Recently in 2nd Amendment Category

As a firm believer in the unalienable status of our right to protect ourselves enshrined in the, ahem, Second Amendment--the police aren't legally obligated to do so, believe it or not--I was up in arms about Brian Aitken's ludicrous seven-year jail sentence.

Gov. Christie commuted his sentence. He should have been pardoned, Governor!

But last month NH's notable attorney for the Second Amendment--we've got two: Evan Nappan and Penny Dean--described the outright foolishness that passes for sober laws in the Garden State.

All I can say is: You've got to be kidding me! Liberals just hate guns. They treat them like Negroes were treated in the American South six or seven decades ago. Irrational prejudice.

There's a gubmit lie supported by its backers in the lamestream media that gets my goat: 90% of the guns obtained from Mexican narco criminals originate here in the United States. When discussing the Second Amendment with a British national living here, he brought it up as evidence how the Second Amendment is bad.

Nope. Not true. It's a myth, even if reported by the GAO and latter endorsed by the BATF.

Stratfor--HT: Volokh Conspiracy--breaks down the numbers, and it's eye-opening the deception, where the reality is nearly opposite what's stated:

My home state of New Hampshire has pretty liberal gun laws, where gun control is defined as hitting your target. Law abiding citizens can carry their sidearms openly without the need for a permit. To carry a concealed weapon requires a CCW permit. But that may change soon as two bills are making their way through the New Hampshire legislature that will remove the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. While both bills address concealed carry, only one stands a chance of making it through committee and out onto the House floor.

Republican leaders are urging House members to back House Bill 330. It would allow constitutional carry and extend gun-carrying rights to vehicles. But it specifically keeps guns out of courtrooms and courthouses.

Sunapee Police Chief David Cahill, president of the New Hampshire Police Chiefs Association, said his organization does not have a firm stand against constitutional carry. But he sees a benefit to concealed-weapons permits, and he has concerns about loaded weapons in vehicles.

Should HB330 become law, New Hampshire will become the fifth state that would allow what is called "constitutional carry", meaning no CCW permit is required. The other four states allowing constitutional carry are Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Is it possible New Hampshire might get a twofer this year? Between the bill to remove the requirement for a CCW permit and another to make the state the only Right-To-Work state in the Northeast, the Granite State could be sitting pretty.

Excellent insight by Paul Cella.

Libs, who both don't know which end the round comes out of and act like Alan Alda as fathers, won't appreciate the role fathers play in defending hearth and home. It's primal, I know.

But it's not gone.

You know the Canadian justice system is screwed up when a homeowner confronts three men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and is arrested for defending himself.

It seems the Canadian government has got some seriously screwed up people in their Parliament, making it illegal for their citizens to defend themselves against dire threats to them, their families, and their property.

The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.

"I was horrified," he said. "I couldn't believe it. I didn't know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on."

So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.

"He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we're not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off," said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.

What's ironic is that Thomson had surveillance video of the incident, showing the arsonists setting Thomson's house ablaze and Thomson exiting his home and firing the two or three gunshots. When Thomson showed the video to the police, they arrested him on the charge of careless use of a firearm.

It must be noted Mr. Thomson is an expert marksmen, meaning if he wanted to hit and wound or kill the miscreants, he could have. Instead, he showed restraint, aiming to miss and to drive the arsonists off. I would say that he wasn't careless at all. Instead he was exercising his god-given right to defend himself.

As expected, the anti-gun organizations have been trying to use Jared Loughner's shooting rampage as a rallying cry to cripple the Second Amendment. They've tried re-interpreting the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to make it appear the Second Amendment is a collective rather than individual right (Heller vs DC notwithstanding) or have made efforts to weaken it in other ways, including redefining the original definition of "regulated" as in "a well regulated militia" or even the definition of "militia".

Not surprisingly, some of those commenting to Rachel Alexander's piece linked above had more insight in the matter, refuting claims of not knowing the intent of the Framers made by the anti-gun groups. One of the best is a series of quotes dating back to the early years of the Republic, making known in no uncertain terms the intent of the Second Amendment.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ..." - Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"... the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" - Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..." - Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ... " - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

Gun control advocates always point to the word "militia" in the Second Amendment as proof that the Founders would support gun control laws. That contention is not supported by the historical documents. As the Founders continually acknowledged, A MILITIA IS THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE. In fact, in the Second MILITIA Act of 1792, ALL able-bodied, white men over the age of 18 were required to possess a gun.

As to the term "well regulated", too many of the anti-gun organizations have no understanding of the term as understood by the Framers. In the 18^th century it had a somewhat different meaning as explained by another commenter.

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the present-day definition of the term "regulated" (regulation by law).

In the 18th century, the term "well regulated" meant "well disciplined", (being able to hit your target consistently).

What good was a militiaman if he couldn't hit his target? It all boils down to having an armed populace who were also proficient in the use of their firearms.

Can it get any simpler than that?

Yes, they'll take my marriage license--even if it's with a gay partner.

But no, contrary to the Bill of Rights, it won't honor my CCW license.

Can someone explain the rationale, other than liberal bigotry? Makes me irritable.

First, it's the New Hampshire legislature changing its rules to allow legislators and staffers to carry their guns inside the Statehouse.

Next, it's the District of Columbia's highest court deciding people who pled guilty or were convicted and jailed for violating DC's unconstitutional gun ban (overturned in DC vs Heller) have their convictions set aside.

"A conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice," and a defendant can therefore ask to have it set aside (via a petition for coram nobis relief) even many years later.

Despite the fact of DC vs Heller, the District of Columbia still has difficult roadblocks to gun ownership, in effect restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens. If I recall correctly, there are a number of suits in progress dealing with DC's procrastination and obstructionism in regards to the Second Amendment. The city's government doesn't seem to care that it has one of the highest violent death rates in the nation, doesn't care that it has left its law abiding citizens without the means to defend themselves. They also ignore the Justice Department's own figures showing violent crimes of all kinds are miniscule in states allowing citizens to own and carry guns compared to those states and cities that don't. You'd think they'd get a clue. But then again, it's really about power and controlling the populace and not actually protecting them (or letting them protect themselves).

Washington DC is trying to buck the trend seen in the rest of the country, where gun laws are being struck down or modified to allow citizens to arm themselves. As this has been happening the crime rates in those states have gone down. Yet another lesson that will be ignored by the Powers-That-Be in DC.

I wrote about it a little earlier. But it's not beating a dead horse to beat this drum. It's so instructive how hollow the legal standing of the gun control crowd is.

For example, Justice Breyer can apparently look into the mind of James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, in the absence of any worthy data, to opine that gun rights really shouldn't exist.

This issue came to the Supreme Court's notice several times in recent years in Heller and MacDonald.

It's amazing how Justice Clarence Thomas is running intellectual circles around the very bright Breyer, who can't seem to bring himself to face facts. Americans have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It's a right, however, that paradoxically as we're winning the encroaching police state is opposing. I want to stay optimistic that I won't be frisked or wanded as is increasingly going on when people ride subways or buses. But I can't.

I know from Cato's super smart legal scholar--Ilya Shapiro--in this instructive nine-minute podcast that Justice Breyer's reasoning in his dissent of McDonald v. Chicago, which struck down Chicago's ban on guns, leaves a lot to be desired.

Mike W. continues that vein of thought with an emphatic smack-down of the former Harvard law professor whose family has owned a cabin on a lake in New Hampshire for three generations. I wonder where.

I'd like to add that Justice Sotomayer obviously lied in her sworn testimony when she stated that because of Heller it was settled matter, stare decisis, that the Second Amendment applied to the federal gubmit. But as soon as she could, she joined Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to make gun ownership unsettled by attempting to overturn Heller and declaring:

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.

Is Ward Bird a gun-toting criminal nutcase or a citizen defending his property against an intruder?

According to both the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Superior Court and the state Supreme Court, he's a criminal.

The case, in which Bird was accused of criminal threatening, pits the rights of gun carrying homeowners against criminal statutes that could easily see them prosecuted and convicted for protecting their property. Bird was convicted of threatening his accuser after the women drove on to his property and to the front of his house despite numerous No Trespassing signs posted along the edge of his property and along his driveway.

I have to ask this: What part of No Trespassing did this woman not understand? The 'No' part or the 'Trespassing' part?

What makes this case more controversial is that Bird had never been in trouble with the law before this incident while his accuser had a criminal history. Even more tragic, the presiding judge in the criminal trial wanted Bird to have minimal incarceration (30 days) in the county jail and then work release or home confinement. But the law tied his hands and the Department of Corrections said Bird has to serve a minimum of two years of his mandatory seven year sentence before he's eligible for release. He'll be serving his time in the state prison.

Quite a few people believe there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Bird should be pardoned. Count me as one of them.

I think there's a strong case to be made, esp. I'm bringing to your attention points seven and eight:

Far too many people really have little understanding of the Second Amendment and why the Framers of the Constitution included it. And many of those same people have the mistaken belief that disarming a law abiding citizenry will somehow lead to less crime and violence despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

In the next is his series, Bill Whittle explains why 'they' are mistaken and why so many of the rest of us own and carry guns.


As the old saying goes when it comes to dealing with violent criminal miscreants, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

What's going on with Brian D. Aitken should not be happening. If you read the link, you'll have trouble believing it. That a judge could act so arbitrarily and with such prejudice is a sad commentary on our times. And talk about anti-gun bias on the bench!

At first glance, this is a tremendous miscarriage of justice, something written by Albert Camus.

HT: NJ Coalition for Self-Defense

NY State acts similarly in disregarding the federal law, part of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, that allows one to travel with a locked, unloaded firearm.

What we need to do to remind people of the distinction between unalienable rights, God-given that can't be bartered away without a tyranny being present, and alienable, which aren't so important. It's a safe bet to state the rights in the Bill of Rights are of the first kind. The Second Amendment is my conceal-carry permit. But that kind of thinking is going to get me in trouble some day. Progressives don't believe in natural rights the Founders did.

Any purchase or sale of a gun of more than $600 needs a 1099 form sent to the IRS. Jeez! When will they ever stop, the perfidious gun-grabbers!

I'd shut down the "Bat-fags"--the BATFE--as a thuggish, rights-restricting organization.

And I'd arrest traitorous Jane Fonda for aiding and abetting the enemy (Vietnam).

I'd lower federal taxes on cigarettes so the working man could enjoy a small comfort a little more affordably.

I'd make federal employees no longer eligible for membership in unions.

I'd end affirmative action, which is racist against white males.

Then I'd take naps and follow the lead of my favorite president Calvin Coolidge.

I have little doubt everyone thinks those radar trailers the various police and sheriff's departments set up along the roads to remind us of our speed are annoying. Sometimes they're surprising, meaning they make us realize we're going faster than we thought we were.

But as annoying as they can be, they're basically harmless. The police don't use them to issue tickets. They're there just to let us know how fast we're going along the stretches of road where they're set up.

Apparently someone here in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire really doesn't like them. At all.

The Laconia [NH] Police Department itself has become a crime statistic after someone recently fired a bullet into the agency's radar trailer, disabling it and forcing expensive repairs.

When Sgt. Gary Hubbard and Off. John Howe opened up the display, they found the flattened remains of a .22-caliber bullet that Clarke believes was fired from a moving vehicle. The bullet caused about $1,000 worth of damage to the display, he said, and nearly missed the actual radar unit which, had it been hit, would have cost a like sum to replace.

Someone has some serious anger issues to deal with.

It's bad enough when a prosecutor uses his office to harass a law-abiding citizen. It's even worse when he uses his office to also try and kill the business he manages through malicious and specious criminal and civil cases that have been thrown out of court time and time again.

What makes it even worse than that is when he's doing it at the behest of 'well-connected' abutters to the business, which has been in existence for 84 years.

The business in question? The Kitsap [Washington] Rifle and Revolver Club.

The aforementioned well-connected abutter bought a home near the KRRC and decided he didn't like the noise coming from the club. Never mind that the club has been there decades longer than the abutter's home. Never mind the abutter was aware of the club's existence before he bought the home. Using the Kitsap County DA as his personal errand boy to drive the club out of existence and harassing the manager with groundless criminal prosecutions is in itself criminal and could be seen as violating the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Maybe it's time for the Washington state Attorney General to investigate this misconduct. And if AG's office won't take action, then maybe the US Attorney should do so.

I have to wonder to which party the DA and the abutter belong. If I had to guess, I'd say it isn't the GOP.

For a host of complex reasons, I've never replaced the flag after its post came off the tree during a strong wind storm.

But it's stories like this, where the state acts in ways eerily reminiscent of the British state about 230 years ago, that makes me shake my head. Nixing the sale of M-1 Garand rifles because too many Americans might be able to purchase them because of the lower prices?

Second Amendment for me, but not for thee, the people. Our enemy, as Albert Jay Nock rightly saw, is the state.

...the BTFE has done the homework for you. A .40 caliber round, my preference, in either the Glock 22 or the Smith & Wesson M&P .40. (Both much easier to learn on than a small revolver, like my J-frame Taurus 85.) Both are excellent, but I'd go with the S&W, even though I own a second generation Glock 22, which is great. A thumb safety can come with the S&W as an option, which I like. From my military days I've learned to expect that on a gun and, like Plaxico Burress, have come to appreciate that safety feature.

Plax, why didn't you have a holster for that Glock? Is he still servicing the jail sentence at Riker's?

Well, not all gun owners are that dumb. Some of us are really, really smart in fact, like Eric Shelton, whose podcast I just listened to yesterday while on the dentist's chair having an onlay drilled.

Contrary to the Left--which correctly understands its two biggest obstacles standing in the way of the Leviathan state are the nuclear family and the Second Amendment--we are not all lacking in intelligence. We tend to be, on the whole, better citizens in fact.

Perhaps we need to tax those who opt out of the demands, cost, and duties of gun ownership. The Founding Fathers believed that gun ownership should be near-universal, as their definition of a militia was any able-bodied man.