump or Clinton.

The bottom line for me was their contrasting views on the Second Amendment;  Trump vowed to honor the Constitution, while Clinton considered the Supreme Court's support of the RKBA to be "wrong".

What is it about Liberal Democrats, who are their own worst enemies?

The arrogance of Clinton was enough to make a lot of people choose Trump, who might never have been elected had he been opposed by any other American than Hillary Clinton.

(Well ... or Bill Clinton, who can't keep his zipper up.   Or Al Gore, an idiot who couldn't even carry his own home state.  Or George Clooney, who can at least look pretty in front of the camera.  Or Barbra Streisand, who at least can sing.   Or ... never mind.)

Feds: Second Amendment Not A Second-Class Right

"This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right..."

In a strange twist, a FEDERAL Judge put the spurs to Californian lawmakers.

Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms | Fox News:

A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked a state law that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

Californian lawmakers .... and the anti-second amendment majority of Californians who voted them into office ... will scream and shout, counter-sue, invoke their states' rights privilege, and from that point this is going to get nasty.

And very interesting.

Also, probably (for pro-second amendment folks) occasionally disappointing.

There are plenty of states which already restrict "Magazine Capacity" in their laws.  To say that a federal judge with an understanding of the Constitution is going to make a difference in the nation's most populous (with Texas) state and most Liberal (can't think of one that's MORE-SO, offhand) is to say that Wishing On A Star will bring Jiminy Cricket to the rescue.

From the Constitution:

Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

... which might lead one to assume that Constitutional Rights are interpreted the same by every state.

... but sadly, you would be wrong.

Take away my stuff, will you? SUE YOU, I will!

NRA-ILA | Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines Filed:

Today, May 18,the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced it is supporting, along with the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), an important Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The lawsuit, filed by NRA attorneys, titled Duncan v. Becerra,challenges California’s ban on possession of these standard capacity magazines because the law violates the Second Amendment, the due process clause, and takings clause of the United States Constitution.

What this article is suggesting is that California CANNOT confiscate private property without addressing the constitutional rights of the owners.

The first  *(Due Process Clause)* is that the owner cannot be deprived of his property without an actual legal action, in which he may defend the ownership of his property in court.

The second *(Taking Clause)* is that the owner, even if he loses the court decision, cannot be deprived of his property without compensation ... presumably, for the monetary value of the property which is being confiscated.

(GREY AREA ALERT: with a physical article, it may be sufficient to present a receipt for the original purchase; for landed property, such as a house and lot, the valuation of the property may be the cause of many more legal actions.)

DETAILS:

It occurs to me that some folks may not be aware of the details of the "Due Process Clause", and the "Takings Clause", of the Constitution  Here are the details of both clauses of the 5th Amendment:

Please don't let the screen door hit you out your way out!

President Trump Just Fired Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy. The NRA And Gun Owners Thank Him. – InvestmentWatch:

Bumping a surgeon general (highest ranking physician in the country) was needful because America doesn't need the Medical Profession declaring that firearms are "a medical problem".

Firearms aren't the problem; they're the solution.

From the article:

 We do not want to lose our Second Amendment Rights, because there are those who actually think guns are the problem.  

But even more troubling is the fact that the same (Obama) Administration has been said to have participated in the crime known as gun running. 

Extreme political solutions to Constitutional Issues have no place in America.   

When the personal opinion of public employees seem to be supported by the President, the issue becomes more important.  Unlike the author of the original article, I do not assume that the Surgeon General had the well-being of citizens as his highest priority.  

I believe that his personal agenda was pursued without consideration for the Constitution, and when a federal employee makes decisions based on his personal bias rather than the virtues of the constitution, he has lost legitimacy.

Also, he has lost his job; which is the best outcome for a Maverick Magistrar!

Money for Nothin', and Checks for Free

The Gun Grabbers (democrats and the CDC) are at it again.

