Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. The Hidden special effects from the wizard Of Oz
  2. President Trump’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have a far-reaching impact on issues ranging from gun rights to health care, said Duke University constitutional scholar Joseph Blocher. “The next Supreme Court Justice could well cast the deciding vote on a wide range of fundamental constitutional questions, including the future of Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act, not to mention the scope of voting rights and other important questions,” said Blocher, who specializes in federal and state constitutional law. (Watch an interview Blocher here.) Trump is expected to announce his choice to replace Ginsburg on Saturday. The justice died last Friday at age 87. Blocher says gun rights will likely take center stage if, as expected, Trump’s pick is confirmed by the Republican-led U.S. Senate. “One issue that I think is particularly worth paying attention to is the future of the Second Amendment,” Blocher said. “The court has, for the last 10 years, avoided taking another major gun rights case. The justices don’t give reasons for why they don’t take cases, but one common understanding is that the justices are divided, with four justices having a broad view of gun rights, four justices tending to defer to the political branches when it comes to gun regulation, and the chief justice right in the middle – a 4-1-4 split.” Blocher, who co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at Duke, added that the addition of one more conservative justice would change that to a 5-1-3 split, making it much more likely that the court will both take another gun rights case and rule against the constitutionality of the challenged law. “But I think the most important question, as far as the Second Amendment is concerned, is how the court rules, the methodology that it employs,” he said. “There has been a push, especially in recent years, among conservative originalist judges to adopt what’s called the test of text, history and tradition, which would say that gun laws should be evaluated solely on the basis of text, history and tradition, and not, for example, by paying attention to their effectiveness in preventing gun-related harms like homicides, suicides, intimidation and terror.” Added Blocher: “A fifth vote for the historical test could make all the difference and that, I think, would represent a sea change in the law.” https://today.duke.edu/2020/09/next-justice-could-bring-%E2%80%98-sea-change-law%E2%80%99-says-legal-expert
  3. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s impressive dissent in Kanter v. Barr (pp. 27-64) illustrates both her fidelity to the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and her masterful application of the constitutional methodology of originalism. Rickey I. Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of federal mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and for billing Medicare on that basis. As a convicted felon, he was categorically prohibited by federal law and Wisconsin law from possessing a firearm. When he argued that the Second Amendment did not allow those laws to be applied against him, the panel majority rejected his claim. Based on her extensive marshalling and analysis of the historical evidence, Judge Barrett concludes that the Second Amendment leaves legislatures the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns but that felons do not lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons. The federal government and the state of Wisconsin failed to show that disarming all nonviolent felons is carefully tailored to the goal of protecting public safety, nor did they show that mail fraud is substantially related to violent behavior. They also failed to demonstrate that anything else in Kanter’s history or characteristics made him likely to misuse firearms. Therefore, they could not bar him from possessing a firearm. NOW WATCH: 'Media Are Already Attacking Amy Coney Barrett' https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-barrett-on-the-second-amendment/
  4. New Jersey gun owners received a bit of good news recently when the Legislature sent the budget to Gov. Phil Murphy, and it did not contain the revenues from massive hikes the executive had earlier proposed on firearm permitting fees. Murphy had unsuccessfully proposed these Draconian fees before. Unrelenting, his 2020 budget proposal would have resulted in pistol purchase permit fees increasing from $2 to $48 and Firearms Identification card fees increasing from $5 to $98. It’s even more offensive considering the vast majority of states don’t even require these bureaucratic and costly hoops in the first place. This amounts to a poll tax on gun ownership and a fundamental constitutional right. The Governor, a Wall Street multi-millionaire who enjoys around-the-clock protection and a taxpayer-paid security detail, has clearly made his position known: elitists with money have more rights than average citizens. The ability to provide for one’s own self defense is a right and not a luxury reserved for the wealthy few. Murphy wants to make firearm ownership so expensive that average citizens simply could not afford to buy a firearm. At a time when Americans are having a tough time balancing their checkbooks and are witnessing historic civil unrest, many of them are trying to purchase firearms for the first time. This latest exhibit is just more proof how out-of-touch this wealthy and elitist Governor is with the average person. Thankfully, even the Legislature seemed to agree that Gov. Phil Murphy’s proposal was beyond extreme.
  5. The National Rifle Association (NRA) fully supports President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. The Senate should act swiftly to confirm her. Judge Barrett's record demonstrates a steadfast commitment to the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. With this nomination, President Trump continues his record of nominating qualified, fair-minded federal judges who respect the Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment - to our nation's highest court.
