Tag Archives: gunrights

by

Daily Broadside | The DOJ Sets Up A Soviet-Style Snitch Line

From PJ Media comes word that the feds have just announced and funded the “National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center.”

Joe Biden apparently thinks he isn’t going to make it to a second term. On Saturday, his attorney general announced a new resource program for Red Flag laws across America that will go on long after Biden is no longer in the White House.

Congressman Thomas Massie sounded the alarm, asking: “What the hell is this evil? A Federal Red Flag center; We did not authorize this. Announced, of course, just hours after the omnibus passes.”

So unelected bureaucrats are now making law and funding it out of the money Congress voted to give them? The out-of-control ring masters are planning to disarm all of the junta’s enemies. That means all white, conservative, right wing, extremist, Christian Nationalist, MAGA Republican men who object to a government that is trampling their God-given rights.

Red flag laws sound reasonable, don’t they, considering how often gun violence is preceded by the perpetrators dropping blatant warning signs of murderous intent (signs which the FBI and DHS then ignore)? But make no mistake – red flag laws, which enable authorities to disarm someone who has been deemed a potential gun violence threat by family members or others in close contact with the “suspect,” will be used to target political enemies of the Biden administration. Under the guise (as usual) of keeping Americans safe, the government will exploit these laws in totalitarian ways.

Own a MAGA hat or a Gadsden flag? The Biden administration sees you as a potential danger. Complain about woke schoolroom indoctrination at school board meetings? The FBI already considers you a domestic terrorist. Post support on social media for the J6 political prisoners? You’re a threat to American “democracy” (i.e. Democrat one-party hegemony). Does anyone doubt that the government will use red flag laws to neuter such “threats”?

Who decides who “poses” a threat? Who decides what constitutes a threat? They’ve already demonized whites, “MAGA” Republicans, “deplorables” and “bitter clingers,” anti-vaxxers, hoax-busters and others as the greatest threat to the country since sliced bread or something.

Red flag laws are unconstitutional because they offer no due process. Authorities can show up to take your lawfully purchased weapons based on a report from anyone, and you don’t get them back until the authorities say so.

If you have a firearm, you best be quiet about it.

The potential danger and violence that red flag laws pose is real.

These imposters in the federal government — they’re American in name only — intend to disarm the populace in the interest of “public safety.” Safety is a disingenuous head fake.

The truth is that these left-wing cultural Marxists and their enablers in the media and our formerly great institutions are the true threat to a safe and stable society.

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | NM Governess Issues Executive Order Banning Open or Concealed Carry for 30 Days, Gets Dragged By Everyone

Brandon, the lying, dog-faced pony soldier who supposedly heads our government, was notably absent from any official 9/11 memorial service yesterday, adding to a long string of deliberate snubs meant to demoralize the country’s patriots who still put their hands over their hearts when our national anthem is sung and tear up at the sight of our flag. Resident Trunalimunumaprzure is merely carrying on the work of destroying what little is left of our national character, pulling it down brick by brick.

It’s not just him; he’s got a lot of help from the commies in positions of power who fake their fealty to the U.S. Constitution until an opportunity to push their power beyond what is lawful comes along.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday announced a new public health order that, she said, will prohibit people from carrying firearms, either open or concealed, in Albuquerque and throughout Bernalillo County for the next 30 days, regardless of whether they have a permit.

The order takes effect immediately. It states “no person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021.”

Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an executive order Thursday evening declaring gun violence a public health emergency. During a news conference Friday, she said she expects legal challenges to the new public health order and expressed uncertainty about whether the order would prevail in court.

The order currently applies only to the city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, Lujan Grisham said, and can only be enforced not by local authorities but by New Mexico State Police, whose presence in the state’s largest city would be “significant” over the next month.

Remember when conservatives warned that the Covid mandates and lockdowns were simply a dry run for future tyrannical orders? Remember how we were smeared as tinfoil-hat-wearing, conspiracy-mongering, disinformation peddlers?

Well, here you go: gun violence is now a “public health” emergency. Not a “crime surge” or an “increase in violence” but a matter of “public health” in the same way as a pandemic is a “public health” concern.

Defining “gun violence” as a “public health” crisis is like trying to make a twin sheet fit a king-sized mattress. It’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Of course, in order to not look like the little dictator she is, she has to also lie about exactly what her role is as governor.

But New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is defending her order, claiming it was necessary to protect “public health,” and besides, her oath to uphold the Constitution was not “absolute.”

“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” she retorted after being asked whether her order violated her oath of office to “uphold the Constitution.”

It’s true there are exceptions to most of our Constitutional rights. We can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for example. There’s also the “fighting words doctrine” that makes incitement to violence illegal.

But anyone who claims there are exceptions to their oath needs to be impeached. The words “oath” and “absolute” pretty much go together. And this cretin of a governor is looking to separate them because she’s gotten herself in a heap of trouble.

