Category Archives: Constitution

Colorado governor signs law that gives state’s electoral votes to national popular vote winner

Over two years later, butt hurt from Hillary’s loss still alive and well.

From MSN (via CNN): Colorado could be part of voting history next general election day, joining 11 other states looking to ensure that their electoral college votes echo the will of the American majority to elect the next president.

Gov. Jared Polis (demorat) signed a law Friday that would allot the state’s electoral college votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote. The Washington Post previously reported the law’s signing.

The trend comes as Americans have shown greater support in recent years for a more democratic presidential election process, without the translational risks of the electoral college. But the daunting requirement of changing the Constitution, where the electoral college is formally codified, has posed a challenge to both public and political support for the issue.

The state’s legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado’s votes raise the current total to 181 electors. Most states have winner-take-all laws in place dictating that their electors go towards whichever candidate takes the state’s popular majority, while Maine and Nebraska opt to proportionally split their electors based on the vote.

The eleven other states that have signed on — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state — as well as the District of Columbia and now Colorado, make up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. New Mexico, which has five electoral votes, sent a bill to the governor’s desk to elect the president by popular vote and may soon join the group as well.

And the electoral college had been contentious not long ago. In 2016, President Donald Trump won the presidential vote with 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. But Clinton won the popular vote, garnering 48.5% of the vote to Trump’s 46.4%.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules

March 14, 2019

The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that the families of those killed in the Dec. 14, 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., would be allowed to sue Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 used in the attack. In a 4-3 decision, the court reversed a ruling of the lower court, Bridgeport Superior Court, which originally dismissed a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington in 2015.

The lower court’s 2015 ruling rested on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The law protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. A one vote majority of the Connecticut Supreme Court, however, ruled that PLCAA did not shield Remington (and by extension all gun manufacturers and dealers) from being sued.

According to the Hartford Courant, the justices contend that the victims’ families are permitted to argue Remington’s alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA)’

“We further conclude that PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote. “Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.”

“Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of [the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers.” Justice Palmer added.

“Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations,” Palmer concluded.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, “does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.” While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, “Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

The families’ original lawsuit filed against Remington in 2015, alleged that the company manufactured and marketed a military weapon that ended up in the hands of a civilian.

Bridgeport Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit in 2016, declaring that it “falls squarely within the broad immunity” provided under the PLCAA.

“There is no need for a legal re-examination of the law,” said James Vogts, Remington’s attorney at the time. “Under the law, the manufacturer of the gun used by the criminal that day isn’t responsible legally for his actions.”

Some legal analysts now however say Remington might be held liable under the “negligent entrustment” exception in the law, which defines the “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

Major liberal me outlets, most notably The New York Times, seem positively giddy over the prospect of suing America’s firearms manufacturers out of business.

Times reporters Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey called today’s Connecticut court ruling a “major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

They continued, “The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating a potential opening to bring claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, which made the rifle, liable for the attack.

The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law.

Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

A Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2016, agreeing with lawyers for Remington that the case falls within the “broad immunity” gun manufacturers and sellers are afforded under the PLCAA. The state Supreme Court decision, however, paves the way for the suit to continue and for lawyers to access internal documents from the firearms companies.

Lawyers for the gunmaker argued that there was no way for Remington to assess the shooter, and therefore no way they could have known what the gun would be used for.

According to the Times, the lawsuit was originally filed in 2014 by nine families of the victims and a teacher who was injured in the shooting. It names gun manufacturers and distributors Bushmaster, Remington, Camfour Holdings LLP, as well as Riverview Gun Sales Inc., the gun shop where the shooter’s mother purchased the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, and the store’s owner.

Remington Arms filed for bankruptcy in March of 2018, which effectively stalled the lawsuit. In May 2018, the company announced that it had emerged from bankruptcy.

“The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby,” the Times said. “And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.”

Edify this morning called the ruling a “high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountability. . . An eventual ruling against Remington could establish legal precedent, opening doors for more lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and expose the company’s communications about its marketing plans.”

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action outlines the issue as follows:

On October 26, 2005, President Bush signed S. 397, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” Introduced by Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Max Baucus (D-MT), this legislation is a vitally important first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby`s shameless attempts to bankrupt the American firearms industry through reckless lawsuits. Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced similar legislation, H.R. 800 in the House of Representatives.