  6. We’re forty days away from Election Day, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we’re zeroing in on a House race in Illinois that features one of the more outspoken, if not well-informed, gun control advocates in Congress. I don’t know if Illinois Congressman Sean Casten has missed the news, but Americans have been purchasing firearms in record numbers for months now, and there are millions of Americans who’ve become new gun owners since the start of 2020. Demand for firearms is higher than it’s ever been at the moment, but the first-term Democrat says there are “too many guns,” and he’s pushing an Australia-style compensated confiscation to remove guns from the hands of legal gun owners. Casten made the comments in an interview with the editorial board of the Daily Herald newspaper in Illinois, though the paper itself had to correct some of Casten’s erroneous assertions in its news report. Casten, who has touted the success of gun buyback programs before, suggested the U.S. follow Australia’s lead. “They took a whole bunch of guns out of circulation, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since,” Casten said. “Why don’t we do that?” There have been shootings with multiple deaths in Australia since those laws were enacted, however, including at least one last year. But none were as deadly as the 1996 attack. Casten said Australian leaders used money as an incentive because they recognized reducing the number of privately owned guns would be “extremely difficult.” “Would it work exactly the same way, adapted to U.S. culture? I don’t know,” Casten said. “My interest right now is less about how to do that particular policy (and more about) let’s start having the conversation.” I hope that Casten was serious about having the conversation, because I’ve extended an invitation for him to join me on an upcoming episode of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to talk about his ideas in greater detail. I’m glad that the Daily Herald pointed out that there have, in fact, been additional mass shootings in Australia since their compensated confiscation program, but neither the paper’s editors nor Casten himself seem to be aware of the fact that the number of guns in Australia is now higher than before the ban took effect in the late 1990s. In fact, gun control activists in Australia have been demanding a second round of gun confiscations. It’s also worth pointing out that Australia had about 3.2-million firearms before the ban, which took about 700,000 firearms out of the hands of ordinary citizens. The United States, on the other hand, has about 400-million privately owned firearms. Even if Casten wanted to focus a compensated confiscation effort solely on the guns he and other anti-gun advocates call “assault weapons,” we’re looking at close to 20-million legally owned firearms. An Australian-style gun ban on commonly-owned firearms, in other words, is as impractical as it would be unconstitutional here in the United States. Given the fact that Casten’s recent commentary on gun control has largely consisted of him taunting gun owners about the size of their genitals, I don’t think Casten’s really interested in a serious discussion about the merits of his proposal, but I do hope he takes me up on the offer to appear on a future episode of the show. In addition to delving into Casten’s claims about how easy it would be to ban guns, we’re covering several other stories on today’s program, including an armed grandmother in Washington State who held a burglar at bay with her shotgun, a Massachusetts man sentenced to probation last year for trafficking in fentanyl who’s now accused of shooting his pregnant girlfriend in the head, and a police officer in Lisle, Illinois in the right place at the right time to save a teenager trapped inside of a burning home. Be sure to check out the entire show in the video window above, or listen to the podcast version on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher. Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family. https://bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/ https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/09/24/congressman-australia-gun-confiscation/
  7. It’s time to once again play “Fact Check The Fact Checkers,” and today’s contestant is a USA Today fact check on Joe Biden and the right to keep and bear arms. You may have seen a headline on your Facebook feed that claims “Joe Biden Says The Second Amendment Is ‘Obsolete’” and thought to yourself “yeah, that sounds right.” In this case, as USA Today notes, the story is from a satirical website run by self-described liberals called America’s Last Line of Defense, which the founders describe on the website as a “network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery.” If readers clicked on the headline, the satirical nature of the story should have been evident to most folks. Here’s a sample: “Just recently, Biden confirmed one of those very fears during a campaign speech at the Joe Barron Jewish community center in Pohtaytoe, Virginia, referring to the sacred and God-blessed Second Amendment right of all Americans to own and use firearms at any time anywhere for any reason whatsoever as ‘obsolete.’” The giveaway that this is satire doesn’t come from the supposed quote by Joe Biden, which probably rings true for many gun owners. There is no Pohtaytoe, Virginia, however. I’ve got no issue with USA Today pointing out that this isn’t a genuine news story, but the problem is that the fact-checkers then proceed to try to run cover for Biden’s real views and statements on the Second Amendment. Biden’s gun control plan includes universal background checks, additional resources to enforce existing gun laws, pushing “smart guns” — firearms that require an electronic ownership confirmation — and banning assault weapons. The plan also calls for other measures, such as restricting purchases and possession of guns by fugitives and people convicted of hate crime, and banning online sales of weapons and ammunition. While Biden has advocated for stricter gun laws, he has never pledged to “take away” the Second