Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- One of President Trump's most consequential actions has been the appointment of Originalist and Textualist judges on the Article III courts. Judge Amy Coney Barret is the latest example. She is likely to make a critical difference for the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court.

    That will come to a halt if the Republicans lose control of the Senate, starting with Arizona.

    A group in Arizona, which was organized in part by Second Amendment rock star Doug Ritter and his wife, Sue, has started informing Arizonans about the danger to the Second Amendment which Martha McSally's opponent, Giffords.org-gun-grabber Mark Kelly, represents. Here is a very important release of the campaign you need to take action on:

    Sue and I wanted to let you know about a very critical project here in Arizona to help protect our Second Amendment. The new “AZ 2A For McSally” Facebook page www.facebook.com/AZ2A4MCSALLY  @AZ2A4MCSALLY  features a pair of videos supporting pro-Second Amendment Republican Senator Martha McSally. These videos spotlight the stark contrast between staunchly pro-2A McSally and Democrat Mark “Gun Grabber” Kelly on the issues of gun control and the Second Amendment.

    Please pass this along to all your friends.  Share this @AZ2A4MCSALLY FB page and videos on social media and anywhere you can.

    These videos are not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

    Arizona is a strongly pro-Second Amendment state, rated by Guns & Ammo Magazine as having the best gun laws in the nation since 2013. Despite a long anti-gun record and support from the Godfather of gun control, Michael Bloomberg, Kelly has tried to avoid the issue and portray himself as a centrist. We all know that is B.S.

    Senator McSally has a perfect Second Amendment voting record and a perfect record of supporting President Trump's nominees to the Federal Courts.

    These over-200 appointments have started to tip the balance in these courts from activist anti-Second Amendment Judges and Justices to support for Second Amendment rights. McSally has pledged to vote to confirm constitutionalist and pro-Second Amendment Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

    This is one of the most highly contested elections this year. Control of the Senate may hang in the balance.  A Kelly win could swing the Senate to a Democratic majority under anti-gun Senator Charles Schumer who is committed to enacting the Democratic Party's radical anti-gun platform. Senator Martha McSally is the only choice for pro-Second Amendment voters. Senator McSally is a vote to save our republic and our freedoms.

    Please pass this along to all your friends.  Share this page and these videos on social media and anywhere you can.
    Most gun owners in Arizona know they don't want Kelly, but many are unsure or skeptical about McSally.  That can come back to bite us.  Gun owners stayed home in Virginia in 2018 and in just two years gun rights in that state have gone down the tubes.  Let's make sure that doesn't happen to Arizona and America!

    Any Arizona gun owner who doesn't vote has effectively cast their ballot FOR gun control! Any Arizona gun owner who doesn't vote for Trump, McSally and the Republicans running for Congress and our state legislature is casting their vote FOR gun control.  It's that simple.

    Sue and I beg you to help us turn out the 2A vote.  We, the gun owners of Arizona, can make the difference in this election.  We just have to get out the vote and we can win!

    Thanks for your support! ~ Doug Ritter.

    The technical and social aspects of this campaign were contributed by Mission Specific Ventures, a full service marketing agency specializing in managing social marketing, especially in very prohibitive social spaces, and owned by Brett Russo.

    The campaign ads for the Senate in Arizona have not been showing much information about Second Amendment issues from either side. Now, there is coverage, but it is from independents such as AZ2AMCSAALY and the NRA-ILA. The information is important to get out if the people of Arizona are to make an informed decision. The gun control groups are funding ads for Mark Kelly. They are careful to avoid any mention of guns.  Everytown (Bloomberg's group) is said to have budgeted $5 million for Arizona, primarily against Senator McSally and President Trump.

    Senator McSally has done much better on the Second Amendment than originally thought. Many Arizonans were worried about what she would do, once in office. As with President Trump, she has been a pleasant surprise.

