New York City Mayor Eric Adams has made ending the rising tide of gun violence a top priority. He describes it as “the civil rights battle of our lifetime” and explains that guns are “destroying the anatomy of our cities and our communities.” The mayor has met with President Joe Biden, appointed a “gun violence prevention czar,” issued a 15-page Blueprint to End Gun Violence and targeted guns on New York City streets.
— NYC Mayor Adams wants to end gun violence — will the Supreme Court prevent him?
And at the same time:
And yet, New York is tied with Massachusetts for the second-lowest rate of gun-related deaths in the nation at 3.7 deaths per 100,000 people, a statistic that includes suicides, homicides, accidents, and people shot to death by police officers. Only Hawaii’s rate is lower.
— Why New York has such a low rate of gun death
As I stated in Polling shows the courts are suppose to make rulings based on the law. The foundation of our laws is our Constitution. If a law violates our Constitution it is unconstitutional making it null and void.
Regardless of that, the media, politicians, and gun rights infringers continue to scream and shout about why their infringements should be allowed.
“It is the will of the people!” Then try to repeal the second amendment and find out that you can’t take a right away from the people.
“It will save the lives of people!” Well that’s well and good, but there are studies that show the opposite of what they are claiming. As well as looking at more than just people killed with firearms.
One of the statistics quotes is how much safer England is with no guns. The quote is number of people killed by guns. Yet ask Madana what happens when the criminal element doesn’t fear the subjects of the crown. Robberies are much more common in England than in the US. Burglaries are taking things from a building, robberies are taking things from people.
While New York might be tied for second lowest gun deaths that doesn’t mean that NYC (1 in 172) is as safe as downtown Henderson, NV (1 in 460). Violent crime isn’t limited to murder by firearm. Violent crime is murder, rape, robbery and assault. Neighborhood Scout
The mayor of NYC thinks that he can pass just one more, or one dozen more, or one hundred more laws that will stop criminals from being criminals.
It just isn’t going to work. Criminals just got to Criminal.
Quick call to 202-224-3121 is the US Capitol switch board.
Go call your representatives as well.
UPDATE: Reading that bill is difficult and not very helpful. Instead of giving us the final text of the different bills it is full of delete this, insert that language. This is how most bills actual are. In order to know what it actually does you have to see the marked up bill.
In a poll of many eligible voters of these United States it was decided to ratify the Constitution of these United States and to adopt the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights.
Part of the constitution established the form of government, methods of changing the Constitution, electing representatives and three branches of the government.
The Legislative branch, to create laws and pass budgets.
The Executive branch, to fulfil the requirements of the laws of these United States.
The Judicial branch, to pass judgement based on the laws of the land.
These three equal branches of government are created to be in conflict with each other and to be a stop on the power of each other. As President Andrew Jackson famously said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The executive branch could just fail to enforce a judicial decision.
Going back to Schoolhouse Rock we know that Congress, as the legislature creates bills which can become law.
There is really nothing to stop a Senator or Representative from proposing laws that are in conflict with other laws. Sometimes this is on purpose, the law removes or changes some other law for example.
Congress is suppose to represent the will of the people they represent and the states they represent. If they are using polling to determine the will of the people, that’s ok. We actually have official polling every year. We vote for new representatives and other actions where the peoples voice is directly heard.
When Congress passes and the President signs a bill into law it is not actually checked to see if it is legal. When the bill is introduced it is suppose to state the clause under the Constitution that allows for the bill but often that is just noise.
The important point is a law is not required to be Constitutional when passed. When it goes into effect it is assumed to be “legal” until proven otherwise.
Which takes us to the point of this article.
The Supreme Court of these United States is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional. Their job is to examine the laws as written to determine if the law is legal and what limits there might be on the law. Or on whether a law was properly applied or on whether an individuals rights were denied to them.
Thus the following is reasonable rhetoric from a legislator:
A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out this morning shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor common-sense legislation to address gun violence.
88% of Americans support requiring background checks on all gun sales.
In 2021, House Democrats passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would require background checks on all gun sales.
House Democrats also passed H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, which would close the ‘Charleston Loophole’ and work to prevent firearms from reaching the hands of prohibited gun owners.
84% of Americans support preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
During the first week of the June work period, the House will take up legislation to enact a national Red Flag law that would prevent those who pose a threat to themselves or others from being able to legally possess a firearm.
The issue is that so many liberals on the court and in the media are pushing the Supreme court to issue opinions based on polls rather than the law founded on the Constitution.
The court isn’t there to issue opinions based on what the people want.
The court is there to issue opinions based on the law.
If the people want to get a different result, they have to change the law. And that is their problem.
As much as the liberals and gun rights infringers want to ban or restrict firearm ownership they can’t. They intend to write many bills and create many laws that in the end will be found unconstitutional. That won’t stop them. They know it will take years for the courts to strike down whatever they pass today.
They think that they can tax firearm ownership out of existence. They have polls that say they can. But poll taxes are unconstitutional. That likely means that firearm taxes will be found unconstitutional at some point.
They think that they can expand “sensitive locations” to encompass so many places that it is impossible to travel with a firearm. If a bar is defined as a sensitive location as well as a bubble 50 yards in radius that would put most cities and towns off limits. I doubt you could walk through any part of NYC that isn’t within 50 yards (or 100 yards) of a bar.
This is the type of polling that is shouted from the tree tops:
It is also worth noting that gun laws are already more representative of gun lobby clout than the will of the people. Polls show that over 90% of Americans support background checks on all gun sales, 84% want safety education required before first-time gun purchases, and 75% support a 30-day waiting period for gun purchases. Majorities want all private guns registered, a license required for purchases, and assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines banned. Yet none of these stances is the law of the land. Concealed carry laws are also not reflective of public will. About 70% of Americans choose not to own a gun at all, much less carry one in public. Polls show only 12% to 22% support for allowing concealed carry without a permit.
