Tackling Questions About Colorado’s Red Flag Law and the Second Amendment
Levi Strauss & Co. has expanded their original mission beyond the manufacture of blue jeans. This “values driven company” now feels a responsibility to “the communities where we live and work” and will now engage with other gun control groups to fight for “gun violence prevention.”Chip Berg, CEO of Levi Strauss, wrote an open letter to his customers asking them not to bring firearms onto the premises of their stores, offices or other facilities. For him, it was a matter of safety. Of course, law enforcement was exempt from that request.
“It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”So, it’s clear Berg doesn’t subscribe to the theory that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Berg took it a step farther today with an op-ed in Fortune. He explained that as a leader in business “with power in the public and political arenas” he felt the responsibility to break the silence that threatens “the very fabric of the communities where we live and work.”“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”
The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”
The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.
This coalition of like minded executives “has a critical role to play in and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country. I encourage every CEO and business leader reading this to consider the impact we could make if we stood together alongside the broad coalition of concerned parents, youth, elders, veterans, and community and faith leaders who are committed to shaping a safer path forward.”He doesn’t explain any particular plan of action for the Every Town organization other than to infer there may be some think-tank like discussions on how to end gun violence.
And the third leg of the stool involves employee participation. Levi Strauss is doubling its employee donation match to any organizations aligned with its own Safer Tomorrow Fund.
In addition to encouraging employee donations to their own foundation, they are offering to compensate any employee who wishes to volunteer time up to five hours a month. Not only can employees volunteer in their own foundations but political activism is also compensated as well.
Levi Strauss considers this compensation an encouragement to employees “to use their time to make an impact.”Berg notes that Levi Strauss has always been on the cutting edge of progressivism ideals in company policy and some not so progressive. But he thinks this one will prove to be the right stand in history.
“As a company, we have never been afraid to take an unpopular stand to support a greater good. We integrated our factories in the American South years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. We offered benefits to same-sex partners in the 1990s, long before most companies did. We pulled our financial support for the Boy Scouts of America when it banned gay troop leaders.“While each one of these stands may have been controversial at the time, history proved the company right in the long run. And I’m convinced that while some will disagree with our stand to end gun violence, history will prove this position right too.”
Mr. Berg, no one disagrees with your stand to end gun violence. Gun violence is a terrible thing.We just don’t want anyone to eliminate our constitutional right to bear arms at a time when law enforcement officers can’t get to your offices, stores or factories in time to stop mass shooters who would attack innocents in a gun free zone — hypothetically of course.
Has anyone ever asked these social justice warrior business leaders why they can’t coalesce around decreasing the national debt, lowering taxes, returning to state sovereignty, or any number of other things that also “threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work?”
by H Sterling Burnett
The Department of the Interior (DOI), under the leadership of Secretary Ryan Zinke, has reversed Obama administration policies that hindered state wildlife management, harming hunters and anglers in the process. Consequently, sportsmen are now able to hunt and fish without undue restrictions, and nature-lovers are able to enjoy the great outdoors more fully.
On his last day in office, Dan Ashe, President Barack Obama’s director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), imposed a directive to phase-out the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on the 307 million acres of federal land controlled by the agency.
Some FWS wildlife managers and their partners in state agencies expressed objections about the order. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), which represents the 50 states’ fish and wildlife agencies, issued a press statement saying, “the Association views this Order as a breach of trust and deeply disappointing given that it was a complete surprise and there was no current dialogue or input from state fish and wildlife agencies prior to issuance.” Not surprisingly, Ashe’s directive did not last long. As one of his first official acts, Zinke rescinded Ashe’s lead ban.
According to John Jackson III, president of Conservation Force, “this directive skipped the normal regulatory process, including scientific and public input—with good reason, because there is no sound conservation basis for the order. This was clearly a payoff by the outgoing Obama administration to radical environmental allies.”