If someone takes an oath and then later decides that it isn’t “absolute” then the oath is worthless. If someone can determine after the fact that the oath she took really didn’t mean what it said, nor did what she recited mean what it claimed, then you can’t trust the “oath.”

Or do oaths come with exceptions now?

Fortunately, she’s geting flamed for her order. Republicans are calling for her to be impeached.

Republican state Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block announced on Saturday they are calling for the governor to be impeached.

“I am calling on counsel to begin the impeachment process against Governor Grisham,” Lord said. “This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Even Grisham believes this emergency order won’t prohibit criminals from carrying or using weapons; a basic admission that this will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won’t be able to defend themselves from violent crime.” 

The Bernalillo County Sheriff will not enforce the ban.

In another report, even Democrats are opposing her rogue order.

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman, a Democrat party leader who was appointed by Ms. Grisham, joined Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and Police Chief Harold Medina saying they, too, would not enforce the ban. A gun rights group filed a federal lawsuit within 24 hours seeking an immediate court order to block the order from taking effect.

Better yet, dozens protested in Albuquerque, NM by openly carrying their firearms, with one speaker saying, “This will not stand, we will not comply!”

This is good to see because I guarantee that there will be more unlawful attempts from our rulers to force unconstitutional orders on us peasants (that’s exactly how they see us). You have to decide now (with others, ideally) that you will not comply with unlawful demands. If the authorities demand that you wear a mask, let them try to enforce their mandate on millions who decide they’re not going to comply. If they declare that your guns are now banned, tell them molon labe or “come and take.”

Abraham Lincoln once said,

The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts — not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

September 16 and 17, 1859 | Notes for Speeches at Columbus and Cincinnati

I daresay that we are also the “rightful masters” of would be tyrants who can’t control crime and decide that forbidding lawfully (and constitutionally) armed citizens from carrying guns will solve the problem.

Why is the knee-jerk reaction of every Democrat Leftist Progressive Marxist (but I repeat myself incessantly) to violate the rights of the law-abiding? Because they can’t admit their “social justice” policies and progressive ideology is the problem.

And that’s why “we the people” must be vigilant and courageous and stand up to these ignorant anti-American extremists.

by

Daily Broadside | What About ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ Do You Not Understand?

Daily Verse | Job 36:16
“He is wooing you from the jaws of distress to a spacious place free from restriction, to the comfort of your table laden with choice food.”

Tuesday’s Reading: Job 38-39

There have been a handful of dreadful shootings over the last few weeks, including the NYC subway shooting, the racially-motivated bloodbath in a Buffalo, NY grocery store, and the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. There have also been several smaller, “one-off” shootings.

None of them should have happened. They aren’t what our Founders envisioned when they enshrined the right to be armed in our U.S. Constitution. What they envisioned was the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

America has a problem. We are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But we are no longer the society in which that right was declared.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

I’ve quoted this from Adams before, but I’ll keep doing so because the more I sit with it, the more profound it is. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom without virtue is license. If there’s anything that describes our society today, it’s “license.” And license is only a step removed from anarchy. All restraints, all standards, all guidelines are being thrown off in order to indulge our most naked desires or to give ourselves over to the darkest corners of our inner life.

When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild. But whoever obeys the law is joyful.
— Proverbs 29:18 (New Living Translation)

Yet the Founders took the risk and bestowed on us our inalienable rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. — Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Brandon is going on these days about the Second Amendment not being “absolute.” (Actually, he has said that “There’s no amendment that’s absolute.”) What he means by that with 2A is that there were always some kind of limits on what “Arms” a person could keep and bear. His now (several times) debunked example is that private citizens couldn’t own a cannon.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but a straight-forward reading of the text seems to be absolute. The modal verb “shall not” is absolute. My right to keep and carry (bear) an arm may not, will not, cannot, shall not be infringed.

“Infringed” here means to limit, to undermine, to encroach upon.

Yet that doesn’t keep the illiterati (constitutionally speaking) from their efforts.

Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, is looking to put a 1,000% excise tax on AR-15-type rifles as a means of making them less affordable to the public.

“What it’s intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen,” Beyer told Business Insider. “We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”

With the affected guns ranging in price from $500 to $2000, the tax could add as much as $20,000 to the final sale price of the weapons. While bullets would not be taxed at the high rate, high-capacity magazines would be.

Hey Don, what is it about “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? He says, right there in his quote, that it “is just the kind of restrictive measure” they want. To restrict means to limit and 2A says, absolutely, that the government SHALL NOT do that.

Every time another “gun control” law is passed or another “gun free zone” is created, our absolute right to be armed is infringed upon. In other words, a case could be made that such laws or regulations are illegal.

Now, I’m not an absolutist in the extreme. Given that we are now an immoral and irreligious people who no longer view self-control and an orderly society as virtuous, we may have to admit that some regulations are in our best interest.

