Tag: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Team Blue to Americans: Fuck the 2nd Ammendment!

With the SCOTUS shooting down this administrations attempts to run roughshod over the 2nd amendment and operation “Fast & Furious”, intended to create a crisis they hoped would sway public opinion in the direction that would allow them to disarm the sheep and thus better control them, having backfired on them, you would think they would give it up. Not a chance in hell. The leftists want to make sure the people can’t defend themselves from their deprivations, and thus, they are at it again:

Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.

Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.

“This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.”

A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.”

And any organization that they don’t control is basically engaging in what the left feels is fraudulent behavior. These fuckers fear an armed population because they know that sooner than later the people will have had enough of their abuses, and then it might get ugly. If they disarm the sheep they have a better chance of resisting/suppressing the peasant’s revolt, or even surviving it. This government is hostile to freedom and will go to any length to disarm the people they see as the enemy. That the enemy is primarily comprised of law abiding, tax paying, hardworking citizens, getting fed up with the chicanery and abuses by our oligarchy, is a sad state of affairs.

These marxists are using the financial institutions, yet again, to pick and choose winners and losers. They have targeted some in the porn industry and are doing the same with the people that sell guns now. And they won’t stop there, I assure you. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that they have been doing this sort of thing to other entities and organizations they dislike. Shit, they sicked the IRS on their political enemies! They won’t back off as long as they feel they can circumvent and the law to get what they want. Despicable.

If you still doubt what government really thinks about your second amendment rights

Then take a look at this article where government entities again made 2nd amendment , America loving, types the terrorists. Can’t have Islamic terrorist blowing shit up, because that would hurt their sensibilities. After all, these fucking murderers are part of the religion of peace and they will fight back. Accusing people that actually believe in the constitution and that our government has basically destroyed our freedom and our nation, knowing full well that they will not really do anything, but desperately hoping they will, all so the abusive and nanny state government can justify more fascist-type action, is quite cool though.

I have no doubt that the government types feel people that think Leviathan has become too big and has eroded our constitution and limited our freedoms, especially while they are actively trying to deny us the right to protect ourselves from them, are a bigger threat than the people that have told us they will force us all to bow to their god or kill us otherwise. Historically tyrannies have always feared their people far more than they have feared any foreign enemy, after all.

The ONG 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about “protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.” Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding that such training “helps us all be prepared.”

Internal ONG documents provided to Media Trackers after repeated delays provide further context to what WSAZ-TV reported last winter. In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce.

The ONG team discovered biological weapons being produced in the school, requiring activation of containment and decontamination procedures.

Yeah, this sure as hell makes perfect sense! A government that spies on us all, all the time, and uses its powers to attack its enemies of course is going to think that people that see it for what it is will revert to using schools to wage war against it. But us pointing out how said government is abusing its powers and tyrannical in nature, is people engaging is conspiracy theories. And the government is already preparing to turn loose its military on people it doesn’t like. Have no doubt that that’s precisely what these exercises are about: identifying any entities within the chain of command of the ONG that might not follow orders.

You can not parody the stupid and evil on the left I tell ya.

Government attempt to create a gun database fails

Profiting from the tragedy that cost a bunch of innocent kids their lives at the hands of a mentally unstable person, the collectivist gun grabbers in the People’s Republic of Connecticut, more successful in using that crisis to help cement the power of an already bloated government than the feds were at the same, passed a host of unconstitutional gun grabbing laws. Only problem for the anti-2nd amendment political class is that even in a deep blue state like Connecticut, where the libtardedness runs deep and strong, things have not gone as planned. See, these collectivists have a track record of pretending they don’t mean to fuck us citizens over, only to then do just that, and thus, it looks like their attempt to force people to help them put together a gun grabbing registry, has failed, and failed miserably.

HARTFORD — Amid concerns about gun owners who failed in their last-minute attempts to register now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, lawmakers are considering granting an amnesty period for people who missed the registration deadline.

The comprehensive gun-control bill enacted last spring required owners of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to register the guns and declare ownership of the magazine if they wished to keep them.

And guess what happened? The majority of them decided that they were better of not registering at all and waiting for this to end up resolved in court, with the likely verdict that state of the People’ Republic of Connecticut had violated their second amendment rights smacking this idiotic law down. That’s because these people know that allowing the marxist government gun grabbers to put together a registry was just the precursor to just that: an exercise in government sponsored gun grabbing. So now that their attempt failed, and knowing full well this law will not survive a legal challenge, they agents of the state think they have found an out. As the Courant reports:

About 50,000 assault weapons were registered last year, and close to 40,000 people declared possession of magazines – many of them doing so during the final days of December. But legislative leaders in recent weeks have raised concerns with the governor’s office that some individuals who attempted to register their weapons were prevented from doing so as a result of early post office closings on New Year’s Eve.