Democrats request $60 million for CDC to study gun violence as health crisis:

A group of 30 Senate and House Dems debuted a proposal on Tuesday to fund research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on firearms safety and gun violence prevention.
 Backed by U.S. Sen. Edward Markey D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, along with a host of other Democrat and Independent lawmakers, the bill, S.834, would provide $10 million per year to CDC for a term of at least six years beginning in 2018.

You will note the list of radical leftest senators who are sponsoring this bill to use my federal tax dollars to politicize the "gun violence" issue ... again.

 The measure introduced this week would set aside $10 million in funding each year for FY2018-2023 to be added to the CDC’s budget, earmarked for research into guns. The money, if approved, would be the largest funding for federal gun use research since a 1996 amendment by then-Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., precluded CDC’s funds from being spent on actions intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

(And there are NGOs involved in this effort, too ... which will come as no surprise.)

The bill is supported by a number of health care lobby groups and gun control organizations including the Newtown Action Alliance, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

This bill is an attempt to go back to the Good Old Days, when the CDC could pursue its own political agenda ... at our cost!   Before the Dickey amendment, the CDC could publish biased reports on "gun violence".   Their reports were long on the harm that guns can do, but absolutely lacking on any "positive effects" of private firearms ownership ... such as self defense, and the original purpose of the 2nd amendment (which was to prevent a runaway government from controlling an unarmed citizenry).

After years of whining because the mean old Republicans wouldn't let them undermine our Constitutional Rights at our cost, the Dems have taken the "Moral High Ground" by asserting that the CDC is hampered by the Dickey amendment.

Write your congressman.

I just wrote to mine:

The Weapon Shops of Isher

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

That is the theme from a book by A.E. van Vogt, ca 1941.

A.E. van Vogt wrote a series of short stories (or almost novelettes) starting in 1941, and eventually all three were compiled into this single novel:

The Weapon Shops of Isher (eBook): A. E. van Vogt

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

With the publication, in the July 1941 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, of the story Seesaw, van Vogt began unfolding the complex tale of the oppressive Empire of Isher and the mysterious Weapon Shops. This volume, The Weapon Shops of Isher, includes the first three parts of the saga and introduces perhaps the most famous political slogan of science fiction: The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free. 

Born at the height of Nazi conquest, the Isher stories suggested that an oppressive government could never completely subjugate its own citizens if they were well armed. The audience appeal was immediate and has endured long beyond other stories of alien invasion, global conflict and post war nuclear angst.

Bear that in mind, as you read this segment from President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 1863 Gettysburg Address:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

Unfortunately, the world (and America) have forgotten "... what they did here ...".

And we have largely forgotten why those men dedicated their lives to either preserve the union, or to divide it.

The Gettysburg Address begins: "Four-score and Seven years ago ...", referring to the number of years (87) between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and his current date (1863).  

Van Vogt wrote his seminal novel starting in 1941 ... only days before the beginning of the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 07, which initiated America's entry in what became World War II.  In Lincoln's parlance, that would be "three score and 15 years ago"; not quite as impressive as Lincoln's reference to the gap between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Gettysburg (1863), but still it is a significant period between 'then' and 'now'.

If Americans had not thought about "Defense" since The Great War (WWI .... 1914-1918), they were certainly beginning to think about it after Pearl Harbor.   Perhaps Van Vogt's novel, which detailed the value of 'personal responsibility' and 'personal defense' found a more receptive audience than it might otherwise have received.

Now we find our country divided again.  Amazingly, the issue now is much the same; what vision for our country must we support?  The Constitution, or appeasement of those who would undermine our rights?

And if Americans cannot find the energy to consider whether their current political climate might be the precursor to Tyranny, they might pay more attention to the Party of Exclusiveness which is striving to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights ... now, more than ever.

"... Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta feared “blowback” from their own supporters if they pushed gun control in Arizona".

Regardless, the book has been hailed as a classic for decades,   Not just because of its timeliness, not just because it's well-crafted, but because it delves into the heart of the America Experience.

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

The next time someone asks you "Why would ANYONE want to buy a [name the currently least politically correct firearm]", you might consider using those eleven words.  
It's easier to remember, and much shorter than an extended dialogue with a gun-grabber.