•These suits are intended to drive gunmakers out of business by holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who are totally beyond their control. Suing the firearms industry for street crime is like suing General Motors for criminal acts involving Buicks.

•These lawsuits seek a broad range of remedies relating to product design and marketing. Their demands, if granted, would create major restrictions on interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition, including unwanted design changes, burdensome sales policies, and higher costs for consumers. While the suits are unwarranted, the firearms industry has had to spend over $200 million in defense.

•Congress has the power-and the duty-to prevent activists from abusing the courts to destroy interstate commerce.

•The bill provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or unlawful use of the product by a third party. Existing lawsuits must be dismissed.

S. 397 provides carefully tailored protections for legitimate suits:

•The bills expressly allow suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment (such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person) or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

•The Congress has often passed limitations on liability for specific groups, including light aircraft manufacturers, food donors, corporations affected by “Y2K” computer problems, charitable volunteers, health officials, medical implant manufacturers, and makers of anti-terrorism technology.
These lawsuits usurp the authority of the Congress and of state legislators, in a desperate attempt to enact restrictions that have been widely rejected. Thirty-four states have also enacted statutes blocking this type of litigation.

~ Grif
Molon Labe

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Squatter tries to ambush Washington state father in his garage; man comes prepared with a firearm to fight knives

This was more than just a random attack. This was a “squatter” hiding in a man’s garage – with knives and a hammer – planning to ambush the property owner.

This is why you need the Second Amendment.

From KIRO 7 News: A Lake Stevens father said he was forced to fight off an armed intruder he and his son found hiding in their garage Friday. The evidence he found in the aftermath made him believe that man may have been looking to ambush him.

Now the intruder is in custody, but that Lake Stevens dad says he found nearly a dozen weapons strategically placed throughout his garage.

Shane McDaniel owns Norm’s Market — a minimart and keg-and-bottle shop in Lake Stevens. He said he came to check on the garage and workshop with his adult son, because his mother called and said someone had been working in the yard and garage all day Friday. She thought it might’ve been an employee, but said the man kept looking over at her and seemed suspicious.

Outside the garage, the intruder had pulled together many large slabs of wood – McDaniel said, apparently trying to form some kind of barricade.

But when he, his son and his son’s friend walked inside, that’s when the real trouble started and the intruder attacked. “It’s really a bizarre scene. And the scary thing is somebody could be that comfortable, and set up an ambush point in your own garage,” McDaniel said.

He said when they walked in, the door was open. “He was hiding behind the door here and then he had another knife over here,” McDaniel said. He said the suspect kept reaching inside his coat and appeared to be reaching for a gun. “He tosses the knife down with this one and he continues to reach so I fired the warning shot off to the side,” McDaniel said.

He said the suspect didn’t give up. “Then he just goes into full combat fight, he’s going to fight all of us,” McDaniel said.

He said they got into a fight but he and his son were able to pin down the suspect.

McDaniel said at least a dozen law enforcement units arrived and ended up arresting the intruder. They also questioned McDaniel about the gunshots he fired.

Only after the arrest did McDaniel and his family notice everything the intruder did while inside his garage – and all the weapons strategically placed around workshop.

He had a machete here that he brought with him,” McDaniel said. “He had a claw hammer. These are all his knives, he’s got a knife here, another one here,” he said pointing to all the knives.

McDaniel said they use the garage and workshop to refurbish wheelchairs and electric scooters they donate to people in need. Those wheelchairs – about seven or eight of them – were all arranged in a sort of circle and many of the knives were sitting on the chairs. “There is no way you’d have seen all knives stationed all around, machetes hammers axes. He made an ambush trap,” McDaniel said.

On one of the chairs, McDaniel said the suspect also left a syringe. “He’s probably sitting in here paranoid out of his mind, so he’s got these weapons and he’s ready for combat,” McDaniel said.

There were also beams with nails sticking out at the end, wires attached to the ceiling, a fort-type structure with car jumper cables attached to it, and a bong left behind by the intruder.

McDaniel believes the suspect camped out in the garage for at least a day or two. He said the suspect even changed the lock to this door and wrote his last name – Simpson – on the outside of the door, making himself at home.

“Do you think things would’ve turned out differently if you didn’t have your firearm?” KIRO7’s Deedee Sun asked. “Oh I think definitely, he’s got this place laden with weapons. So I think that would’ve been a good way to get stabbed,” McDaniel said.

The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office hasn’t confirmed the identity of the suspect yet, but it appears he has been booked into the Snohomish County jail.

McDaniel said he’s just glad his mother noticed something strange going on and the intruder wasn’t able to ambush someone defenseless.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Anti-gun activist threatens to shoot GOP senator & the NRA

Yesterday, the State of Connecticut Judiciary Committee conducted a public hearing in Hartford to discuss tougher gun laws following the accidental shooting death of a teenage boy. Ethan Song, 15, accidentally shot himself with a gun belonging to his friend’s father.

As reported by the Daily Caller, a variety of gun control measures were discussed, including:

  • Safe storage of fire arms in the home.
  • A measure requiring anyone open-carrying a firearm to produce a permit if asked by police.
  • A move to regulate “ghost guns” or 3-D printed firearms and components.
  • A bill prohibiting cities and towns to enact their own firearms laws

Blind to her hypocrisy and the irony of the situation, an anti-gun activist threatened to shoot the place up and had to be removed from the hearing.

As reported by WTNH News8’s chief political correspondent Mark Davis in a tweet:

Woman expelled from gun hearing after being seen sending this text about a state lawmaker.

The woman’s text message reads:

If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA.

Republican Connecticut State Senator Rob Sampson is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and defender of the NRA (National Rifles Association).

Threatening government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law:

  • Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, and is investigated by the U.S. Secret Service.
  • Threatening other officials, such as State Senator Rob Sampson, is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, and is investigated by the FBI.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Kentucky sheriff warns citizens: ‘Lock your doors, load your guns, law enforcement will not exist’

Four days ago, on March 5, 2019, Hawaii became the first state in the “union” to openly call for Congress to repeal the Second Amendment.

As the Left’s gun-control drumbeats grow every louder and more insistent, a Kentucky sheriff’s shocking words are a timely warning to Americans of the critical importance of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

John Kirk, 50, is the sheriff of Martin County, a hardscrabble Appalachian community in Kentucky.

The county is one of a swath of rural mountain communities struggling to maintain essential public services as coal mines shutter, leaving them with dwindling jobs, residents and taxes. In the last decade, Martin County’s population has dropped from about 13,000 to 11,500 as the number of workers employed by coal companies fell from 866 to 57. The county’s per capita income is $14,900; more than a third of residents live below the poverty line.

On February 4, 2019, the Martin County Fiscal Court approved the sheriff’s budget of $140,000. But the county doesn’t have the money because of $1.4 million in debt inherited from the previous administration. “I don’t sleep well,” said Susan Hale, the county’s new treasurer, who is sifting through the bills left by the previous administration, including $230,000 to a regional jail that houses the county’s inmates, $140,000 to a state association that provides liability insurance, plus dribs and drabs for mundane items such as office supplies and toilet paper.

Roger Preece, 57, a county magistrate who took office at the beginning of this year, said: “We love our sheriff, but we just ain’t got the money. If you ain’t got it, you ain’t got it.”

Although the county sheriff’s department is budgeted for $140,000, Sheriff Kirk had not received a $75,000 payment from the fiscal court — half the annual amount promised by the previous administration for fiscal 2018 — which should have been delivered in January. In addition, the department is now required to pay for its own workers’ compensation insurance, retirement, and social security benefits. Those obligations, along with unemployment insurance and fringe benefits, add an additional $99,000 to the department’s annual expenditures.

As a result, Kirk announced he has temporarily ceased all law enforcement services provided by his office. The department’s office hours are reduced to 8 a.m. through noon on weekdays. Kirk laid off the office bookkeeper and reduced the staff to only himself; a deputy, Aaron Blevins; an office manager; a court security officer; and two bailiffs — for a county of 231 sq. miles. Kirk’s wife, Regina, manages payroll and files financial reports for the office free of charge in the evenings and on weekends.

In a post on his personal Facebook page, Sheriff Kirk delivered a grim warning to residents of Martin County:

“The state police will have to answer all complaints . . . as there are only two of us. Law enforcement as we have known for the last four years will not exist. I’m very sorry to tell you this but I want the fine folks of this county to know the truth. WE ARE BROKE… LOCK YOUR DOORS, LOAD YOUR GUNS AND GET YOU A BARKING, BITING DOG. If the Sheriff’s office can’t protect you, WHO WILL?

We didn’t get this broke overnight and we won’t rebound overnight. Pray that the Lord will lead us and guide us through this terrible time . . . . I have worked 16 to 18 hours a day myself to try to serve you, But I too must sleep a few hours. The law requires the Sheriff to collect taxes, Bailiff court and serve papers. We have always provided police protection but without the funding we can no longer do this. I’m very sorry and I apologize to the employees and to the citizens of our county. I am truly sorry.”

Kirk has felt shorthanded for much of his four years as sheriff. He has rationed gas, cut back on patrols, and stopped providing security at ballgames. At times, his deputies have worn uniforms with holes in them and driven cruisers with tires worn through to the steel belts.

The sheriff is not the only public servant feeling the pinch:

  • Key county roads are rife with potholes.
  • The road and bridges department tries to make do with rusty excavators, dump trucks and salt trucks.
  • The county’s only grader languishes in a parking lot, in pieces, because the county cannot afford the $10,000 to fix it.
  • Water pipes across the county are crumbling, causing the district to lose more than two-thirds of treated water to leaks and allowing untreated groundwater to seep into the water supply. Many residents limit their use of tap water to flushing toilets; most buy bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Many locals blame former county officials for being slow to react to the sharp drop in tax revenue and exacerbating the problems with poor financial decisions, such as a 25-year loan in 2013 to erect a massive government building that requires a monthly payment of $55,000.

While coal’s steep decline is largely a result of less expensive natural gas, many residents are critical of the Obama administration for imposing federal regulations on coal-fired power plants in an effort to cut pollution and move toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar power. County treasurer Susan Hale said: “Our entire economy was decimated by federal policies. Now we have to live with it.”

Some elected officials who represent the region are calling on the state and federal government to deliver more assistance. State Rep. Chris Harris, a Democrat who represents Martin and neighboring Pike County, said: “These communities fueled the industrial revolution and powered our country through two world wars, but now they’re struggling, there doesn’t appear to be any help on the horizon. If the nation is going to put regulations on our only industry, to make it impossible or unprofitable, shouldn’t it also offer new opportunities?”

As news of the sheriff’s financial strain has spread, Kirk has received some help:

  • A small band of volunteer deputies — many retirees — acts as back-up in the evenings and offers court security.
  • The Kentucky State Police, which has eight troopers assigned to an area that includes Martin and several other counties, picks up some of the slack by taking emergency phone calls that the sheriff cannot handle.
  • Residents have also pitched in: a gas station owner donated $1,000 to fill up police SUVs and cruisers; a church raised $500; people donated paper for the office copy machine; a man handed Sheriff Kirk a $20 bill and said: “Here. I want to help you.” Kirk said: “Man, I don’t want your money. That’s why we pay taxes!” The man threw the bill in Kirk’s lap and walked away.

Sources: WCHS ABC8; Lexington Herald-Leader; Los Angeles Times

Michael T. Snyder of TMIN observes:

As economic conditions continue to deteriorate, we are going to hear a lot more stories like this all over the country.

And the truth is that things will ultimately be far worse in our major cities than in our rural areas.

Just take a look at Chicago. Today it is a war zone, and the growing poverty in the city has fueled the rapid growth of criminal gangs.

According to a study conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago, approximately half of the city was considered to be “middle income” in 1970, but now that number has dropped to just 16 percent….

Right now, there are about 12,000 law enforcement officers and more than 100,000 gang members in the city of Chicago.

That means that the gang members outnumber the police by an almost 10 to 1 margin.

Things are not quite as bad in other major cities, but trouble is definitely brewing. For example, the murder rate in New York City is up 37 percent so far this year, and more gang members are moving in with each passing day.

Philadelphia has also seen the murder rate rise substantially…351 murders in 2018, up 43% since 2013, and the highest level since 2007….

If things are this bad already, what are things going to look like when economic conditions get really bad?….