“It had come to my attention and the attention of others that many people who were attempting in good faith to comply with the law…were not able to because of what I would argue were circumstances not under their control,” said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, who said he has been in discussion with other lawmakers about a possible amnesty period for people who tried to register but failed to do so.

Post offices closed at noon on Dec. 31, and as a result, “many citizens” dropped their paperwork in the mail on Dec. 31, but had it returned because it was not postmarked until Jan. 2, said McKinney, who last week wrote a letter to the governor’s office asking them to process the applications postmarked Jan. 2.

The governor’s office responded Tuesday with a letter to legislative leaders in which they maintained the law prevents them from processing the late applications.

Yeah, sure the reason you only had less than an estimated 5% of people register is because the post office was closed. Those other 95% just sent it late. And I got a bridge to sell you too. Fucking idiots. Most of the people that own these weapons the state was so desperate to build a database about are not died in the wool progtards, so they knew and know better than to register anything. Smart move on their part. Here is my prediction: that this amnesty thing will fail just as miserably as the original drive did and most people will ignore it. The non-idiots in the People’s Republic of Connecticut know better than to help the government get the information it needs to help it deprive us of our 2nd amendment rights. The morons that think this law was a good idea just don’t get it.

Why the LSM is not talking much about the NAVY yard shooting any more..

I think the first, and most obvious reason, is that the LSM can not use this incident to push for more gun control, without some serious problems for the government gun grabbers, from those of us that are not going to just swallow their bullshit without checking the facts. From the article:

In Washington, D.C. on Monday, Aaron Alexis gunned down twelve people. As if designed to preempt the scripted reactions of those who fight for an anemic interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Navy Yard massacre included no assault weapon. Alexis committed his crimes in a virtually gun-free zone. His background had been checked in order to gain the active security clearance he held prior to the shooting. While I’m usually game for a good discussion of the proper limits of the Second Amendment, that alone cannot sensibly be the focus here.

So Alexis didn’t use that AR-15 that gave the gun grabbers a boner, as they originally tried to pretend he had. And, while the LSM ran away from reporting this, just as a vampire runs away from sunlight, it turns out that Alexis was a big lib and Obama supporter too. Can you imagine the fucking howling from the LSM had this guy been shown to be a conservative or Tea Party supporter? In fact, they all speculated he was one of these right from the start, and like a lot of other shit, they had it all wrong. Worse of all, while the leftists morons went out of their way to pretend that the problem was with the usual background checking procedures law abiding citizens have to go through to buy firearms, which they claim the NRA has kept from being effective, the fact remains that to hold a security clearance Alexis went through a much more thorough background check, run on behalf of the government, and passed that. Do you think that if he got through a government security background check a more beefed up check of any kind to purchase weapons would have made a difference? Really? Maybe they should have made that area a “gun-free-zone“! Oh wait, as someone much wiser said: yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, there are lots of unanswered questions the LSM now no longer cares about since the story can not be used to push more gun grabbing. For example, how many people in the US have reported on the stand-down order given to the NAVY yard SWAT team? Or what about rescinding the Clinton era order that disarmed the people on military bases? I have my beliefs of why Clinton did this – he was making sure that military he loathed couldn’t do shit to him – and I am pretty sure the fact that the left & congress don’t trust the enlisted men in the military that do not depend on their political largesse for their career advancement like the officers, had a lot to do with this idiotic decision. So now we have had an Islamist radical and an angry leftist prove how dumb disarming base security has played out in the real world, but I bet the call will be for even more gun-free, gun-free-zones.

The media now see this story as detrimental to the gun grabbing agenda. So the story will go away or die down. And then, later, when they hope most people have forgotten the facts, they will rewrite what really happened to push the gun grabbing agenda. Me, I spent the past weekend in Maine shooting at some stuff with people that respect firearms and are law abiding. Disarming people like us isn’t going to stop gun violence of any kind, and would certainly not have prevented the shooting at the NAVY yard in D.C. I bet you armed guards with orders to shoot to kill on the base however would have stopped the NAVY yard shooter. He would have picked some other “gun-free-zone” to go do this thing at, is my guess…

The Weapons Limit

Having thought about Barack Obama’s gun plan, I’m still convinced that most of it is a non-issue: the government doing what it is supposed to do with background checks and enforcing laws. The only issue that is likely to be really contentious is the assault weapons ban (and related bans on high-capacity magazines).

