Supreme Court To Take Up Gun Rights Case
Oct 22, 2014 Second Amendment
The Supreme Court passed over major gun issues this past year. The Court had an opportunity to look at several cases that would have given it a chance to clear up some issues regarding the Second Amendment. The Court decided that it was better to leave things murky.
The Court did though, take up a case of a felon who has firearm issues. A former border patrol agent was convicted of a felony and had to surrender all his firearms. He foolishly surrendered them to the government rather than transferring them to his wife or another family member (or just selling them).
He wanted his guns back so that he could sell them or transfer them to his wife. The government will not let him have them back.
I feel for this guy in that those firearms are his property and he should have been able to sell them to get money for his family. Instead the guns are in the hands of the government which means he will likely never see them again.
Unless, of course, the Supremes decide that he has a right to his firearms so he can dispose of them in a manner more beneficial to his family.
I am glad the Court took this case but I am left wondering why it passed on all the cases that affect LAW ABIDING citizens who are being infringed upon by out of control state and federal governments.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: felon, firearms, infringe, Second Amendment, supreme court
Get Rid Of Your Guns Or Move
Aug 7, 2013 Political
An apartment complex in Castle Rock Colorado has a new rule. It notified tenants that they have until 1 October to get rid of their firearms or they will not be allowed to live in their apartment. The letter basically says that on 1 October residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.
A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be used as a weapon but that is a discussion for another time.
The issue here is does the apartment complex have the legal right to deny a person’s rights? I am no lawyer and do not know if this is legal or not. It seems to me that changing the rules for people who live there is wrong whether it is legal or not. I know that some complexes have banned certain types of dogs but there is no right to keep and bear dogs written in the US Constitution.
There are people living there who are very upset. One is a 77 year old retired Marine who has very little money (so he can’t move or afford a lawyer) but owns firearms and hunts. He even has a concealed carry permit. The state has checked on him and he is OK to carry a concealed gun and he certainly carried one in the Corps but he is unable to own one and live at this complex.
Before the anti gun nuts cheer the decision of the apartment owner please think about this. Suppose the letter had been sent out that indicated that residents could not display, use, or possess religious items of any kind, anywhere on the property.
You could not have a Bible, Koran or Torah. No Christmas tree or Menorah. No religious jewelry like a Cross or Star of David or clothing such as a yarmulke or burka. If you refuse to get rid of them you have to move and if you are caught with any of those items you will be evicted.
How would that go over? If they can legally deny one constitutionally protected right then they can deny any constitutionally protected right.
If this had been the existing rule and people rented with full knowledge of the ban then it would not be an issue. The problem here is that people have been living here and own firearms and now the rules have changed.
I know there are people who are anti gun and who don’t think people should own them. Fine, then don’t own one but leave everyone else alone.
Particularly in Castle Rock where the police failed to enforce a protective order and three children were murdered as a result.
Oh, and the Supreme Court ruled the police had no obligation to enforce the order.
The police are under no obligation to protect you. If you live in Castle Rock at those apartments you will have no way of protecting yourself.
Will the apartment complex owners be responsible if someone who relinquishes his firearms just to have a home is injured or murdered?
The apartments are managed by Ross Management Group. Please avoid doing business with them wherever they happen to be. Your life might depend on it.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: apartments, castle rock, guns, infringe, marine
Boston Terrorist Search Shows Abuse of American’s Rights
Apr 22, 2013 Political
[note]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ~ Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution[/NOTE]
As one terrorist lay dead in Boston the other, his younger brother, was on the loose in Watertown Massachusetts. The police from many local, state and federal agencies descended on the town to find the accomplice to the deadly Boston Marathon Bombing. During the search the rights of the people were violated and very few objected or took a stand to prevent the intrusion of government into their lives.
Parts of Boston were locked down. Businesses were told not to open and residents were told to stay inside their homes. There is no indication that any order, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law, was implemented. People were told to stay put and they did. Was martial law declared? Why were people not allowed to move freely about town and go about their lives?
Then the police conducted a house to house search for the terror suspect. The police are well within their duties to knock on doors and ask if there is a problem or if people have seen the suspect. They are free to ask people if it is OK for them to come inside and look around.
But people are free to say no. Unfortunately, it appears as if people were not really given the chance. The police were outside with firearms pointed at doors and people were asked if it was OK to look around. No one can give free consent when faced with armed people. It amounts to coercion.
There are reports that at least one household told police that they did not consent to a search. Those folks were marched out of their house while the police conducted a search of the premises. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Without a validly executed warrant the police have no right to enter someone’s home (barring a few limited exigent circumstances).
Forcing people from their homes at gunpoint (or even not at gunpoint) in order to search that home after the occupant has denied consent is a violation of the Constitution and those who did this should be held to account for what they did.
[note]Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws. ~Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution[/note]
The police did a great job hunting down the bad guy and this is in no way an indictment of their work in that regard BUT there is no excuse for violating the rights of citizens in order to catch a bad guy no matter how dangerous he is.
Our rights are enshrined and protected by the US Constitution (and as shown above, by the Massachusetts Constitution) to prevent these things from happening. To dismiss this as some extraordinary circumstance allows government to define or invent all kinds of circumstances in which they can ignore our rights.
And since people in Boston did not push back the police now know they can get away with further erosion of the people’s rights.
It is a sad time in America when the government violates rights. It is even sadder that people allow it to happen.
Does it bother anyone that the government can shut down an American city and infringe on the rights of Americans to find one terrorist but refused to send help to Americans in Benghazi where it would have been appropriate to secure the place and help Americans?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, constitution, fourth amendment, infringe, lies
Bloomberg Is A Tyrant
Mar 25, 2013 Political
New York Imperial Mayor Michael Bloomberg is anti American and a tyrant. Mr. Bloomberg has gone against our Founding and the US Constitution when he made a recent statement that sometimes the government knows better AND that sometimes government should infringe on our freedoms.
“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth. Washington Times
As a veteran and a patriot let me just reply to Nanny Bloomberg this way:
THERE IS NEVER A TIME WHEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD INFRINGE ON OUR FREEDOM.
PERIOD!
Governments at all levels in this country receive their power from the people. We have a document in our history called the Declaration of Independence in which our Founders clearly stated that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Nowhere in that document did our Founders say there were times when it was OK for government to infringe on our freedoms.
In fact, the infringement on our freedom is one of the reasons we felt it necessary to draft the document in the first place.
Bloomberg is a very wealthy man who has a 10 million dollar home in Bermuda and eats very expensive steaks (and other foods full of the fats he banned in New York). He is now going to use millions of his own dollars to violate our Constitution and try to take our guns away because, as Bloomy would tell you, the government knows better and sometimes it should infringe on your freedom.
As I have clearly stated, there is never a time that infringing on our freedom is OK. How would one decide? Where does it end? If it is OK for government to infringe when it comes to the size of a drink, the fat in food or the firearms people own because these issues are opposed by the tyrant in charge then it will be OK for the tyrant to infringe on anything he opposes. All future tyrants would be able to use the same criteria (I don’t like it) to infringe.
What happens if Bloomberg or some future tyrant decides that he does not like interracial marriage, or homosexual relationships? What happens if the tyrant does not like video games or fast food or any number of other things?
If the previous tyrant was allowed to infringe because nanny knows best then it will never end.
Giving up any freedom will result in the further loss of freedoms. No matter how YOU feel about an issue, allowing the infringement on freedom will eventually affect YOU and an issue that matters to YOU.
People who give up their freedoms become slaves.
Bloomberg knows that and in addition to being a tyrant, he wants to be the slave master.
Stop the tyranny by opposing this little Nazi known as Bloomberg.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: Declaration of Independence, founders, freedom, infringe, michael bloomberg, nanny state, tyrant
Armed Citizens Have Reduced Gun Crime Rate
Sep 29, 2011 Political
A headline at the Daily Caller reads; “Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales” as if the expected outcome of more guns is more gun crime. What it should read is; “Gun crime continues to decrease, because of the increase in gun sales.”
It has been shown time and again that an increase in gun ownership results in a lower rate of gun (and most other) crime because criminals don’t know who is armed and who is not. People in Texas are less likely to be the victims of crime than are the people of Massachusetts or Maryland because people in Texas own (and carry) weapons. Their state does not infringe upon the people’s rights like other states.
People are victims of crime because their government enables criminals and places citizens at a disadvantage. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Liberals will ignore the facts and discount the reality that more guns means less crime. That has been shown in many states where guns are readily available and where lots of people own them and liberals still don’t get it.
No, it will no doubt be attributed to Obama and his leadership.
Come to think of it, more people own guns because of Obama so maybe he is responsible for the decrease in crime.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]