With the support of the Trump administration, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to rescind an Obama-era takeover of wildlife management on public lands in Alaska. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which designated 157 million acres for national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests. As a compromise for seizing so much land, the federal government recognized Alaska’s authority to manage various natural resources, including fish and wildlife, on the vast majority of the lands appropriated by the federal government.
Contrary to ANILCA, the Obama administration took management of more than 78 million acres of Alaskan land, halting the Last Frontier’s management of predators on these lands. With President Donald Trump and Zinke’s encouragement, Congress reversed this action, returning wildlife management back to its rightful place: state officials.
Obama designated an unprecedented amount of federal land as national monuments, banning hunting and fishing across millions of acres of land and water, which undermined sound wildlife management. Trump requested Zinke review all the national monuments declared in the past 27 years to determine if they were sound decisions. Zinke recommended cutting the size or changing the management of 10 monuments. So far, Trump has followed Zinke’s advice on two monuments: reducing the size of the Bears Ears National Monument from 1.5 million acres to 220,000 acres and cutting the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument from two million acres to one million acres, reopening millions of acres for outdoor recreation.
In November 2017, Zinke acknowledged the critical role hunters and anglers have played in wildlife and habitat protection and improvement with the establishment of the International Wildlife Conservation Council (IWCC). Under the American wildlife conservation model, taxes on guns, ammunition, fishing tackle, and other hunting and fishing equipment, combined with state and federal license sales, fund the vast majority of wildlife and habitat recovery, protection, and management efforts.
Zinke selected experienced members of the hunting, fishing, and wildlife management community to serve on the council, which will advise DOI concerning how to improve wildlife conservation abroad and expand the public’s awareness of hunters’ contributions to wildlife conservation and in helping wildlife law enforcement.
In his statement announcing the formation of IWCC, Zinke said, “built on the backs of hunters and anglers, the American conservation model proves to be the example for all nations to follow for wildlife and habitat conservation.”
As one of its first acts, to combat poaching, IWCC recommended DOI allow the importation of the heads and hides of African elephants and lions taken on trophy hunts. IWCC said the species would go extinct without anti-poaching programs funded in large part by the fees paid by trophy hunters to take them.
FWS agreed with the decision to reverse the Obama administration ban on trophy hunting and importation. FWS determined revenue from permits to hunt elephants and lions, among other species, aids long-term conservation of the species by providing additional resources to anti-poaching and other conservation efforts.
More recently, in mid-May, Wyoming announced it would hold the first grizzly bear hunt in the lower 48 states in more than 30 years. This only happened because DOI announced it would not reinstate protections for the bears in and around Yellowstone National Park. Grizzly bears had been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1975.
The population of grizzly bears now exceeds 700, well greater than FWS’s population goal for the region. Accordingly, FWS concluded the bears were no longer endangered and delisted them, leaving it to the states to develop management plans to maintain bear populations at sustainable levels.
As a result, limited public hunts for grizzly bears should begin soon. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department voted to approve a limited grizzly bear hunt in the fall of 2018. Wyoming’s proposal would allow, at most, 22 grizzly bears to be killed by licensed hunters.
Idaho, with a much smaller population of grizzly bears, would allow just one bear to be taken this fall, while Montana has decided not to permit grizzly bear hunting yet.
Zinke has also opened hunting and fishing on hundreds of thousands of additional acres of the nation’s wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges are bought and paid for with fees from hunters and fishers. In November 2017, FWS finalized regulations opening or expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on 132,000 acres on 10 national wildlife refuges located across eight states.
On May 31, FWS issued proposed rules to open an additional 248,000 acres in the national wildlife refuge system to new and expanded hunting and fishing opportunities. FWS has proposed to open three new refuges to hunting and increasing hunting and fishing activities on 26 refuges. If the rule is finalized, there would be 377 hunting and 322 fishing wildlife refuges in total.