I oppose the ban for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that I think it will be ineffective. There is little evidence that the previous ban or state-level bans accomplished much: crime fell before they were passed and continued to fall after they went. Criminals continued to acquire not just assault weapons but fully automatic weapons.

But I’ve also been thinking about a quote from P.J. O’Rourke Parliament of Whores. In talking about the crack epidemic, he spoke to a doctor on the front lines about what he’d do if were the drug czar. The doctor said he would make a big splash about something unrelated like assault weapons and wait for the problem to burn itself out. O’Rourke noted that this was exactly what William Bennett subsequently did.

Assault weapon bans — indeed gun controls in general — are and always have been a distraction. The real causes of crime — poverty, broken families, educational dysfunction, hell maybe even lead — are far more difficult to address and liberal solutions to these problems have usually proven ineffective. By contrast, assault weapons are easy to address and easy to rally liberals around. They sound sensible to people who don’t like guns in the first place. They make politicians feel like they’re “doing something” even when they’re not.

I also think the assault weapons ban is really a culture war issue in disguise. I recently flew out of Pittsburgh and sat next to a college student from Alabama who talked about guns and how much he liked his AK. We’ve had plenty of discussions in the comments about guns. It’s clear that many of the readers of this blog are comfortable with guns and are even enthusiasts. But that are others who are uncomfortable around guns of any type. And when you look at that way, it’s no different than someone trying to ban porn or whatever because they don’t like it. It’s cultural chauvinism masquerading as common sense.

Liberals often say that no one “needs” an AK-47. That’s irrelevant and I think the attempts of people to justify these weapons under hunting, sport or revolutionary grounds are misguided. Owning guns is a right; it is the government that must justify its restrictions, not we who must justify our ownership. There isn’t a “need” for trashy music. There isn’t a “need” for risque television shows. There isn’t a “need” for Justin Bieber. But we allow these things because we believe in free speech. Gun owners do not need to justify a “need” so that their benevolent government can grudingly let them bear arms.

As is always the case with cultural issues, I think these is best resolved at the state level. If Californians are uncomfortable with assault weapons, let them ban them. If Alabamans are happy with assault weapons, let them keep them. It’s ridiculous to try to impose a national standard of what guns we are and are not comfortable with.

But doesn’t an assault weapons ban violate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. The American people have long recognized that the Second Amendment does not give an unlimited right to weapons. Machine guns are banned, explosives are banned, nuclear weapons are banned. SCOTUS has upheld this. The difference between tyranny in freedom is much larger than the difference between an AK-47 and a hunting rifle.

Moreover, if we’re worried about tyranny, I would say the Second Amendment is only one of our concerns. Conor Friersdorf made this point some time ago:

I think law-abiding Americans should always be allowed to own guns.

But if you’re a conservative gun owner who worries that gun control today could make tyranny easier to impose tomorrow, and you support warrantless spying, indefinite detention, and secret drone strikes on Americans accused of terrorism, what explains your seeming schizophrenia?

Think of it this way.

If you were a malign leader intent on imposing tyranny, what would you find more useful, banning high-capacity magazines… or a vast archive of the bank records, phone calls, texts and emails of millions of citizens that you could access in secret? Would you, as a malign leader, feel more empowered by a background check requirement on gun purchases… or the ability to legally kill anyone in secret on your say so alone? The powers the Republican Party has given to the presidency since 9/11 would obviously enable far more grave abuses in the hands of a would be tyrant than any gun control legislation with even a miniscule chance of passing Congress. So why are so many liberty-invoking 2nd Amendment absolutists reliable Republican voters, as if the GOP’s stance on that issue somehow makes up for its shortcomings? And why do they so seldom speak up about threats to the Bill of Rights that don’t involve guns?

I am very happy that people are passionate about the Second Amendment and eager to defend gun liberty. I just wish they brought that same passion to other infringements on our First, Fourth, Five and Sixth Amendment rights. Because if we pay attention to those, we will never need a “Second Amendment Solution”.

Ah, those dreaded words. It’s become fashionable on the Left lately to mock the idea of rebellion. They’ve been dismissive of the Second Amendment because, they argue, a revolution against a tyrannical government would be impossible given that the government has tanks and nukes. That sounds clever and it certainly is snide.

It’s also absurd. Our own military — the one with the tanks and nukes — has had a devil of a time with a bunch of guys with small arms and improvised explosives. I know the Left likes to pretend our wars ceased to exist once Obama was elected, but the shattered bodies and souls coming back speak otherwise.

Sheer numbers tells us that a revolution is possible, tanks be damned. There are 1.4 million active duty members of our military. Assuming they all turned on us, they would still be outnumbered by the legal gun owners of Kentucky. Every hunting season, my state of Pennsylvania fields one of the largest standings armies in the world to take out a bunch of deer (and with remarkably few accidents, I might add). The idea that the Second Amendment isn’t a bulwark against tyranny is absurd.

I don’t believe that our government will ever become truly tyrannical. I don’t think that a “Second Amendment Solution” will ever be necessary. At the same time, however, I don’t think we should be gambling our future on my optimism.

How tragic that we need to be lectured on this simple principle

It is absolutely tragic to me that Americans have to be reminded by people that have first hand experience of the very problems our 2nd amendment was supposed to protect us from of how wrong it is to bow down to the wishes of the tyrannical:

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

I have no doubt that the current WH is after guns for the same reason the Reds disarmed the peoples of their new utopian U.S.S.R. back in the day: it is much easier to abuse an unarmed people. Fast & Furious backfired. The LSM and a dysfunctional DOJ have helped these tyrants hide what they where doing from the people. All this bleating about how they care about the children and want to prevent more such tragedies is nothing but a disgusting attempt to capitalize on tragedy too push their agenda further. Anyone pretending otherwise is an accomplice in the lie or, to use terminology from one of the most famous and brutal masters of the Red utopian revolution, Uncle Joe, a fucking useful idiot. Nothing they propose will stop a determined killer, be they evil, insane, or both, from killing, and the argument that if it makes killing more difficult it is a good thing, basically reveals that these idiots really want you to believe the problem is with law abiding citizens owning firearms in the first place.

The good news is that stories like this one, or this one, ore even this one, abound. It tells me that we still, despite the results of the last election that show clearly how the number of makers has been overcome by that of the takers, enough people in this country left that know why Americans, up until recently at least, have experienced prosperity and freedom, while the rest of the world has been mired in shit and seen governments abuse, oppress, and mass murder their disarmed populations.

These opportunist tyrant-wannabes and their sycophantic propagandists in the media could not have prayed for a better excuse to both distract people from their economy destroying plans, or to be used to turn public opinion against the recent SCOTUS ruling that shot down their previous attempts to violate the 2nd amendment, to do more gun grabbing. I firmly believe that it is not a coincidence that actual facts and details of what happened during this tragedy have stopped coming out either. The story remains murky, and I now believe that any details that might show the problem was the idiotic notion that declaring anything a “gun free zone”, under the penalty of law, and then believing it would deter a determined criminal or psycho, or of how people where actually killed and with what weapon that would undermine the narrative, is being held back so the gun grabbers can continue to advance the notion that disarming law abiding citizens will prevent senseless killings from happening again.

The gun grabbers are playing us all for fools. It’s a double whammy; they are using this tragedy and their feigned concern about “the chilrun” as an excuse to disarm law abiding citizens as well as distracting us from the fact that their wealth redistribution schemes result in abysmal economic outcomes. I wish I had a Green TV network to sell to some rich oil people.

A parallel to ponder – watch the video in the update

I have been paying attention at the odious political attempt by the left to, like ghouls, use the tragedy of Newtown to do what “Fast & Furious” failed to provide them with: an opportunity to shit all over the second amendment. The left’s idiotic and totally emotional and hypocritical argument, repeated ad nauseum, is that if guns, especially any firearm that the left likes to lump into the totally misunderstood category of automatic weapon, are really hard to get, then crazy or evil people will have less of chance to kill. Arguments that show even a total fire arm ban could do no such thing – a midnight special bought off the streets, a dozen cans of gasoline, and a lighter, and any determined crazy or evil bastard could kill half of that school off – fall on deaf ears.

The left has a crisis they plan to take advantage of, and no amount of logic will dissuade them to let go of the emotionally laden narrative they plan to use to disarm the sheep. In the mean time they keep their weapons while they disarm us.

Look, the best example I can think of how we should address the left’s emotional tirade, is our legal system. Our legal system is supposedly structured in order to protect the innocent above all. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are replete with enumerated limitations on the power of government to violate the presumption of innocence and our basic right to freedom. We accept, and are even proud of the fact, the system has a motto that says it is better to let 1000 guilty people walk than it is to convict one innocent man! It is a risk we accept to honor the rights of the innocent. And yet, when it comes to our second amendment rights, these same idiots that pretend to be the most proud about the legal system, take the exact opposite tact. They want to punish the tens of millions of good, law abiding, and responsible American firearm owners in order to keep the illusion of safety your occasional evil and/or crazy fucker violates.