But let’s be honest: regulations don’t control the heart or behavior. At best they only tell us what is “legal” and what the penalties are for breaking the law. And that’s a poor substitute for personal virtue and responsibility. Take California for example:

An FBI report on ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2021 shows that California was the number one state for such incidents, with six incidents total.

California is also number one for gun law strength, the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety noted …

… California has universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a red flag law, gun registration requirements, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on carrying a gun on a college campus for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed on campus for classroom defense, a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, and a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase in a given month, among other controls.

All potentially illegal controls, I might add, because they violate the people’s right to “keep and bear Arms.” But the people in positions of power don’t care about our rights. They only care about getting and keeping power.

None of the gun control laws on the books stopped any of the killers I mentioned at the outset. And adding more laws—apart from confiscating all of our guns, which is the goal—would have done nothing more to prevent the tragedies.

Frankly, the driving force behind all the “gun control” laws is to make it as difficult to own a firearm as possible, if not make it outright impossible. Jack the price of a firearm up by 1000% and you can plausibly deny that you’re infringing on anyone’s right to keep and bear Arms. “I’m not saying you can’t keep and bear a weapon; of course you can. I’m just going to make it so expensive that most people won’t be able to.”

That’s infringement.

Worse still is a growing attitude of contempt for the U.S. Constitution. Here’s Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) expressing his feelings about constitutional rights:

“… so spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.” Really? Why is this guy in Congress? Didn’t he take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States when he took office?

Then there’s Brandon.

This is what the erosion of liberty looks like. When you have “representatives” in the legislature and executive branch who have contempt for the very ideas they swore to protect, it’s a house of cards.

And that’s an infringement on the security of our rights as citizens.

by

Daily Broadside | There is No “Exception” in the Second Amendment

Daily Verse | 1 Kings 12:8
But Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and
consulted the young men who had grown up with him and were serving him.

It’s Friday and the end of another week under the heel of Chairman Cho Bai Den and his communist acolytes. Dear Leader, “claiming that shootings are a ‘public health crisis,'” just announced several gun control measures.

Here’s what he said.

“A Public Health Crisis”

“Today we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis.”

That’s is an interesting way to frame this “discussion.” Why is he using the phrase “public health crisis”? What does he mean? A mental health crisis? An anger management problem?

He probably means lead poisoning.

As Paula Bolyard worries, “After what our country has been through over the last year with the endless COVID-19 lockdown orders, the words ‘public health crisis’ are very ominous indeed.”

I fear it’s only a matter of time before someone gets the idea to regulate gun ownership by declaring a public health emergency. Is that what Biden’s up to with the language above? Time will tell, but don’t be surprised if whoever is running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tries to make an end-run around Congress to push through emergency orders to confiscate guns from those deemed a “health risk,” beginning with anyone who attended the Trump rally on Jan. 6.

“Nothing I Recommend Impinges on the Second Amendment”

“Nothing, nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment. They’re phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake for what we’re talking about.”

Funny to hear Biden talk about “phony.” The man is a walking, talking textbook example of phony. If he tells you that nothing he is about to say “impinges” on the Second Amendment, grab your guns and hold on for dear life, because the word he’s looking for isn’t “impinges” but “infringes.”

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

— The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“Shall not be infringed.”

“Shall not.“

Sounds absolute to me.

In fact, a good case can be made that all federal gun restrictions are illegal infringements.

The truth is, the intentions of those who debated, wrote and passed the Second Amendment are clear: The purpose of the amendment is to protect individual liberty by, in part, stopping the federal government from instituting gun restrictions of any kind, because America’s founders wanted to ensure citizens had the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical national government and other domestic threats, as well as from foreign invaders.

“No Amendment to The Constitution Is Absolute”

This is another worrisome statement. If no amendment is “absolute,” what does that mean for the First Amendment, much less the Second? Biden uses the example of the freedom of speech to press his point.

“You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater. Recall the freedom of speech.”

First, Resident Biden, don’t presume to lecture us on “you know, the thing.” You’re no constitutional scholar, nor are the cabal of Leftists you’ve surrounded yourself with. Second, the “yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater” maxim is associated with one of “the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.”

Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

Biden goes on to say, without evidence, that “From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

Really? You expect us to believe that? Please, give us all the examples you’ve collected. As Tyler O’Neil writes,

Biden is laying the groundwork for carving out exceptions to key constitutional rights. It’s not just gun control: Biden supports the Obamacare contraception mandate and would remove religious freedom exemptions for Catholic nuns like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Biden also supports the Equality Act, which explicitly undermines the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Biden supports H.R. 1, the Democrats’ election boondoggle that, among other things, eviscerates free speech in politics by mandating donor disclosure.

This is tyranny dressed up as concern for “safety.” Are there too many shooting deaths? Too many people in pain from the loss of loved ones? Yes, there are.

But the answer isn’t to violate the Constitution. The answer is to make men fear God again.