Civility Works Both Ways

1 Comment

My latest from JPFO explores so-called “civility.”

Have you ever noticed how gun grabbers belittle, vilify and berate those of us who vocally support and defend the Second Amendment as “paranoid,” “irrational” and “extremist,” while hypocritically demanding “civility” when we begin to push back?

We are supposed to bow to their recently-invented, unreasonable “right to feel safe,” (which must be in the Constitution right between the right to a pony and the right to your very own leprechaun with a pot of gold) as justification for relieving us of our fundamental right to defend ourselves against violence. We are supposed to show respect for their hoplophobia, even if it harms us and destroys our freedoms in the long run. We’re supposed to be polite and civil, even as they berate us for merely wishing to freely exercise our rights. We’re supposed to subordinate very real basic freedoms to their irrational whims.

via Civility Works Both Ways.

Second Amendment win!

9 Comments

The great Dave Kopel reports that just minutes ago California’s Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

The Court decided, according to Kopel, that the requirement to show the authorities “good cause” in order to carry one’s tool of self defense in public was in violation of the Second Amendment. Prior to this decision, San Diego County interpreted this phrase to mean that anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights in public must face current specific threats and claimed that “one’s personal safety alone is not considered ‘good cause’.”

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The opinion is here.

The Court specifically says that the Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arm  but also to “bear” them – a verb the meaning of which, according to the 2008 Heller decision means “to carry.” It meant “to carry” at the time of the creation of the Constitution, and it means the same thing now. And no, it doesn’t mean just “to transport,” but to “wear, bear or carry upon the person for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another person. The Court also points out that anyone with half a brain and knowledge of the English language understands that carrying or “bearing” is not limited to the home, and it cites several cases, including Heller, to point out that it’s quite obvious that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to carry their arms outside the home.

The Court made it clear that they’re not saying Heller requires every state to permit concealed carry, but rather it requires that states permit “some form” of carry for self defense outside the home.

Score for the Second Amendment!

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and San Diego County’s insistence that anyone wishing to carry outside the home show that they’re somehow in immediate danger and present proof that their life is threatened was quite obviously an infringement.

To be sure, my own opinion is that “shall not be infringed” means just that, and while background checks and training requirements are all well and good, they’re certainly not going to stop gang bangers and other thuglets from carrying wherever and whenever they want – without a license or a permit. Meanwhile, those Californians who abide by the law, will be waiting around for their permits to arrive and for the county to perform their background check, making them vulnerable prey for predators wanting to victimize them.

So, do I think the decision in Peruta v. San Diego is optimal?

No.

Do I think the battle is over?

Far from it.

Do I think this is a step in the right direction?

You bet!

Let’s keep fighting!

Quinn Uses Gun Violence Victims as Props to Infringe on Rights

4 Comments

I know you’re shocked to learn that a politician is dancing in the blood of innocents and using families of victims of gun violence to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

In Illinois.

I’ll wait until you wipe that look of surprise off your face.

Done?

Illinois governor Pat Quinn on Tuesday vetoed parts of a gun bill that would have allowed people to carry more than one gun, carry guns into some places that serve alcohol, and carry a partly exposed gun.

Flanked by parents of gun violence victims, Democrat Quinn said at a press conference that he objected to at least nine provisions of the new Illinois concealed carry measure that was passed by the legislature.

Which provisions does Pat Quinn not like?

He wants to ban firearms from any establishment (including restaurants) that serves alcohol, which makes me wonder if he would also ban establishments that serve alcohol from having parking lots, since thousands more people are killed by drunk drivers than they are by gun violence each year. Hey, if you can’t park your car in the lot, you won’t drink and drive, right Pat?

He also favors reinstating “home-rule” communities’ authority to institute assault weapons bans, proving once again that if the representatives of the people actually represent the views of their constituents in the state legislature, and if said representation clashes with the political agenda of the gun grabbers, the laws must be changed to allow petty local tyrants to infringe on the rights of the citizens.

He also doesn’t like requiring business owners to post signs if they want to ban firearms on their property. Get a load at this douchery:

Under this bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children’s entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As written, this provision would lead to the unfair and unduly burdensome presumption that—without private property owners’ specific actions to the contrary—guns are welcome.