Thus far, Trump and Zinke have been allies and advocates for hunters, anglers, and anyone who thinks wildlife and wildlands are best managed by local professionals—not politicians. As an outdoorsman myself, I can only hope they continue their efforts on behalf of the sports and wildlife I love.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (email@example.com) is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
by JD Heyes
For some reason, the American Medical Association — which was founded to promote the American medical community — wants to wade into one of the premier political battles of our day: Gun control.
The AMA has shifted at least some of its attention recently away from pushing Big Pharma meds that kill more than 100,000 Americans a year to jumping on the gun confiscation bandwagon pushed by the Marxist Left.
The list was okayed by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a pretend ‘legislative body’ that meets a couple times a year at overpriced venues to drink overpriced liquor and vote on medical and political ‘recommendations.
As TownHall noted further:
The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.Also, the organization’s gun control proposals include a number of provisions ostensibly aimed at curbing domestic violence and abuse, including one recommendation for a new legal tool by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can go to court in order to have a person’s guns confiscated “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.”
No ‘risk’ of having that authority abused, right?
According to a blog post introducing the ‘common sense’ proposals, the AMA appears to ignore a well-established constitutional requirement — due process — which must be engaged before a person’s property or belongings can be confiscated by authorities.
Were this proposal to be implemented, it would mean the accused would not have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in court. Also, the proposals contain nothing in terms of how “risk for violence” would actually be defined, which means that even people without criminal records or any previous history of violence or abuse could feasibly have their firearms taken from them.
Who gets to decide?The lack of defining parameters also extends to the AMA’s call for confiscating “high-capacity magazines” and “armor-piercing bullets.” (Related: Prescription drugs far more dangerous to Americans than guns.)
Typically, “high-capacity” has meant those that can hold 10 or more bullets, though New York state defines the term as a magazine capable of holding only seven or more rounds. Lawmakers in that state, by the way, never really said how they determined what the “safe” or “appropriate” level of bullets was in order to ‘allow’ state residents the ‘right’ to defend themselves and family. For instance, no one really knows how they arrived at seven bullets rather than five, or 11, or eight or…well, you get the idea.
The AMA’s guidelines also do not provide any definition of “armor-piercing,” and while that may seem rather obvious, remember that these demands were written up by Leftist anti-gunners, so the term could mean something completely different.
And if the term is applied too broadly, then it could apply to
any bullet capable of piercing Kevlar-based body armor, which would
encompass nearly every rifle round above .22 caliber.
One thing to remember as well is that these proposals are not being made as a symbolic gesture. The Big Pharma-linked AMA is making them with the intent of presenting them to lawmakers all over the country and in Washington, D.C. and getting them implemented.
“People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David Barb, MD.
Yes, well, they’re dying more often in vehicles and from prescription drugs, but no one’s calling for them to be banned.
Read more about Big Pharma’s death toll at PharmaDeathClock.com.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
by Daniel J. Schultz
he Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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 reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.
Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution
because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They
consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of
the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution,
referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people
themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere
is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of
the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people."
Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended
the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to
maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear
arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the
eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period
between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep
and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the
right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the
"people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the
Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth,
Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be
considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people
themselves, the militia(s).
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which
included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self-
regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept
that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia
groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is
entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a"
in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29,
regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing
army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the
government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body
of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of
arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."
1. In constitutional or statutory construction, language should always be accorded its plain meaning. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816).
2. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
3. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 12.
4. Senate Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Comm. On The Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982), at 5.
5. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The Several State Conventions 380 (2d ed. 1836).
6. Originally published under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," these "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" first appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. They were reprinted by the New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2, cols. 1-2, and by the Boston Centennial, July 4, 1789, at 1, col. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), noted that the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators showed that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense -- a body enrolled for military discipline.
7. 11 Papers Of James Madison 307 (R. Rutland & C. Hobson ed. 1977) (letter of Oct. 20, 1788, from Madison to Edmund Pendleton)( emphasis added).