    She is much better than Senator McCain was on the Second Amendment. Her opponent is much worse.


  2. Growing activity from armed far-right groups and President Trump’s calls for his supporters to watch polling places “very carefully” have raised concerns of possible disruptions or voter intimidation ahead of the Nov. 3 election. States will also have to prepare for the prospect of guns being brought into voting sites — legally.

    So can voters bring guns into polling places? In most states, the answer is: It depends.

    Only about a dozen states — including California, Arizona, Florida and Georgia — explicitly ban open and/or concealed carry in voting sites.

    In much of the country, voters may bring firearms into polling places, as long as the buildings being used for voting don’t generally ban them — as many schools, government buildings and churches do. Those rules vary at the state and local level.

    The laws that govern weapons in polling places have drawn increasing scrutiny lately. Across an increasingly polarized nation, election officials have been consulting with state attorneys general and law enforcement over what counts as voter intimidation and what powers officials have to stop it.

    Nowhere is the issue more relevant than in Michigan, where the state’s gun laws and extremist activity came to a head this month when officials charged 13 people in a plot to kidnap Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and start a civil war. Some of the suspects took part in anti-lockdown demonstrations at the state capitol in the spring, when heavily armed protesters marched through the building, intimidating some lawmakers.


    Men with rifles stand outside the State Capitol in Lansing, Mich., on April 15. They were protesting the governor’s restrictions to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

    (Associated Press)

    Every election season brings rumors that menacing people will show up at the polls, but they rarely amount to anything, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in an interview on Thursday. But Benson said she and others believe “this year is different” because the calls to observe people at polling places “have been much more specific and much more targeted than in years past.”

    Trump has repeatedly made such calls.

    “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully,” he said at a Sept. 29 debate.

    And at a Michigan rally on Saturday, he called the governor a “partisan” and falsely claimed she’s “like a judge of the ballot stuff.”

    “So you got to watch it, watch those ballots, watch what’s going on,” he told the crowd, emphasizing their importance.


    Trump, in Michigan, targets governor after alleged plot against her

    Oct. 17, 2020

    Several elected officials and voter advocates have said the president’s comments increased their concerns of potential disturbances on election day.

    “As a result we are preparing accordingly,” Benson said. “But at the same time, my priority’s on making sure that voters know they will be completely safe if they choose to vote in person, because we’ve got protections in place, and that even if they still feel unsafe they have the option to vote early, or vote from home.”

    On Friday, Benson announced that voters would not be allowed to open carry weapons in polling places, clerk’s offices or buildings where absentee ballots are counted, or within 100 feet of those locations.

    “Prohibiting the open-carry of firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected,” Benson said in a statement. Licensed concealed carry is still allowed in polling places that don’t normally ban guns.

    “The secretary has pretty wide discretion when it comes to polling locations,” Atty. Gen. Dana Nessel, whose office worked with Benson on the guidance, said in an interview Monday.

    Michigan hasn’t had a history of election day violence, but because of “increased and aggressive rhetoric,” specifically from the president, Nessel said, her office wanted to be more prepared this year.

    The office sent out memorandums to all the law enforcement agencies in the state, outlining election laws and things to look out for during voting, and will have a team of lawyers standing by on election day. Nessel’s staff has been in contact with social media companies on their plans to look for and remove any posts urging people to cause disruptions.

    Her office is also reaching out to leaders in the state’s largest communities — particularly those with large concentrations of immigrants and people of color — where voter intimidation is more likely to occur, she said.

    “We have spent weeks and weeks probably researching every potential scenario, every potential set of circumstances that we can possibly envision,” Nessel said. “I’m sure there may be things that crop up that we haven’t really imagined, but we’ll be prepared for it as much as possible.”


    World & Nation

    What if armed far-right groups go to the polls? Some plan to

    Oct. 10, 2020

    The move to block open carry at Michigan polling places has won the support of voting rights advocates and gun control groups, but drawn criticism from gun rights advocates, who say Benson lacked the authority to act unilaterally.

    “She can’t, by fiat, create some would be emergency in her mind and feel that she can regulate guns, or how we carry those guns,” said Rick Ector, a firearms instructor and head of Legally Armed Detroit. “She is completely without basis, it’s unprecedented and she’s acting like a tyrant.”

    Ector said open carry also benefits Black gun owners, such as himself, by enabling them to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and possibly prevent violence. “It allows you to serve as a visual deterrent to anyone who would trample over your rights or threaten your safety,” he said.

    Mary McCord, the legal director for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, applauded the move by Benson and pointed to past Supreme Court decisions defending electioneering buffer zones around polling places.

    “The Supreme Court’s been very clear when it upheld the laws establishing the no electioneering zones around polling places, that even though there are 1st Amendment rights, which are important rights, that the state’s compelling interest in preventing voter intimidation allowed for it to take reasonable measures,” she said. “So I think, as a matter of the Constitution, courts would look at this similarly.”

    Federal law bans voter intimidation, which can include obstructing access to polling places, addressing voters while wearing uniforms or military-style clothing or writing down people’s license plate numbers. Brandishing a weapon in a threatening way would also qualify as voter intimidation.

    The challenge for election officials is how to balance the legal right to open carry with heightened safety concerns.

    The right to carry firearms and the right to vote without fear of intimidation “are concurrent rights that can operate simultaneously and in fact, do operate simultaneously here in our state,” Nevada Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, a Democrat, said on a press call this month.

    “The line that will be crossed is a line of intimidation. To the extent you violate the law relative to using your firearm to intimidate or coerce, or to unduly influence someone, that’s going to be considered voter intimidation,” Ford said. “The mere presence of a firearm at a public polling location, in and of itself, won’t rise to that level.”

    Officials in Wisconsin, another open-carry state, are planning to send guidance to local election officials this week, said Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

    The state’s Department of Justice is working with the election commission and law enforcement and taking threats to the election seriously, Wisconsin Atty. Gen. Josh Kaul said Monday in a statement.

    “Voter intimidation is illegal,” Kaul said. “If someone breaks the laws that protect against voter intimidation, they should be prepared to spend time behind bars.”

    In Minnesota, which also allows open-carry, local election officials are allowed to post a sergeant-at-arms at each polling place to greet voters, ensure they are in the right place and help enforce the 100-foot buffer zone outside the entrance to the polling place, where political activity is banned, said Casey Joe Carl, the top election official for Minneapolis. Carl said his city is deploying the position for the first time since 2016.

    For most election officials, preparing for possible disruptions on election day is about emphasizing the tools that are already available. Local officials in Minnesota annually update plans for a range of worst-case election day scenarios, said Ginny Gelms, the election manager for Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located.

    “Counties are required to have plans in place to deal with all the hazards that might impact elections, that includes unrest, folks bringing weapons and that kind of thing,” she said. “We’ve been doing that for years and we’ll continue to do that.”

    Top election officials in several other states, including ones that aren’t battlegrounds, have been issuing detailed guidance to local offices and members of the public on what’s allowed at polling locations and what steps officials can take if something goes wrong, including asking people to leave and calling law enforcement.

    Voter advocacy groups are also bracing for more complex issues this cycle.


    Aug. 26, 2020

    Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said his group is preparing for a range of scenarios that’s broader and potentially more extreme than what it has anticipated in the past. That planning isn’t based on any specific threats, and Ho emphasized that he didn’t want to alarm people or make voters think his group is predicting outbreaks of violence. Instead, the preparation grew from its reading of violent events at protests in Kenosha, Wis., and Portland, Ore., and the rhetoric coming from the White House.

    “It just makes us really nervous that this election could see more significant disruptions,” Ho said. “If we have an act of violence, for example, what happens? What happens when the area outside of the polling place, or inside of a polling place, becomes a crime scene? That’s not something that we’ve had to deal with in the past.”