If we are not able to reverse course as a nation, you may want to take Sheriff Kirk’s advice and “lock your doors, load your guns and get you a barking, biting dog”.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Hawaii asks Congress to repeal Second Amendment right to bear arms

On March 5, 2019, Hawaii became the first state in the “union” to ask the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to “clarify” the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, specically on whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right.

Five state senators, all Democrats (Stanley Chang, Karl Rhoads, Rosalyn Baker, Dru Mamo Kanuha, Laura Thielen), introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution SCR 42, which reads:

Urging the United states congress to propose and ADOPT a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear Arms.

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”; and

WHEREAS, this language has created considerable debate regarding the constitutional provision’s intended scope; and

WHEREAS, some believe that this constitutional provision creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States; and

WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional; and

WHEREAS, however, others contend that the prefatory language of “a well regulated militia” indicates that the framers of the United States Constitution intended only to restrict the United States Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense; and

WHEREAS, under this “collective rights theory”, the Second Amendment asserts that United States citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right; and

WHEREAS, these two interpretations of the Second Amendment have been considered and adopted by the United States Supreme Court; and

WHEREAS, in 1939, the United States Supreme Court adopted a collective rights approach under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) by determining that the United States Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934; and

WHEREAS, the Miller Court determined the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia; and

WHEREAS, the Court further held that the framers of the United States Constitution included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military; and

WHEREAS, the precedent established under United States v. Miller stood for nearly seventy years until the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue in 2008 under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); and

WHEREAS, the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the constitutionality of the District of Columbia handgun ban, which is a statute that stood for thirty-two years; and

WHEREAS, the Heller Court held that the Second Amendment established an individual right for United States citizens to possess firearms and struck down the District of Columbia handgun ban as a violation of that right; and

WHEREAS, the majority in Heller carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that United States citizens may possess firearms by claiming that law abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law abiding purpose; and

WHEREAS, thus, the United States Supreme Court has revitalized the discussion of whether the Second Amendment is a collective or individual constitutional right; and

WHEREAS, in light of the numerous tragic mass shootings at schools, work places, and public events, this body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, and the Governor.

H/t truckjunkie

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Oklahoma governor signs Constitutional Carry into law

For those opposed to this (local police are opposed.…that’s another story I may blog about at a later time), think about how many times you’ve seen criminals open carry.

I see many people open carry here in my town in OK: At the vet, Chick-fil-A, the local convenience store, Wal-Mart, PetCo, etc. I have never, ever, ever felt threatened by witnessing a person open carry.

I prefer to conceal carry because I’m a woman and don’t want to advertise the fact that I have guns. I don’t want some man following me and thinking he can 1) overpower me and 2) know of a home that has firearms to steal.

Yet women who choose to open carry now have a distinct advantage to practice their Constitutional right!

Thank you Governor Stitt for recognizing our Second Amendment right!

——————

From KTUL: Just three weeks from start to finish, the “Constitutional Carry” bill has a new nickname for the folks who pushed it through.

“Well, we should have probably renamed it the ‘Whiplash Bill,'” said Don Spencer, president of the Second Amendment Association. That’s cause the speed at which it traveled through the process was stunning. Predictions on what’s next?

“Gun sales will go up, also we’re already seeing the list for people wanting training going up because they know they don’t have to put a license through the state to carry the gun now,” said Spencer.

“Do I think that there will be some people going out and buying some new handguns? Maybe something smaller, lighter, easier to carry? Yeah, there will probably be for the next six to eight months an increase of especially conceal carry type handguns sold,” said Eric Fuson with Trails End Trading Company.

Meanwhile, a dire prediction from former TPD officer and gun control advocate Rex Berry. “More guns in more wrong hands means more gun tragedies means more fear means more guns sold,” said Berry. “One of the arguments is it’s not a gun, it’s a mental health issue. Take a look at what our state legislature or our US government has done to fund mental health. It’s a BS argument,” said Berry.

Spencer’s response to the critics? “Well to the critics I say this, if it wasn’t for the Second Amendment and us being able to exercise it, you would not have the protection of your First Amendment to be up here and make that criticism,” said Spencer.

