Newsom’s 28th Amendment

In George Orwell’s magnum opus, 1984, The Party said:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

These phrases were so transparently wrong that anyone would believe them was the point.  They demonstrated the level of brainwashing the citizens of Oceania had been subject to.

It’s in that spirit of dishonesty that Gavin Newsom launched his initiative to ratify the 28th Amendment.


Here is the text in full:

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis.

The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.

The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Gun safety freedoms that restrict gun rights.  Thats orwellian.

This would be the second time the Constitution was used to restrict the rights of the people and expand the power pf the government over them.  The last was the 18th Amendment, which imposed prohibition.

That was an utter disaster that created America’s greatest crime wave and set in motion a long history of gun control.

Had it not been for the Roaring 20s, brought on by prohibition, the NFA might never had been passed.

Newsom want to impose prohibition on “assault weapons,” a nebulous and meaninglessness term.  Just image the crime wave that will cause.

And, of course, he makes the ludicrous claim that these restrictions don’t impose on the Second Amendment.  Clearly his interpretation of the Second Amendment is not one of personal gun rights.

The good news is more than half the states in America are now Constitutional carry and it takes 2/3-rds of states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.  The likelihood a Constitutional carry state will pass this is virtually zero.

He must know this has no chance of passing.

This is just the ultimate display of anti-guj virtue signaling.

Fuck him.


Spread the love

A “new” argument

B.L.U.F. The “new” argument from the state.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court issued their first Second Amendment ruling in nearly 80 years. They were asked …whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837, 2788 (2008) The District of Columbia generally prohibited the possession of handguns.

The law was set up such that each of the pieces was individually “acceptable” before the Court’s opinion. There was a law making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Then the limits on who could register a handgun were such that almost nobody was ever allowed to register a firearm.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
id. at 2791

This defines what an “arm” is. The Heller Court went on to say:

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

This says that arms protected by the Second Amendment include both those “most useful for military/militia use” and those arms which are not. If it is an arm, it is protected by the Second Amendment.

From this place, the court then put limits on the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment. These were dangerous and unusual arms and NFA items. The NFA is not mentioned by name.

The court was exceptionally clear regarding “muskets are the only arms protected by the Second Amendment”. Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.…id.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
id. at 2801

Yeah, it is an individual right.

Here is the crux of the post Heller battle for gun rights:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
id. at 2817

This is what every infringing legislature hangs their argument on. This is the hook that will allow their particular infringement to slip past the protections of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, Heller went on to say “text, history, and tradition” are the actual methods of judging a regulation.

I often wonder how the anti-gun people get their marching orders so quickly. And why they are so lock step with one another. I just found one of the reasons:

Justice BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 2852. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
id. at 2821

This is the Heller court rejecting means-end balancing. Means-end balancing comes from the dissenting opinions. In other words, from the argument that lost.

Bruen reaffirmed Heller and put a stop to means-end. This reduced the process of analyzing a Second Amendment challenge to a regulation to the following steps:

Does the challenged regulation implicate the scope of the Second Amendment? If it does not implicate the scope of the Second Amendment, the challenge loses.

Is the regulation a ban? If the regulation is a ban, are the arms banned in common use for lawful purposes? If the answer is yes, then the ban is unconstitutional.

If the regulation is not a ban, but does implicate the scope of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the state to prove a history and tradition of analogous regulations.

The state argues that their infringement does not implicate the Second Amendment. That is easily overcome.

The state argues that their infringement does not implicate an arm. Here, the state attempts to place the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the item(s) in question are, indeed, arms.

If the infringement is a ban, the state then argues that the arm is not “in common use”. They try to limit the definition of “use” by putting qualifiers, “for self-defense” being the most commonly used manipulation.

The new argument

evidence in the record before this Court. Their showing is marked by argument without citations and sources showing that their argument would be supported by admissible evidence, even under the relaxed rules for preliminary injunctions. It is wholly unclear whether all of the weapons (like conversion kits or semiautomatic pistols) regulated by HB 1240 are “in common use” based on the Plaintiffs’ scant submission. The Plaintiffs have not made “a clear showing” of evidence (Winter at 22) that supports their contention that all of the weapons covered by HB 1240 are “in common use” and therefore not “unusual” (Heller at 626).
Hartford v. Ferguson, No. 3:23-cv-05364, slip op. at 6 (District Court, W.D. Washington),

Emphasis in original.

There is no evidence that an “assault weapon” is in common use for lawful purposes?