It’s “unduly burdensome” for a business owner to make it clear to his or her customers what they will or will not allow on their property, so we must make the assumption that every business owner is a hoplophobic asshat like Pat Quinn. Unduly burdensome to post a sign. Right.

Other Quinn douchery includes limiting the number of guns and ammunition “clips” (They’re MAGAZINES, jackhole!  If you don’t know what they are, you shouldn’t have the right to ban them.) and requiring a weapon to be completely — not just “mostly” — concealed and allowing employers to ban weapons in their workplaces (the latter is something with which I actually agree – unless employer receives taxpayer support in any way). Apparently Quinn is crapping his Depends over open carry, because OMGOHNOESELEVENTY!!11!!1!!!!1 someone might know that a citizen is carrying a firearm and get scared or something! I’m not a huge fan of open carry, but the way – it’s not tactical, and frankly it allows a potential assailant a peek into your ability to defend yourself and make a counter plan if needed – but I’m not soiling myself at the thought either!

None of this is particularly surprising, given that it’s Quinn and it’s Illinois. It’s not even all that shocking that he would use families affected by violence as props to advance his insane agenda. I’m not even all that amazed that some people would use their tragedy as a club to bludgeon the rest of us into giving up our rights.

It’s just irritating, that’s all.

Good News From Illinois

2 Comments

Not only did the Illinois legislature pass concealed carry today, it did so with a VETO-PROOF, bipartisan vote!

In Illinois? YEAH!

This means that cities like Chicago can no longer make their own laws regarding the banning of certain types of firearms, magazines, etc. This bill would not, however, invalidate all existing local laws as had originally been hoped. It will prevent new laws from being passed at the local level though.

Illinois was forced to enact a concealed carry plan by early June after a court ruling found their lack of any method of public firearms carry to be unconstitutional.

Of course, Illinois being Illinois, I’m sure there will be some onerous requirements to be able to exercise said right: expensive training, fees, fingerprinting… you name it. But still…

I’m pleasantly surprised, Ilinois!

Awwww! Evie Haz a Sad!

17 Comments

Apparently, Evie Hudak has been the victim of “unfettered vitriol from gun control opponents,” according to this press report that linked to this blog. She’s “visibly shaken.” She’s upset. She apologized to victim Amanda Collins, so what does everyone want from her?

Poor baby!

What does everyone want from her?

Certainly not a half-assed apology for being “insensitive!”

How about an acknowledgment that there are women out there who successfully defend themselves against attack using firearms?

How about some rational thought toward empowering women to become self-reliant?

How about giving women a fighting chance?

No?

Of course, not. She still wants to disarm women, and her callous comments are only a means to an end – an end which will end up with more defenseless victims.

So you know what? I couldn’t give one whit about how upset Evie Hudak is! I couldn’t care less how shaken she is by the visceral response to her disgusting comments! She is, in fact, part of a war on women! A war that leaves them vulnerable and makes them into easy prey for pigs like the rapist who assaulted Amanda Collins. And Evie Hudak is on the front lines – destroying women’s ability to stop an assault, without so much as a thought to their safety and security!

She has the gall to be upset? She should be ashamed! She’s an embarrassment! A disgusting perversion of what a real woman is! And she’s using her legislative authority to ensure that there are more victims at the mercy of thugs and rapists!

And to the rest of the hoplophobic assmonkeys in Colorado defending her and attacking gun rights supporters for pointing out that this is, in fact, a war on women…

“For the Republicans to suggest these bills are a war on women is probably just a smokescreen for them to rationalize how they can possibly vote no on these bills, one of which takes guns away from domestic violence offenders,” Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, told FOX31 Denver Wednesday.

“We’ve got the background check bill that is devised to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, including rapists. And I’m sure all 15 [Senate] Republicans will vote against that too on Friday.”

You’re a moron, John Morse. It is already illegal for domestic violence offenders to possess firearms, and violent criminals, including rapists are already legally barred from possessing firearms anyway! So please shut your ignorant trap and go away along with Evia Hudak!

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: