As Resurrection Sunday passes by us one more year, those who believe were reminded of the majestic ways in which God operates. For those who do not share in the Christian faith (or perhaps any faith) it was just a regular Sunday. While the decision to learn about the facts of religion are up to everyone to pursue or decline, it is worthy to note the paradox that exists between what our nation’s founders believed and what our leaders over the last 50 to 100 years have been promoting. It seems odd that, while everyone is free to either worship or shake their fists at God or America, the government itself should be a bit on the “pro-religion” side of the debate considering that our Constitution (which allows for all but an endorsement) permits it.
Whatever could the reason for that be? Could it be that the Law of the Land says that our rights are “God-given?” Our current government wants to dictate who, for example, can own a gun. They want to meddle in where a gun can be, as if Uncle Sam is in charge of where one may or may not feel safe. South Carolina has recently awoken from their PC slumber and approved a bill that would allow everyone, even those who don’t have a permit, to carry a gun legally. There is no mention of a permit needing to be obtained in our founding document, after all.
Government wants to dictate if we can even own a gun, and yet that pesky Constitution insists that they can’t do this because government only recognized the rights given from God; they don’t grant it. The Founders showed us that God did. So, the best choice left for those who wish to control the masses is to kill God in the eyes of man. Make Him look foolish, like believing in one’s imaginary friend, and God falls from fact to fiction. Then once that lie is in place, goodbye rights. After all, if one doesn’t believe in God, then government becomes in charge of who has what rights when.
Thankfully, God or not, South Carolina is taking control of what the Bill of Rights promises, not what the current whims of a fallen PC culture tell them is true. If this becomes law, anyone in SC who is allowed to legally buy a gun may carry that firearm. They are also keeping their conceal carry law intact just to ensure that their citizens can still carry guns in other states where a permit is required, so this new change won’t’ tarnish that right in other states, either. Rep. Mike Pitts (R-SC) has said that the bill honors federal law by forbidding protection in airports in schools, so thanks to the feds, anyone in those two areas will still be defenseless targets for madmen, but this is still a massive Constitutional win.
“The bill is a very simple bill,” says Pitts, “It means, by definition of the Constitution, it gives you the ability to keep and bear arms without having to be permitted by the country.” Notice how he was careful to avoid saying who does give us our rights, only that our rights are not doled out by “the country,” and that is a step in right direction to fighting the overreach of Big Brother. He dare not say “God,” for the anti-God crowd in their Senate will shoot it down just out of deictic hatred. So, those who love the Constitution are figting in more subtle terms, which is both clever and needed. Someday, maybe even airports and schools won’t be targets.
The whole plan is coming together too, with the approval coming in at 64-46. In an even bigger win, since we live in an age of terror when our first responders are often attacked as they come to help (Black Lives Matter also impede ambulances and the like, resulting in death), under this bill, THEY TOO get to find that their lives matter. First responders will now be allowed to carry a gun to protect their lives when they come to save ours. This may be the best bill currently on the table in any state in the entire union.
Rep. Gary Clary, (R-Clemson) thinks that more debate is needed, something that will only allow it to be watered down and ruined. Since it is perfect as is, one has to wonder if he got his AAA standing with the NRA from a Cracker Jack box because he is dropping the ball here. “When we talk about protecting constitutional rights, when we talk about respecting each others rights, we begin with the First Amendment, and that’s the right to free speech, ” said the retired judge. “And in this body that is the most important thing that we have to represent for the people that send us here.”
Isn’t the “most important” thing to honor their rights and protect their lives? Clary seems to not think so as he says also, “And when we tell the folks that don’t have enough votes to pass a bill or to defeat a bill that we’re going to cut off the debate, that we’re going to cut off their right to speak, then we’re telling them that the (35,000) to 38,000 people that they represent, that they are irrelevant.” This is the talk of a RINO just waiting to capitulate, not a gun-respecting Republican, regardless of who was foolish enough to endorse him. If someone is right and they have facts on their side, then why should they welcome in arguments from those that are wrong? How can wrong views help the debate?
The most foolish argument came from (NO surprise) a Democrat, Rep. Justin Bamberg (D-SC). Not only does he want to go back to training classes (which have pros and cons for another article), but he thinks that blacks who take the right will become targets from police who long to shoot armed black men. “If I’m an African-American male on the Battery in downtown Charleston and I’m open-carrying at 1 or 2 in the morning, which I’ll legally be able to do, is my very being, the very breath in my body going to give law enforcement probable cause to stop me?” So to him, a black man should not protect himself – just to cower from police. If Bamberg were right (he isn’t), wouldn’t the black man or women need the gun more?
The fact is, no cop is going to bother a black any any more than any other man for taking charge of his or her own protection as they walk at 2 am or 2 pm. The facts are that just as most people who take martial arts never ever use it once in their whole lives, most people who carry guns never even unholster them because the need never arises, thankfully. Still, the right to have it when needed is given to us by our Creator and to lose track of that fact is to pull a bullseye on our own heads.
When our country was first founded, the importance of gun ownership was widely known. Today, Republicans seem to be the only ones who still understand that guns are necessary to protect the most vulnerable. Despite the countless examples proving this to be true, Democrats appear to believe that people shouldn’t be able to defend themselves from dangerous criminals.
However, if people aren’t allowed to own a gun they could easily be taken advantage of by criminals. Firearms are important because they stop this from happening. If someone feels their life is in danger, they can use a handgun or rifle to eliminate the threat. This is what recently happened to a burglar in Nevada. He apparently broke into a house and attempted to rob the person inside. However, he didn’t realize that the homeowner was armed and as a consequence, was shot dead.
Last Thursday at about one o’clock in the morning, Las Vegas police officers responded to a 911 call at the Arcadia Palms Apartments. The caller told the dispatcher that an armed intruder destroyed his front door in order to break into his house and rob him. As an act of self-defense, he claimed that he shot the burglar, but was not injured himself. When police arrived, the criminal was found dead. The shooter was outside with a friend, holding the gun, but set it down when officers asked him to put it down. Investigators determined that the intruder was armed with a handgun and forced open the front door. It’s not clear whether or not they knew each other.
The situation is currently still under investigation. However, since Nevada has a “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to use deadly force when acting in self-defense, it’s likely that he won’t be charged with anything. This is because it’s clear that he acted lawfully. He was inside his home at the time of the attack and took the appropriate measures to save his own life. By bashing in the front door, the intruder demonstrated that he was obviously extremely violent, striking fear in the homeowner. On top of that, since the burglar was also armed, his life was in even greater danger.
His neighbors appeared to support what he did. One of them, Monique Kirstein, said, “if he broke into his house, in my personal opinion I would have done the same thing if somebody tries to steal from me I would shoot of course you’re trying to protect yourself.”
Another neighbor, Aja Lynn, agreed with Kirstein, adding, “of course I’d do the same thing.” Additionally, she let reporters know that the neighborhood was known to be a pretty bad area. “My brother’s girlfriend was dropping me off at home and said this was a bad area,” she noted. As an example, she said her next door neighbor’s car was recently stolen.
In Oklahoma, there was a similar situation. Three masked intruders, armed with weapons, broke into a house. Two people were home at the time. One of the residents heard some commotion and brought his AR-15 with him to investigate. He recognized that he was outnumbered when he stumbled upon the three intruders. Fearing for his life, he shot and killed them all.
He is also not expected to be charged. Oklahoma has a similar “Stand Your Ground” law, which states that a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his/her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he/she is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is attacked in any place where he/she has a right to be, if he/she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself/herself/another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
The authoritarian left needs to understand that situations like these are why gun rights need to be protected. Without a gun, he would’ve been killed by the armed intruder. The Second Amendment is the only reason he’s alive today. Despite this, Democrats continue to push for legislation that would essentially disarm law abiding citizens.
Fortunately, legislators in Iowa appreciate the liberty and freedom granted to Americans in the Constitution. They recently approved a bill dramatically expanding the rights of gun owners. It passed the state Senate 33 to 17 and the House, 57 to 36. If signed by their Governor, Terry Branstad (R), Iowa would be the latest state to pass a “Stand Your Ground” Law.
The law would allow someone to use force, including deadly force, if they feel their life is in danger and gives gun owners the ability to sue local governments over gun-free zones. It would also allow children under 14 who are supervised by someone 21 and older to use a pistol or revolver. On top of that, it would legalize concealed-carry at state capitol buildings and prevents government officials from confiscating firearms during state emergencies. It would also make the records of permit holders confidential and legalizes short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Additionally, if an armed criminal breaks the law but doesn’t use his weapon in any way, prosecutors wouldn’t be able to add an additional gun charge.
Even President Donald Trump and federal legislators are fighting for gun rights. Just recently, Trump signed a bill passed by both the house and senate ordering a rollback on gun restrictions for people with certain medical conditions, sparking outrage. Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-CT), a leading gun control advocate in Congress, claimed, “Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information.” However, the passage of this law restores the liberty to many law-abiding American citizens.
When an intruder breaks into a house, the best defense is a gun. However, the authoritarian left wants to change this. They are determined to repeal the Second Amendment. But they must not be allowed to disarm our country. If a person doesn’t have a gun, the outcome doesn’t tend to be in their favor. When they do have a gun, the situation usually ends much differently. Without guns to protect themselves, innocent people will die.
‘The governor’s veto will likely cost innocent lives’, says advocacy group president
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D.) vetoed a bill on Friday that aimed to allow victims of domestic violence to carry concealed firearms without obtaining a permit.
House Bill 1852 would allow anyone in Virginia who has a protective order and is over 21 to carry a concealed firearm without a permit for up to 45 days after the order is issued. It would then give anyone with an active order an additional 45 days to carry concealed should they apply for a permanent concealed-handgun permit, which can take up to 45 days to process. The person with the protective order would be required to show police the order or permit application and photo ID if stopped.
Governor McAuliffe noted in a statement that the bill bypasses the training and background check requirements associated with obtaining a Virginia concealed handgun permit and said it would make domestic violence situations worse, not better. “The bill perpetuates the dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves,” he said. “It would inject firearms into a volatile domestic violence situation, making that situation less safe, not more.
“In 2014, there were 112 family and intimate-partner related homicides in Virginia. Sixty-six of those deaths were with a firearm. I will not allow this bill to become law when too many Virginia women have already fallen victim to firearms violence at the hands of their intimate partner.”
McAuliffe’s office did not respond to questions about whether the governor believed victims of domestic violence should ever arm themselves or what victims, especially those located far from police stations, should do if they find themselves in life-threatening situations.
Gun-rights advocates who championed the bill decried the governor’s veto and said it would likely cost innocent lives.
“Governor McAuliffe claims we don’t need to introduce a gun into a ‘volatile situation,’ where there is a protective order in place,” Philip Van Cleave, the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s president, told the Washington Free Beacon. “He’s completely wrong. That situation is exactly where we DO want to introduce a firearm. Knowledge that the victim is armed is a great incentive for the aggressor to stay away.”
Van Cleave said the first 48 hours after a protective order is issued are the most crucial time for a potential victim to be armed.
“Protective orders really enrage the aggressor and the vetoed bill would have allowed the victim to be fully armed, yet in a discreet manner, even during those initial 48 hours,” he said. “Sadly, the governor’s veto will likely cost innocent lives.”
The bill passed by a vote of 63-31 in the house of delegates and 26-14 in the senate. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority in both houses.
“Victims of domestic abuse should be free to protect themselves with more than a piece of paper,” Catherine Mortensen, a spokesperson for the NRA’s lobbying arm, told the Beacon. “This bill would allow a victim of abuse who already has a protective order to immediately protect herself with a concealed firearm. Governor McAuliffe is siding with the gun control lobby that funds his campaign over victims of abuse who want more than a piece of paper to protect themselves.”
Bill would allow pit stops and overnight stays during travel with firearms
Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) introduced a bill to the Senate on March 14 that would institute new protections for gun owners who travel across state lines with their firearms.
The Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act, also introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R., Va.) to the House of Representatives in January, would expand and clarify the interstate firearm transportation rules instituted under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. Under that law, Americans are allowed to transport firearms from one state where they can legally possess them to another so long as certain requirements are met, such as the firearms being unloaded and locked in a container not easily accessible to passengers.
The new bill would expand those protections to include stops along the interstate trip and even overnight stays. It would also require that the state pay attorneys’ fees for individuals who successfully defend themselves in court under the bill. It would further allow those who are illegally detained for transporting firearms in accordance with the law to sue the jurisdiction that detained them for damages.
Gun rights advocates have complained about abuses of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act for years. In one often-cited case, Utah resident Greg Revell was thrown in jail for 10 days in 2005 after his flight was delayed causing him to miss his connecting flight and become stranded in New Jersey with his unloaded firearm. Though the charges against him were eventually dropped, police did not return his firearm until 2008. Revell took his case to the highest court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear his argument.
Hatch said the bill is intended to protect the gun rights of those who’ve been arrested or delayed while traveling between states with their firearms.
“This bill safeguards our Second Amendment rights by strengthening federal protections for responsible gun owners travelling across state lines,” Hatch said in a statement. “By amending the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, this commonsense proposal puts an end to the harassment of upstanding citizens who happen to stay overnight, fuel up, or stop for an emergency during their travels in another state.”
Rep. Griffith said changing the law is necessary to ensure that states don’t disregard federal gun rights protections.
“I believe it is important to defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding gun owners,” Griffith said in the same statement. “Current federal law or the Second Amendment of the Constitution should neither be misinterpreted nor ignored to prevent law-abiding, responsible gun owners from traveling throughout the country with firearms so long as they are in compliance with federal law while in transit.”
Gun rights proponents applauded the bill as an effort to push back on rogue jurisdictions that go after law-abiding gun owners from out of state.
“Too many jurisdictions have demonstrated a pattern of persecuting nonresident gun owners passing through their state,” Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon. “HR 538 will put an end to that persecution and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners traveling with legally owned firearms.”
Second state to do so this year, 14th overall
Republican governor Doug Burgum signed a bill legalizing permitless gun carry in North Dakota on Friday.
The bill allows anyone over the age of 21 who can otherwise possess a firearm to carry it concealed on their person without having to obtain a permit beforehand. It does require that anyone legally carrying a firearm also carry a valid ID and inform police that they are carrying if they are stopped. The state’s permitting process will remain in place for those who want to obtain one for carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements requiring a physical permit.
North Dakota’s new law comes on the heels of New Hampshire’s adoption of permitless carry in February. A dozen states have now passed some form of permitless carry in the last decade, 13 have adopted the policy since 2003. Including Vermont, which never restricted gun carry, there are now a total of 14 states that have passed some form of permitless carry.
Permitless carry, often called constitutional carry by proponents, remains the second most popular form of gun-carry policy in America. Eight states still have policies that allow government officials to deny citizens gun-carry permits regardless of whether they obtain the required training and pass a background check (currently the least popular policy). Another 28 states have policies requiring government officials to issue permits to citizens if they obtain the required training and pass a background check (currently the most popular policy).
The trend of states adopting permitless carry seems poised to continue in the coming years. The policy has been gaining favor among Republican lawmakers and gun-rights activists. Since Republicans control every branch of government in 25 states, many of which have not adopted permitless carry yet, activists are confident more states will soon be on board.
Gun-rights activists cheered the new North Dakota law as a step to leveling the playing field between the law-abiding and criminals.
“This new law gives North Dakota’s law-abiding citizens greater freedom to defend themselves and their families,” Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm, said in a statement. “Criminals carry guns, regardless of the laws. Permitless carry simply puts law-abiding gun owners on equal footing.
“This new law gives law-abiding North Dakotans greater flexibility to defend themselves, their homes, and their families.”
Often times, it is necessary to consider the full context of a situation. This is especially true when politics are involved. For example, there are those who say that Trump wants to start a nuclear war, despite only taking in small parts of his speeches and defining them as his entire motive. It should arrive as no great shock that the same outcome happens when only part of the Constitution is obeyed, too. We have freedom of speech for liberals, but not to the same extent for conservatives, as shown by the I.R.S. The Fourth Amendment is so flawed that it may as well be called the “Fourth Suggestion” at this point, and all of this takes a toll on the fabric of the nation.
If students were properly taught civics and the value of the Constitution, then many of these common woes would vanish in only a few years as students graduated. This is why so many people know that the Second Amendment guarantees the “right to bear arms,” while having no respect for what that right entails.
For this reason, Idaho lawmakers are taking a “new” approach to the matter by introducing a bill that would allow gun safety courses in public schools. Some will protest this by saying that guns during “Show and Tell” time isn’t a great idea, but this bill is meant to teach gun safety, not give everyone a gun. Unfortunately there are still people that make poor decisions with guns. Perhaps education won’t help that, but it will end errors and disrespect for the weapon as a whole, as intended.
The courses are to be elective, meaning that it shall be forced upon no one. The House Education Committee has agreed to look into HB 240. If it is given the green light it “would promote firearms safety classes developed by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, law enforcement agencies, or firearms associations for the state’s youth,” as reported by American Military News. While this may sound unreasonable to some, is it more unreasonable to suggest that because a child has not been told about marijuana that he/she won’t one day encounter it? Has that plan worked with sex education or teenage pregnancy?
“Even if kids don’t have guns in their home, there’s a significant chance they will encounter them in the homes of their friends or in other situations,” stated State Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg. He added that “Teaching them the proper dangers and cautions will help keep them and their friends safe. Many gun safety programs also teach about active shooter situations and what to do. This is valuable training for when and if such a horrible incident might occur in Idaho.”
The last part of his statement should really ring loudly in the ears of those who ask,”Why wasn’t something done?” every time that an active shooter arrives in a situation and slaughters innocents. Sure, we don’t want our schools to be the Hollywood wild west, but we have tried so many other things that have not worked. Perhaps we should try what did work and prevented such things in times past.
That solution was an armed population that knew how to use a weapon. Do the people of Idaho really think that someone is going to go on a shooting rampage with a school gun? If not, then there will be no difference since there are guns outside of school anyhow. If the intent is there to harm, gun education for others is not going to help nor hinder the would-be killer.
Funding obligations, it is reported, would not be needed nor would the classes be mandatory in any way. This makes it very similar to the bill that is also floating around Louisiana. It makes perfect sense, too. Just look at sex education as an analogy. Kids see sex on every station and in every song lyric. It may not be such a wise idea, but are we going to stop Madonna videos? The answer is no.
How would that be done? We teach our children to respect sex, instead. While many ignore the warnings, both teen pregnancy and infections of certain diseases that are helped by condom protection (some are not) often go down with education. While this education is best done in the home, having it done by someone is imperative, debate notwithstanding, since parents can usually opt their kids out of that, as well.
Like sex, guns are going to be found in the world, even if one aims to avoid them. If there is any doubt to this, how many reading these words remember the first time that they saw a gun that was not on an officer or a soldier? Now if that is taken one step further, while not as common, how many have handled that gun or one soon after? At that moment of honesty is where proper education would have been a better tool as that gun was held then had it not been given. There is simply no way that even a raging liberal with butch hair in “Hammer and Sickle” shirt can argue with that fact.
Children are curious people and it may come as an epiphany to some, but that carries well into young adulthood and beyond for most people. Nonsmokers try cigarettes, for instance, and no one dies. However, if that same curious nature finds a revolver in a child’s hand – and THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO SOME – someone could very easily have their lives ended. Beyond that, many homes own guns and should the child attempt to stop a robbery or an assault, if the child were to panic or use the firearm incorrectly, the outcome could be grim.
For these reasons and many others, there is no reason that can be given that can show how this bill could prove to be harmful. It may not change motives and it is not a theology class, but it may give pause to even someone meaning harm. If not, it tells others how to watch for such people and how to handle them, which is yet another boon.
Back in ammunition, that is. To great applause from congressmen representing states in the interior West, Zinke on Thursday – his very first day in office – signed an order reversing a last-minute Obama administration regulation that would have banned the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands.
The Obama order – designed to protect animals from poisoning via lead leaching into wildlife habitat – had enraged sportsmen, who noted that most ammunition contains lead and that lead-free bullets can be significantly more costly. Sportsmen and gun groups also say there is little scientific evidence that such small amounts of lead enter the eco-systems in quantities large enough to create significant harm.
Many environmentalists (naturally) beg to differ, and they cite their own statistics – as well as stories such as the one that ran in a Washington State TV newscast Thursday about a bald eagle that died from lead poisoning, presumably contracted by eating carcasses of animals killed with lead ammunition. The same story also said that humans, too, get lead poisoning the same way: “Children can also test positive for elevated lead levels in their blood when they eat meat from animals killed with lead ammunition.”
Public opinion in affected states seems to run heavily in favor of the sportsmen’s position, though, judging from the overwhelming reaction by elected officials who presumably reflect the majority will of their constituents.
The Congressional Western Caucus, for example released a statement that can only be described as exuberant, praising Zinke for reversing the order and thus allowing lead use to continue. Eight caucus members, including chairman Paul Gosar of Arizona and representatives from Utah, Texas, Missouri, California, Colorado and even Georgia joined the release – and Wyoming’s freshman representative Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, was among those who issued their own press statements of approval.
“Sportsmen and fishermen are some of our countries greatest conservationists,” said Congressman Jason Smith of Missouri. “This order [the one from Obama’s team, now reversed] only served to hinder them from participating in the recreational use of federal lands they’ve enjoyed for decades.”
The new directive that allows lead will actually be good for wildlife sustainability, added Chairman Gosar, because the efforts of sportsmen “help maintain healthy population levels of wildlife.”
Writing on Feb. 17 in The Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C, however, one Dr. Nathan Donley anticipated Secretary Zinke’s directive with consternation.
“Every year in the United States, over 4,000 tons of lead are shot into the environment by hunting, resulting in the poisoning deaths of an estimated 20 million birds and other animals,” wrote Donley, a senior scientist in the Center for Biological Diversity’s Environmental Health Program.
Besides, Donley said, alternative ammunition is not too great a burden: “Waterfowl hunters nationwide have successfully used lead-free ammunition for decades ever since lead shot was phased out in 1991. In 2015 alone over 1 million hunters harvested over 13 million waterfowl with non-toxic ammunition. And hunters have been successfully using copper rounds across large stretches of California since non-lead hunting ammunition requirements went into effect in 14 state counties seven years ago.”
Yet numerous organizations that try to strike constructive balance between environmental needs and sportsmen’s privileges, while dedicating themselves to species conservation, think those warnings are overblown. Among the groups that supported Secretary Zinke’s re-leading order were Ducks Unlimited and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Zinke’s order itself did not discuss the science, pro or con, but focused instead on the procedures used by the Obama administration to promulgate its anti-lead order the day before Obama left office: “After reviewing the order and the process by which it was promulgated, I have determined that the order is not mandated by any existing statutory or regulatory requirement and was issued without significant communication, consultation or coordination with affected stakeholders.”
At the event, Reuters reported that Zinke also offered another reason why the earlier order burdening sportsmen was a bad idea. He said that fishing, hunting, and other outdoor recreation activities “generate thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity.”