— Alternate Facts, Dueling Realities, and the Second Amendment: On NYSRPA v. Bruen
When some media person or politician is screaming about some loophole that is allowing bad things to happen, know that what they actually mean is that somebody is following the law and they don’t like the results.
For years we’ve been hearing about the “gun show loophole”. What is the gun show loophole? It means that people that are not FFLs because they don’t aren’t in the business of buying and selling firearms sold firearms at or near a gunshow.
We know that an FFL is required to do all the required background checks, Federal 4473 and whatever the state requires, in order to transfer a firearm. It doesn’t matter if they are doing it at their place of business or at their home or in a convention center, if they are transferring a firearm they have to do the background checks.
Imagine that your father passed and in his will he gave you his collection of firearms. You go to the LGS to sell the entire collection and gives you a lowball offer. Knowing there is a gunshow coming up you determine to sell them yourself. You pay the table feed and show up with your fathers collection of firearms.
At this point you are in an interesting position. Are you in the business of selling firearms? If you are then you need an FFL. If you aren’t then you don’t and can sell to anybody with just a handshake and an exchange of cash. This is how the public thinks gun shows work. The reality is that most gun shows won’t let you do private sales on premises just to remove any chance of a bad sale.
The gun show loophole is a dead issue. The truth has gotten out and people push back so hard that it is only used by the most extreme gun infringers.
The new loophole is the “boyfriend loophole”. This is another one of those made up problems. The issue revolves around removing second amendment rights from people via restraining orders.
Qualifying Restraining Orders: Under 18 U.S.C. 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An “intimate partner” of a person is: the spouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person.
— Form 4473 instructions
What this means is that if my neighbor takes gets a restraining order against me, I get to keep my firearms. On the other hand, if my ex-wife of 30 years decides to take out a restraining order I lose my rights to own firearms.
So the loophole in question is the “boyfriend relationship.” If some guy is dating and gets violent. The victim can get a restraining order. That restraining order would not result in the guy losing his firearms.
The concern for the gun rights infringers is the guy using his firearms to harm the victim. So they want to extend the definition of “intimate partner” to include dating. Under this model the guy would lose access to his firearms saving the victim from this guys confiscated firearms.
The issue being argued in the Senate is two fold. The first is what is a dating partner and the second is how does he get his rights back.
Under the guns right infringing model, a guy can take a girl to dinner and a movie. He decides she is to crazy to even dip his wick. She gets upset that he is rejecting her so gets a restraining order. Dude that made the mistake of having dinner with crazy girl now loses his second amendment rights.
The Senate is arguing about how does the guy get his rights back.
Federal law currently only bars people from purchasing a firearm if they are convicted of domestic violence while:
To give some perspective to this consider this reality. There are a number of people out there that are prohibited persons because of domestic violence misdemeanors that should not be prohibited. What happened was that they were accused of a bunch of stuff and the lawyers got together and offered a plea deal. If they would plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence then all the rest of the charges would be dropped and they would be let of with a slap on the wrist.
In this age of lawfair this is a good deal. Having a lawyer represent you in court is expensive. Since the slap on the wrist is known in advance it is a good deal for the accused. Years later the federal government changes the definition of prohibited person to include domestic violence misdemeanors and suddenly they lose their rights.
Fighting the expansion of who is a prohibited person is an important battle.
Gaston spent years as a human rights lawyer in Venezuela defending the political opponents of Nicholas Maduro’s regime — mostly students jailed for speaking out against the government plagued by corruption.
…
Gaston, whose full name is being withheld over fears for his safety, planned to surrender to border officials and seek asylum in the United States. Instead, he was arrested by troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety upon his arrival and sent to an immigration detention center.
— Human rights attorney’s worst fears realized in Operation Lone Star arrest
A Venezuela citizen decided to escape his third world shit hole. He had been doing real good work in Venezuela. Because of this he was fearful for his safety. He feared he would be arrested and disappeared, or worse.
So he headed north to the land of milk and honey.
He traveled from Venezuela to Columbia but that wasn’t good enough so he continued to Panama where he didn’t stop. Further north to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras, to Guatemala and into Mexico. At no time did he stop his travels, even though he was no longer in fear of being arrested and put in prison by the goons of Maduro.
He then crossed the border into Texas and was stopped by members of Texas’ Department of Public Safety.
Gaston is very very upset about this. He was arrested when he crossed into the United States Illegally. He was only arrested because he happened to cross at a point where land on the US side of the river was private property.
On private property the Texas DPS can make arrests. On public property only the federal law enforcement can make arrests. If he had been arrested by federal law enforcement he could then claim he was seeking asylum.
ABC news wants you to know that he is very upset.
“There wasn’t any there. No notice that said that was private property, or what,” Gaston said. “Neither that I have knocked down a wall nor that I have even penetrated a fence.”
There was a great big river that he had to swim across. Gaston knew darn well that he was crossing illegally. And he is very upset that nobody warned him that he happened to be crossing on to US private property.
The short of it is that Gaston is an illegal alien that was caught crossing into these United States illegally. He spent five weeks in detention before being released in the US where he is now seeking asylum.
I leave you with Mr. Gaston’s own words in regards to being detained for 5 weeks:
“I can tell you that this is the most terrible discrimination that a human being deprived of his liberty can suffer,” he added.
Miguel already shared this one. I believe I’m the one that sent the link to him. So I’m claiming it back.
One of the comments I read was that the song was written to poke fun at people that believe in self preservation. They didn’t expect it to be adopted as a theme song.