It is not accidental that this Lanza kid picked a gun free zone to do his killing. Just like I am certain there was nothing that could have been done to prevent him from doing it. Oh, in hind sight there will be all these people saying that we should have noticed this or that, but it will all be after the fact nonsense. Lanza, unfortunately for the left, which is probably why the media has not pushed the narrative, came from a well to do home – his mother got $250K a year in alimony! – did great in school, and did nothing that would come of as a red flag before he committed this senseless act. We have heard that he was bright and did well in school, even if he was a bit of a loner. There are thousands of kids with high school issues that never do what Lanza did. His mental health issues are still up for debate, but I have a feeling we will find out event these were exaggerated by the media ghouls feeding on this tragedy.

As I pointed out, repeatedly too, no laws, not even a total firearms ban, could have prevented a determined killer from doing evil. Connecticut has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the union already, and they did not stop the massacre. The left’s idiotic narrative that more restrictive rules or even firearms bans would have prevented or deterred a determined mass murder, is bullshit. Would the tragedy be any less of a tragedy had he killed fewer kids with something other than a firearm? What if he had stolen a gas tanker and drove the thing into the school then blown it up? Would we be discussing the banning of gasoline delivery trucks?

The good things is that some people are getting it. Our aristocracy, the same fucking leftist twits telling us right now that we need to be further disarmed, send their kids to schools with armed security. Practically every one of them also have private guards that are armed to the teeth. But for the regulars shlob, their answer is to disarm us more and leave our kids and our own security to their approved government agents. The same ones that where twenty minutes late to the Newtown massacre when seconds counted.

If we have a legal system willing to let criminals walk to protect innocents, why do we have so many of that system’s big defenders ready to attack and undermine the second amendment, under the pretense that they are doing good, while the end result is punishment of the innocent to prevent the guilty from doing wrong? There is something else at work here. And we forget that at our own risk. I remind everyone again that it is not an accident that violence is the highest in the very places where the left disarmed the law abiding people with the laws they now are pushing for.

UPDATE:

From My Cold Dead Hands

Gun grabbers, all under the guise of public safety do they ply their nefarious intentions of eroding our civil liberties. Much like the food nazi’s, under the guise of public health, the cap and traders, under the guise of protecting our environment, the card checkers, under the guise of worker’s rights, and those conscience deniers church/state separation ignorers forcing employers to provide products and services contrary to their moral beliefs, the gun grabbers go to sleep at night with a clear conscience, knowing that they know what’s best for the rest of us. But sometimes the judicial process works, and they get spanked in the process:

Maryland residents do not have to provide a “good and substantial reason” to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state’s requirements for getting a permit.
U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland’s objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

At first I was confused about the apparent unconstitutionality of permits, but they clarified that part:

“People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don’t have to prove that there’s a special reason for them to seek the permit,” said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago as an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation. “We’re not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there’s a right to bear arms.”

OK, now it makes sense, it was the permit process in place in Maryland that was off kilter, making citizens jump through arbitrary hoops in order to exercise constitutional rights, not good.
As simpatico with the defendant’s attorney, the permit process was not at issue, it was how it was used, allowing the government to decide if your application was worthy or not.

What is also significant here is that the court clarified that the Second Amendment is not limited to “the home”, therefore, Maryland citizens should not be required to submit a “good and substantial reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit. Many states have instituted an arbitrary and onerous process whereby the citizens have to PROVE that they NEED a concealed weapons permit, this ruling states that belief wrong headed and not in keeping with the Second Amendment.

The article mentions the inclusion of other states requiring a permit, but the permit process in these states only involves being truthful in the application, no “compelling need” is required, and no tacit limitation on gun ownership is the goal.

Some libertarian minded folks might think any permits or any regulations on gun ownership is a violation of their rights. Although I understand this belief and have stated before that our liberties and constitutional protections trumps facilitating the police in the performance of their duties, I don’t think that requiring a permit to buy a handgun violates this belief (but as usual, am open to a better argument).

Knowing who the registered owner of a handgun which was used in the commission of a crime is a public safety issue, requiring a gun safety class and a show of competence in issuing CC permits is a public safety issue, and putting some limitations (the “leeway” aspect that the ruling judge talked about in this case) in purchasing handguns and certain types of ammo is reasonable (such as we don’t allow 12 year olds to buy guns, or convicted felons). If you even want to discuss the requirements (abuses) of the cooling off/waiting period before you get your gun, (I’m ambivalent about this) we can talk about that.

Death by a thousand cuts (some could make the argument that this administration is using sharper/bigger knives) has been the fate of the American citizenry over the last few years wrt the nanny state and it’s assault/molestation of our civil liberties. This court ruling slowed that process down a bit.