Amendment. NBC reported that Biden has said on numerous occasions that he is “not opposed to the Second Amendment.” Why did the USA Today fact checkers not mention the 2019 town hall in New Hampshire where Joe Biden was asked about the Heller decision; the 2008 case that struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and established that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense, as opposed to some collective right to join a militia? Here’s what Biden said just last year in an event with WMUR-TV in New Hampshire when he was asked if he agreed with the SCOTUS decision. “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.” In other words, Biden would not have found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, because he doesn’t believe that it does. Biden went on to say: “Let me explain where I am on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment- for example, the First Amendment, if anyone of you stood up and yelled fire, you could be arrested. You have the freedom of speech to say fire, but not in a crowded forum. Every constitutional amendment has limitations. And I taught for years Constitutional law and separation of powers, I taught the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not absolute. And we can argue, the fundamental argument is well regulated militia and all those things, I won’t get into that. I think that the fundamental argument is the reason that was given as a right because we needed to be able to muster people to deal with an enemy called Great Britain we were fighting in a war.” Biden made it clear that the Second Amendment, in his view, poses no impediment to virtually any kind of gun control law you can think of. He laid out everything from bans on commonly owned firearms and magazines to requiring “smart guns” for gun owners (without ever mentioning what he thinks should happen to the 400-million or so “dumb guns” currently in existence). Biden never gave an example of a gun control law that, in his opinion, would go too far and violate the Second Amendment, presumably because in his view there are no laws that could cross that line. It doesn’t matter how many times Joe Biden says that he’s “not opposed” to the Second Amendment, because he doesn’t need to oppose something that he doesn’t view as a real right. On the other hand, Biden has stated that he’s opposed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller establishing that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and he even went so far as to say that the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was that we needed to muster people into a militia to fight Great Britain.* Doesn’t that suggest that the satirical piece fact-checked by USA Today was closer to the mark than its authors realized? Biden may not have come right out and said that Second Amendment was outdated, but that’s actually the gist of his remarks. The USA Today fact check is correct in pointing out that the America’s Last Line of Defense story is satire, but it fails to acknowledge that Biden has in fact said that the Heller decision was wrongly decided, and that in his view the right to keep and bear arms was “given” to the American people to ensure that a militia could fight an ongoing war against Great Britain. If you’re going to provide readers with the facts on Joe Biden and the Second Amendment, you should give them all of the facts, no matter how inconvenient those truths may be to Biden supporters and his presidential campaign. *This is a fundamental misreading of history on Biden’s part. The United States wasn’t at war with Great Britain when the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were ratified, and the Second Amendment wasn’t “given as a right.” It codified the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. James Madison, writing in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified, makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was already a right of the people: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Madison’s argument wasn’t that the American people should have the right to bear arms to fight Great Britain. His argument was that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms would serve as a check on the formation of a tyrannical government. I feel bad for anybody who was actually taught about the Second Amendment by Biden, because they likely learned some truly bad takes on our history. Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family. https://bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/ https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/09/25/fact-check-biden-guns/
  8. Just over a year ago, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, was incorrect. Biden was asked during a town hall in Manchester N.H., “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?” “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one,” responded Biden. In short, Biden said he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision clearly affirmed that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the right to own firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Biden’s rejection of our Second Amendment rights should come as no surprise. He and his running mate, Kamala Harris, have released a litany of anti-freedom measures that they plan to enact should the pair win in November. It should also be made known far and wide that Harris, during her tenure as district attorney of San Francisco, signed onto an amicus brief that argued the Second Amendment does not protect your right to keep and bear arms. Thankfully, the high court disagreed with her. The Biden-Harris ticket is one that supported limiting freedom in 2008, as evidenced by Harris’ stance against Heller at the time, and it is one that still stands against freedom now, given Biden’s remarks in the past year and the pair’s plans to limit your rights. President Trump, meanwhile, has made Biden’s anti-freedom stances known while touting his repeated defenses of Second Amendment rights. American freedoms is on the ballot this November.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.