And finally a reminder, that just because there’s less paperwork, doesn’t mean there’s less responsibility. “Just because there is no permit require to carry doesn’t mean there’s not liability for carrying a firearm, and you must know the laws that govern the use of force in the state of Oklahoma and where you cannot carry,” said Fuson.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Hollyweird hypocrites: Oscars have massive firearm protection for tonight

Security for me but not for thee…

TMZ reports that at tonight’s Oscars (which I won’t be watching) there will be a massive police presence protecting the Hollyweird elite. Many of those hypocrites rally against our Second Amendment rights.

From their report:

“Whatever money The Academy’s saving by bailing on a host this year is apparently being put to good use — beefing up security to ensure there’s not a terrorist attack or other act of violence … or Oscar hijinks.

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ … the Academy is plunking down close to $150,000 on around 190 additional uniformed police officers to patrol the 91st Academy Awards Sunday at Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre. We’re told cops will be stationed at posts all around the venue, and LAPD will utilize cameras, plain-clothed officers and help from the feds.

Our sources say another focus will be stopping trespassers and people trying to sneak into the show with false credentials — there’s a zero tolerance policy and anyone busted will be charged with trespassing.”

I hope their ratings suck again this year.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Georgia woman shoots at suspected home invader: “I got something for you”

From Fox News: A 79-year-old homeowner in Georgia reportedly fired off two shots during an attempted home invasion earlier this month.

The actions taken by the unidentified woman to ward off the intruder before responders could arrive at her residence on Feb. 12 were captured on her 911 call, ABC News reported Wednesday.

The woman was reportedly heard on the audio of the call, obtained by the outlet from Jackson County Emergency Services officials, confirming that someone “tried to get in the back door.”

In the midst of the alleged break-in, the woman shouted to the suspect, “I got something for you” before shooting a weapon, according to ABC News. She later reportedly fired off a second shot after the individual managed to get inside and up to another floor of her home.

“I’m waiting on ya. When you come down them stairs, I’m gonna blow your damn brains out. I’m waiting,” she shouted before taking the shot, according to ABC News.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s Office shared a Facebook news release on Feb. 13 and confirmed that during the encounter, the homeowner “fired two shots toward the direction of the suspect.”

“The homeowner heard someone trying to get in a window and went to her back door to look out, at which time a black male was standing there,” the sheriff’s office said. “The homeowner was armed and advised the suspect not to enter her house. A short time later, the homeowner heard glass break in the upstairs part of the residence.”

While authorities did not disclose the home owner’s age or identity, WXIA reported her to be 79 years-old. The sheriff’s office did not immediately return Fox News’ request for confirmation.

The suspect – who was identified as Hans E. Rogers – was apprehended by authorities and charged with home invasion and burglary, according to the news release.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Oregon demorat lawmakers want to lower the voting age to 16

Combine a left-leaning indoctrination curriculum with young skulls full of mush and you got yourself a whole lot of new democrat voters!

Funny how demorats only care so much about the future for kids AFTER they are born…

Oregon Live reports that demorat state Sen. Shemia Fagan claims that “younger” teens in Oregon should have a say in their future. Demorats in that state are pushing a bill that would amend Oregon’s constitution to lower the voting age in the state from 18 to 16. They hope to put it before voters in 2020.

From the Oregon Live report:

“Younger Oregonians should have “a chance to participate in the ballot — about decisions that affect their homes, their clean air, their future, their schools and, as we’ve seen, their very lives,” Democratic state Sen. Shemia Fagan said at a Monday press conference announcing the measure.

Teens are “begging us to take action to protect their future,” she added. OPB reported that she referenced the student activists from Parkland, Florida, who launched the “Never Again” movement in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at their high school.

Several Oregon student activists spoke at the press conference about why they deserved the right to vote before age 18. “We need to be able to take our work to the ballot and protect the policies we’re working so hard to pass,” South Salem High School senior Maria Torres said.

Pressing issues affecting young people have brought the voting age down before. It used to be 21 before the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1971, lowered it to 18. The amendment was fueled in part by teenagers facing the draft for the Vietnam War, which had become increasingly unpopular.

Congress had lowered the voting age in 1970 for state and federal offices, but Oregon objected to a lower minimum age being foisted on its state elections. It insisted the law was unconstitutional and won in the U.S. Supreme Court. This led to the successful push for the 26th amendment.

The newly introduced Oregon bill seeks to allow Oregonians starting at age 16 to vote in all elections, the Statesman-Journal reported, but such a law ultimately might only apply to state and local elections.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0