The court is taking the side of the state here. They contend that because there is no legal evidence that hundreds of thousands of “assault weapons” are in common use, the plaintiffs have not met their burden.

I’m not exactly sure how you provide evidence that there are millions of “assault weapons” in common use. The court is unlikely to accept surveys as “evidence”. Nor are they likely to accept sales records. The court is bending over to say “well, most, if not all, of those guns were sold to law enforcement”.

They also ignore Caetano where the Supreme Court didn’t bother with figuring out exactly how many stun guns are out there. How many were owned per person.

The state has gotten this court to say that it requires that all “assault weapons” be in use for lawful purposes.

This one paragraph by the court stopped me in my tracks. They are working overtime to keep these laws from being overturned.

The reason this is important to us, is that this is not the only court that is using this to uphold infringements.

Spread the love

Non-Violent Felons to recover and keep Gun Rights.

June 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

US cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns-appeals court | Reuters

This is monumental. I have been a supporter of allowing Non-violent felons for a long while now and besides the obvious rectification of Civil Rights violations, the cascade of crap that is sure to come and bathe government and Liberals is to be put on Pay-Per-View.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws, declined to comment.

I believe they will do their hardest to appeal and hopefully they will lose big time. Now just imagine the herculean labor that will represent to clear federal databases of non-violent felons or be subjected to massive quantities of lawsuits for violations of civil rights by the millions of individuals who were not able to complete a NICS checks because of some petty shit taken to Felony by local or federal governments. And that is not all: Anybody (a minority for sure) who got indicted/prosecuted/incarcerated for trying to buy a gun while being a non-violent felon may have a chance to sue the government for not only violating Civil Rights but costs, loss of income and wrongful imprisonment may be added to the legal cauldron.

It would be a cataclysmic legal clusterflock. This may end up clogging the ATF and the FBI for decades…which overall, does not seem like a bad idea after all.

Here is to it happening.

Spread the love

The South Dakota farm wars are coming


I spent six years if my life in beautiful South Dakota.  I still have friends there.

Going onto a man’s property without permission, especially into his home or shop, while armed, is a good way to get shot.

Farmers and ranchers protect their land fiercely, since it is the basis of their livelihood.

Anyone who attempts to seize their land by eminent domain is their enemy.  To do it so some company can get subsidies for carbon capture is even worse.  That not even a public good, that a grift.

I can guarantee that in a trial by his peers, any farmer that shoots an eminent domain surveyor won’t get convicted.

This situation has all the ingredients for an actual violent conflict.

Politicians fund carbon capture subsidies.  Carbon capture company funds politicians. Politicians allow carbon capture company to seize land from farmers to build carbon capture facility that gets more in subsidy money.  Carbon capture company donates more to politicians.  Farmers get kicked off their own land.

There have been rebellions in this country for less.

Ideologically, most people will come down on the side of the farmers.

South Dakotans might just prove how important the Second Amendment is as a bulwark against tyranny.


Spread the love

Language Matters, liers got to lie

My great-grandfather was a railroad man and a union organizer. He and his family were always moving because the railroad didn’t like him organizing, but didn’t want to let go of him because he was good at his job. I know this history because my grandfather wrote his autobiography.

My great-great-grandfather, his son, and his son’s son (my grandfather) were all railroad men who either belonged to the union or were organizing for the union.

I’ve worked in “right to work states” and in states where joining the union was a requirement for being employed.

The unions did remarkable things when they started. I agree with many of those actions. The child labor laws, why created to protect jobs, were good things. Safety regulations which were about safety were a good thing. Even some of the wage work was good.

Today, I find that most Unions are greedy sinkholes. What they are there to do is protect the income of the higher ups in the union. They do not seem to act in balanced ways.

My wife is a teacher, when the local union rep was recruiting, in a mandatory staff meeting called for the union to recruit, my wife asked the question I gave her “Who was the last Republican the union endorsed?” The rep could not give an answer.

According to my wife, there was a bit of quiet sniggering.

Because I follow the Supreme Court, I’ve noticed some good opinions coming out of the court recently.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837, 2788 (2008) was the case that returned the question of abortion back to the state. —id. at 2791 told the state that the Second Amendment wasn’t a second class amendment that could be balanced away. —id. told the state that the executive branch had to actually have congress create laws, not just make a rule.

These were three powerful opinions. They returned power to the state and the people. Of course, those that want government control were very upset.

All of this brings us to a leftist meltdown: Americans want to join unions. The supreme court doesn’t like thatid. I’m not sure where she got that the Supreme Court doesn’t like people joining unions. Maybe there is something else going on?
Read More

Spread the love

Here 4 The Kids or a Gun Control Joke under “Do It For The Children!”

Thousands of women, many who are moms, gathered at the Colorado State Capital for an anti-gun event on Monday.

The group, “Here 4 The Kids,” wants Gov. Jared Polis to sign an executive order banning guns altogether, including law enforcement and the national guard, even though they know it violates United States and Colorado constitutions.

Colorado mothers hold sit-in to demand ban on all guns in violation of constitutions – CBS Colorado (


As we predicted many years ago, the issue of the Constitution being in the way of Gun Control was going to be solved by simply ignoring and/or destroying the rest of the amendments. We are seeing this now live and in color on how they are redefining Free Speech not to include “Hate Speech” and they dictating what is hateful.

But I digress. I want to share the absolute idiocy that is the executive order they want Governor Polis to sign. Here is the full text for you to read (and laugh) but I will go ahead and comment on some sections:

I, Jared Polis, Governor of the State of Colorado, hereby issue this Executive Order declaring
a state of disaster emergency due to the gun violence risk in Colorado, enabling State
agencies to coordinate for response and mitigation efforts. This includes a total ban on all
guns and a comprehensive, mandatory buyback program.

Nothing new here, right? Trust me, it gets stupidly funny soon enough. After this paragraph, we are regaled with the usual twisted and incomplete stats showing why guns must be banned and that the poor little babies up to 19 years of age are being massacred by roaming guns or some such babbling idiocy.

Here is the begining of the “good stuff”:

A. Gun violence in Colorado is a disaster of human origin and constitutes a disaster under
C.R.S. § 24-33.5-701, et seq.
B. In response to the disaster emergency, I hereby ban the use, loading, possession or
carrying of all firearms in Colorado, including but not limited to firearms for personal
protection, hunting, law enforcement or any otherwise lawful purpose for as long as this
Executive Order shall remain in effect. I hereby also suspend C.R.S. § 18-12-105(2).

I have no idea who wrote this and the usual IANAL warning is hereby stated, but the way I am reading this implies that the use of firearms in an unlawful way is approved by Here 4 The Kids. Use your gun to defend your family from violent home invaders is verbotten, but if the same home invaders have guns and use them against you and your family, they are fine.

Oh yes! Cops no longer are armed: Defund the Police? Nay! De-Gun The Police? Yay!

Next they go into the Gun Buy (cough-confiscation-cough) Back program and the full-stop selling and transporting anything firearms related. Here is a section where you can see these are people living in a Trans Disney Princess world and not reality:

Such buy-back program shall be administered at minimum by each sheriff’s office in an unarmed


I further verbally authorize deployment and use of the Colorado National Guard in an
unarmed capacity for the purpose of assisting with planning and logistics related to the
mandatory gun buy-back program. Further, pursuant to C.R.S. § 28-3-104, authorizing
deployment and use of the National Guard in an unarmed capacity for the purpose of
assisting with planning and logistics related to the mandatory gun buyback program in
Colorado is hereby memorialized by this Executive Order and shall have the full force
and effect of law as if it were contained within this Executive Order

Talk about mass desertion and job abandonment the day before this cluster flock gets started. Again, nothing is said about the regular hardcore criminals, and I believe because it would jeopardize their cult belief to separate good people from the bad guys: In their religion, if you have a gun, you are an assassin, scum of the Earth, and deserve no pity.

Although I call it a joke, I am not going to dismiss them. It is not like they are an immediate danger, but they do are an indicator of where we are heading as a nation. Even the Governor of Colorado said the executive order is not possible:

The Governor takes the weighty responsibility of executive action and the trust Coloradans placed in him to govern responsibly seriously and will not issue an unconstitutional order that will be struck down in court simply to make a public relations statement — he will continue to focus on real solutions to help make Colorado one of the ten safest states.”

So, the true work for the Antis will be helping destroy the Constitution so such an executive order is thus viable. This is already being done in different fronts nd eventually will happen if measures are not taken. And none will be easy or cheap and I don’t mean monetarily alone.

And before I forget: Why leave the criminals out of the gun control equation? Because after they forbid the tools of self defense and violent crimes take off, they will need to re-arm police and military and exact extreme measures to “regain peace for the children.”

And we know how that movie ends.


Spread the love