8. An examination of the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights shows that they were designed, like the Second Amendment, to declare rights retained by the people (1-9), or the States (10), and to provide a clear list of powers not given to the national government: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." (Amendment I); "No soldier shall . . . ." (Amendment III); "The right of the people . . . shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue . . . ." (Amendment IV); "No person shall . . .; nor shall any person . . .; nor shall private property be taken . . . ." (Amendment V); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . . ." (Amendment VI); "In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States . . . ." (Amendment VII); "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ." (Amendment VIII); "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment IX); "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X).
9. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The General State Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. Rev. 637, 647 (1989). See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
10. Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican 123 (W. Bennet ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Levinson, supra note 9, at 647. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
11. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independent Institute, 1984).
12. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) ("The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'....").
13. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." (Article I, Section 4); "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 5); "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." (Article I, Section 9); "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article III, Section 2, cl. 2); "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article IV, Section 2, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular state." (Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2).
14. See supra, notes 6, 9 and 10 and accompanying text.
15. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term "well regulated": 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." One definition of the word "well" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action." One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term "regulated" is "b. Of troops: Properly disciplined." The one example of usage is: "1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 'We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'" The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989).
16. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . ." U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 15.
17. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 16.
18. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . ." U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, cl. 1.
19. U.S. Const., Preamble.
from: The "Well Regulated" Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions, THE LIBERTY POLE V.II, No.2, The Official Publication of The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society.
today's world education servers a duel purpose, The first is to offer
the tools needed to form thought, to reason and think. The second is to
indoctrinate, inform people 'what to think'. If by chance you fall into
the first category this is an article that provides the tools necessary
to understand the intentions of the Framers when drafting the Bill of
Rights regarding the 2nd amendment. If self-indoctrination is one's
goal then this article will not conform to your curriculum.
Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys. Contact the LSAS at (818)734-3066 or 18034 Ventura Boulevard, #329, Encino, CA 91316.. The article originally published here.
by Jack Davis
is being attacked for its recent actions to limit sales of legal
firearms by critics who note that the massive bank was willing to do
business with Iran a few years ago until it was fined by the Treasury
“Citibank…they preemptively buckled under the pressure by refusing to cooperate with businesses that legally sell certain #firearms…Meanwhile, the Treasury Department found that same company, @Citibank, violated sanctions and did business with, wait for it…Iran!” NRATV tweeted, quoting spokesperson Dana Loesch.
"Citibank…they preemptively buckled under the pressure by refusing to cooperate with businesses that legally sell certain #firearms…Meanwhile, the Treasury Department found that same company, @Citibank, violated sanctions and did business with, wait for it…Iran!” –@DLoesch pic.twitter.com/4twtL2YPnj
— NRATV (@NRATV) March 26, 2018
week, Citibank said that it would no longer do business with legal
firearms stores unless they agree to the bank’s most recent demands.
“Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines,” wrote Ed Skylar, executive vice president of global public affairs, on the bank’s blog.
But some noted that Citibank has, in the past, been willing to do business with groups that were banned by the U.S. government.
IRAN: THE ROLE OF CITIBANK – The New York Times – https://t.co/sLLNjjYWqB
Citibank refuses to do business with Companies who sell guns to Americans but they deal with Iran? Once again "To be a Democrat, you must first be a lying hypocrite." — Larry Nelson (@southernarcher) March 27, 2018
The U.S. Treasury Department found that @Citi violated U.S. sanctions against Iran, specifically laws against doing business with WMD proliferators. Nuclear proliferators are okay, but not lawful American gun retailers. https://t.co/ytxi76ClAx pic.twitter.com/z8M5HaVevY
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 24, 2018
In 2014, Citibank was required to pay $217,841, Reuters reported.The Treasury Department said at the time that the bank was under investigation for violating multiple sanctions programs of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. It alleged that Citibank processed more than $750,000 worth of transactions to banned individuals or groups in Iran.
Loesch was not alone in criticizing the actions of the bank.