(And ...yes, I DO have a paperback copy of this book, somewhere in a box in a shelf.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.  As I recall, it's well worth the read.)




xxx

Debate doesn't talk about gun control? Good choice!

Personally, I don't believe either Presidential Candidate understands either the Constitution or the "common man".   So when they are asked to address the Second Amendment, both are thinking about their bodyguards ... they're not worried about you and me.

Gun-control groups fume over debate omission | TheHill: The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition posed a series of questions Americans voted to ask the candidates.

The most popular question: “Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?” The second-most popular question: “How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected?” 

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, briefly spoke about guns without being prompted by the moderators.
"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole and we should try to save as many lives as we possibly can,” Clinton said toward the end of the debate, according to the Brady Campaign.

It's not reported here whether Ms. Hillary addressed the second-most popular question".  As far as anyone can tell (and we're just guessing), she has absolutely no intention at all of protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans.

PS:   There are no loopholes.  There are merely constitutional rights which Hillary doesn't like.

No, you do not have my permission without a warrant

Who may read my private correspondence without a warrant?

Nobody; except me, the addressee, and my mother.  And my mother is dead.

UPDATE: (9/3/16)  I'm not The Only One who objects to this governmental invasion of my personal privacy without warrant or notice.)  

the Patrick Henry Society.

FBI Director James Comey .... wants to assure us that there's nothing to see here, we should just move on.
In the meantime, he wants to invade our private conversations because he can.  
Not because he should, not because we agree to his invasion of our privacy, but because he can;
if he can break the code; since when must we count on Iphone security codes rather than the Constitution to protect our right to privacy?

He wants to have an "adult conversation"?  Then he should put on his Big Boy Pants and understand that just because that's what he WANTS, that doesn't necessarily mean he can HAVE IT!

Because Constitution.  Because WARRANT.  Because SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

Say I live on Rural Route 12, and my mailbox is a big tin thing with a red flag on the side.  If that flag is up, the mailman knows to stop and collect from my outbasket.  That's okay, that's his job and he's not reading my mail.

When you take my letters out of my mailbox, pal, you better have gone before a judge and presented a valid reason to do so.  And that judge needs to give you a warrant.  One for me, one for my neighbor, one for the stranger who just moved in down the road.  Specific cases ... not some broadly imprecise, the-whole-world "I need to read everybody's mail, 'cause one of them might be part of a conspiracy".

It's my mail, and you can't have it.  Consider that my final offer, except for the shotgun I use to keep the fox out of the henhouse.  And you're looking might red just now, pal.

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers:
I've never heard Napolitano speak:   I've missed out on one of the natural wonders of the universe.

Thanks to Oathkeepers  for providing this stirring speech by a jurist and a patriot whose subject is: "The natural law as a restraint against Tyranny".

From back in November, 2014, the ... video reaches deeply into philosophical queries regarding the relationship between the individual and a government. 

I won't embed the video here; credit to my source.   Go there and be prepared to spend twenty-two minutes in spellbound awe.

(Hey, I'm not joking around here!   If you're not spellbound, I will give you double your money back!)

You probably already know this, but some may be unclear

What the Second Amendment Actually Protects | Eagle Gun Range Inc.: 

Contrary to what one may hear from time to time, the Second Amendment did not create the right of the people to keep and bear arms; neither the government nor even the founders bestowed it upon us. The 2nd Amendment’s inclusion in the U.S. Constitution merely recognized the preexisting, unalienable human right to arms and self-defense already possessed by every responsible human being. It was and is component to natural rights, as the only tangible means to ensure and preserve them.  

---

 As students of history know, there was great disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists on the point of specifically articulating individual rights in the Constitution. The Federalists held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the people and the several states hold any powers the Constitution do not prescribe and enumerate specifically for the federal government. The Anti-Federalists believed that without the specification of certain rights, the federal government would tread and infringe upon individual rights despite the explicit and general reservations and segregated powers already described in the Constitution. 

 Turns out, both sides were wrong.

I disagree.

Both sides were right.