    For a scenario like that, Ho’s team is getting up to date on state laws governing whether voters can cast provisional ballots at precincts they’re not assigned to, or if the group would need to ask for that accommodation in court.

    “Over the last nine months, things that we thought were the stuff of fiction happened three weeks later,” Ho said, “so we just want to be better prepared.”



  3. There have been a lot more people showing up in more places with firearms than in years past. While I’ve been upfront that I don’t believe armed protests are particularly wise in some instances–things like protesting lockdowns in Michigan, for example–I do believe there are times when armed protests make sense.

    For example, there are Second Amendment rallies. There are also times when there’s reason to believe the other side might show up and try to be violent, so going armed just makes sense.

    However, some don’t like any armed protest, regardless of the issue or situation, and they’re comparing it to armed insurrection.

    Josh Horwitz has been an American gun control activist for nearly 30 years. In 2009, he co-wrote a book warning that the idea of armed revolt against the government was at the center of the US gun rights movement.

    Now, after a year that has seen heavily armed men show up at state capitols in VirginiaMichiganIdaho and elsewhere to confront Democratic lawmakers over gun control and coronavirus restrictions, more Americans are taking gun owners’ rhetoric about “tyrants” seriously. Some of the same armed protesters who showed up at Michigan’s state house and at a pro-gun rally this summer were charged last week with conspiring to kidnap Michigan’s governor and put her on trial for tyranny.

    Other members of the “boogaloo” movement have allegedly murdered law enforcement officers in California and plotted acts of violence across the country in hopes of sparking a civil war.

    Horowitz spoke to the Guardian about how mainstream the idea of insurrection has become in American politics, and why lawmakers have failed to challenge it for decades.

    Of course, people like Horwitz would expect me to argue that he’s wrong, that “insurrection” is the last thing on anyone’s mind, but I won’t.

    Instead, I’m going to point out in a way he’s actually right. There are obviously some Americans (on both the Left and the Right) who are ready to wage an offensive war against local, state, and federal governments, and under federal law, “insurrection” is a crime. At the heart of the Second Amendment, however, is the idea of resistance to tyranny, not “insurrection” as Horwitz claims. To understand just why he’s wrong there, we have to go back to the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

    The British government, back in 1775, decided it was time to seize munitions from the potentially rebellious colonists. They marched to Lexington and Concord with the intention of doing just that. Instead, the War of Independence began with the first shots fired on Lexington Green as militia members stood in defense of their rights and property.

    Sixteen years later, when the Bill of Rights was passed, Americans sought to make sure that could never happen again. The Founding Fathers believed that government was the kind of thing that we had to have, but we needed to keep it in check as much as possible. They feared standing armies because they knew that such an army could be turned against the people. They wanted the people to have the means to violently resist the federal government if that government began acting tyrannically.

    Resistance against a tyrannical regime was seen as the last step available to the American people, but we’re not talking about self-proclaimed militia members or individual gun owners trying to start a Civil War. The Founders weren’t anarchists, after all. James Madison made it clear in Federalist 46 that any successful defense of tyranny would have to involve local and state governments working hand-in-hand with an armed populace to defend the rights of the people. Just as the Founders believed in “ordered liberty,” they believed that resistance to tyranny should be ordered as well.

    Today, gun rights advocates hold onto that ideal that an armed citizenry serves as a check on tyranny. After all, nowhere in the text does the Second Amendment mention hunting. Hell, an argument can be made that the Second Amendment isn’t really about individual self-defense, though I don’t agree with that interpretation. No, the Second Amendment is about preserving our freedom, even from the federal government if necessary. Josh Horwitz may call it insurrection, much like any would-be tyrant would, but the Founding Fathers called it resistance to oppression.

    At the end of the day, that’s a feature, not a bug.



  • Create New...

Important Information

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