South Dakota state Rep. Kristi Noem, a Republican, said that the bank is trampling on the Americans’ rights. “This is a constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment is incredibly important to the people of South Dakota and what Citibank did was to come out and infringe on that right,” she told KSFY.
“I do not think it’s a business’s place to mandate to people, that they do business with, especially a bank, that they have to comply with their own set of rules and regulations,” Noem said.
The fact that the Parkland Sheriff has participated in election campaigning at a local Mosque and has Muslims on his force brings into question both the veracity and objectivity of the Sheriff's department regarding the school shooting. "In the weeks since the tragic shooting occurred in Parkland, Florida, we have learned that cops cowered outside instead of helping, the police and FBI were all warned on multiple occasions that the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, told people he was going to shoot up the school, nearly two dozen people reported Cruz for death threats, and first responders were told to stand down. Now, we are finding out that the surveillance footage from the school — which the public has a right to see — is being deliberately kept secret by the Broward county sheriff — which many say is illegal.."
Praise Allah, Good thing the Parland, FL Sheriff's department didn’t arrest Cruz, it might have been a black spot on their perfect record. What are the odds that this up standing Muslim, pillar of the community, wasn’t one of the big brave Deputies that stood outside and listened to the screams and gunshots as they hid behind their cars?
According to thr Sun -Sentinel,
the Jewish Sheriff is no stranger to contoversy and political
intrigue. He has been caught accepting contibutions from a PAC
supporting his reelection involving a felon indicted for being part of
the Cuban Mafia. The Sheriff was also involved in corruption in the
hiring of political supporters.
His Deputy Nezar Hamze is a member of CAIR and a spokesman for the vitimization of Islam whenever there are incidents. Amazingly, the Sheriff advises muslims to arm themselves against active shooters but apparently NOT the local schools. "Broward County Deputy & CAIR FL employee Nezar Hamze found time 2 instruct mosque attendees 2 arm themselves against active shooters, but Sheriff opposes arming teachers.
Muslim Deputy camping for Islam. Sheriff Israel campaigning at local Mosque
The Sherriff also works with CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in
terror with the Muslim Brotherhood with ties to Hamas and is an
associate of Hillary Clinton. "During his time as county sheriff, Scott Israel has repeatedly
cozied up to radical Islamic groups. In a seeming attempt to build
bridges, he has elevated several mosques with congregants and leaders
who have detailed connections to terrorist organizations.
Worse, one of Sheriff Israel’s veteran deputies is Nezar Hamze, a top officer at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)....There was no greater indication that Sheriff Israel was not fit to lead than his decision to partner with a group founded to support Islamic terrorism. If the Broward County Sheriff’s Department seeks to reform, it should focus on police work and not enter into partnerships that corrupt the legitimacy of law enforcement officers."
The sheriif and his department represent more of a 5th column intent on destroying America than a law enforcement agency enforcing the law and protecting its community. It takes on the appearance of the 'pay for play' criminal mantra of the Clinton organization.
by Carl F. Worden
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45). Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions;
the United States Supreme Court did.
by Conservative Action
When I had my gallbladder taken out and spent 10 days in the hospital
for what should have been an overnight stay the insurance company kicked
me out. I had home nurse visits for two weeks and was asked if I had
guns in the house. I responded that if I did I would not tell them. So
the comments I received have some merit. There are comments from two
other people who have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The
nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular
questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the
law to ask. Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so
they have no idea who does and who doesn't. My doctor asked me if I
had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered
yes to both questions. Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to
my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and
also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up
gun is no protection against criminal attack. The Government now
requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably
I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation.. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!! So it is out there! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!! Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners...
Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone? The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security. Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have?
Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU’VE BEEN WARNED! If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them. Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.
Editors Note: Remember that Obamacare requires everyone's medical records to go into an electronic database managed by the government. Refusal to authorize your records to be transferred to this database will assuredly result in refusal of treatment. Your medical information then becomes a national gun registry which will be used as a 'confiscation' list probably under the UN small arms treaty that has been approved without Senate ratification.