Nom de plume: Rivrdog

Table Art

A table centerpiece from the annual Lincoln Day Dinner of the Multnomah County, OR GOP. The gudwife is a member, I'm too conservative for them, but they DO have promise, as seen by their table art:

The straw-thingies are some sort of glowsticks, the toy gun seems to be modeled on a S&W Model 10 or maybe a Colt New Police.

We have some gun control issues coming up in the OR Legislature, so we'll soon see just how stiff the spine of the OR GOP is...

Oh well, at least the Pilsner glass will be useful...

Dueling Constitutions?

Each State has their own Constitution, and of course, we have the Federal Constitution.

What happens when the State and Federal Constitutions disagree?

In that case, a lawsuit is heard, at either the State level, if the matter is first brought there, or the Federal level, when the claim is that the Federal Constitution should take precedence.

In the case of legal issues (civil rights) that are directly referred to by the Bill of Rights, there is a doctrine involved (in Oregon, anyway) that, in the matter of civil liberties, no State law ar article of the State Constitution may be more restrictive of enumerated Rights than the Federal Constitution.

You see where this is going, right?

How the Hell can a State restrict the Right to Keep and Bear Arms more than the most current interpretation of the Federal Constitution does?

In Oregon, there have been numerous cases involving this Doctrine which centered around the First Amendment. In every one of those cases, any interpretations of Oregon's Constitution on Oregon's First Amendment have always come down on the side which interprets Oregon's First Amendment more liberally than Federal law does. The current case on point involved the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which closed a "gentlemen's club" in Salem, the State Capitol, when the business employed pole dancers under the age of 21. The titty-bar successfully argued the "No stricter than" doctrine, successfully argued that exotic dancing was a form of artistic expression, and women of 18 years were free to be artistic in public places.

It seems strange that I haven't heard of this Doctrine being applied in re: the 2A in States like NY, CN, MD, MA, IL.

Perhaps it is time for one of our brillant 2A barristers to generate a Federal lawsuit that those States (likely only a partial list) all violate the (no stricter than) Doctrine, and seek to have the SCOTUS invalidate their draconian gun laws.

The Doctrine is either there or it isn't, or so it seems to this non-lawyer.

A good offense always trumps a defense. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to jail Lefty (and a few righty) pols for enacting anti-gun legislation which exceed standards ordered under the Heller or McDonald cases?

How about it, 2A Law-dogs?

Event horizon change

The Event Horizon for efforts to retain the Second Amendment against the relentless efforts of the political left to emasculate or remove it has changed.

I know of no better example than brilliant gun writer Oleg Volk's blog.

Read the last (summary) paragraph in this post (the final sentence will suffice):

"The opium pipe dreams of the “restoration of the Republic” through another revolution are best left for those who don’t much value a connection to reality."

Now, fast forward almost 6 months to just a few days ago:

"We are at war with those who would disarm us. (Snip) Our chances of fighting back effectively diminish with every concession we make."

Yep, getting into a fight for your survival changes your event horizon. We're not in a shooting war just yet, but the chance that somewhere in the USA, a shooting war will soon break out is getting better by the day. I'm fairly sure that every day, POTUS Obama calmly re-evaluates his chances of removing the threat to his agenda that is the Second Amendment, and so far, he has doubled down against his Constitution at every evaluation of this fight's worth to him and the Left. I analyze the fight he's bringing to eliminate the Second Amendment as an indication of his plans, and the fight that defenders of the Constitution such as myself are bringing every day as an indication of our countervailing resolve. In no previous attack on the Second Amendment has the Left stayed in the fight this long, nor have they previously coalesced around the fierce determination they now demonstrate to end our enumerated freedoms and give their Leftist President a carte-blanche to convert the USA to a dictatorship of the Left.

The Left hasn't blinked, and it doesn't look likely that they will, because the attack is being carried not only by the Feds, but also by every Democratic Party operative in every Statehouse across the land. The particular objective common to the fight is to gut the Second by restricting the right to own and carry militia-capable weapons. That is the common thread of the Federal and State/local efforts by the Left.

What is the next "double-down tactic" when the Left gets stalled in the Congress? I have no doubt in my mind that some sort of event will "happen" that POTUS Obama will use as a lever to grant himself extraordinary, un-Constitutional power, and suspend the Bill of Rights, in total, or maybe just the First and Second Amendments during the "emergency".

My best guess for this "triggering event"? The North Koreans will shoot some missiles next week, and our forces will say that they appeared to be not tests, but hostile shots, and we will fire on their missiles, killing at least one of them. We will then be in a shooting war with the Norks, and the POTUS will declare himself a wartime prexy and present "evidence" of Nork "infiltration" of the USA, and list his suspension of the Bill of Rights. The aggression of the Norks will never affect the mainland USA, but the suspension of the Bill of Rights will happen anyway.

Speaking of 2A squishes...

1723 PDT, 2023 New Yawk time, Bill O'Reilly's program:

O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, "Doesn't it make sense to have gun registration?"

Rivrdog to O'Reilly:

1.  "Wouldn't it make sense, Mister O'Reilly, to note that no other Nation gives it's citizens continuing legal permission to remove a  tyrannical Government by force of arms, and this one Nation which does that HAS to insure that no laws exist which enable the Government to disarm the citizens?"

2.  Would you like an example of a country which disarmed it's citizens, then murdered them?

2a.  Nazi Germany, Bill O'Reilly. Think it can't happen here, O'Reilly? There's evidence that the NFA of 1968 was modeled DIRECTLY on Hitler's gun grab of the early 1930s, and what's more, that NFA 1968 was promulgated specifically to deny arms to black people, a racist purpose that Congress went along with and the President signed.

3.  Bill O'Reilly follows Vatican Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church is anti-gun, and O'Reilly is for whatever the Church is for. He wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, even when it conflicts with his Constitution, which he professes to support (but in the case of the 2A, doesn't). In his own mind, O'Reilly has established Catholicism as his State religion, giving it superiority over his own Constitution. O'Reilly is not just a 2A squish, he is a First Amendment squish as well, denying by his action the 1A's Establishment Clause.

Bill O'Reilly is a good example of why you have to have a strong Second Amendment: if you don't, every hosehead who comes along with "better" ideas has a free ride to uproot the Constitution.

Bill O'Reilly, for everything you've done good as a "Culture Warrior", you've erased it by denying the First and Second Amendments.

As we used to say in the USAF, "one ah-shit erases a whole folder full of attaboys".

 

B.A.M. Day

Okay then, just paid the taxes. Bought some gimme-gimme almost 1,000 40-oz beers or so...

Don't have enough left over to buy a decent gun, so I am declaring April 15th to be Buy Assault Magazines Day.

So, I bought some EEEVIL Glock hi-caps, and some EEVILLER rifle hi-caps (I only listed the Glock because it's already registered as it was my last duty weapon and cops always have to Register their duty and carry-off-duty guns).

So, if you can't afford to actually buy a gun for this B.A.G. Day, at least buy some EEVILL magazines. Each one you buy causes DiFi and Chuckie Schmuckie to lose a few more brain cells from implosion....

Here are the 2A squishes

...who have forgotten their oaths of office, or have been paid by some of the considerable anti-gun dollars floating around out there:

The WaPo list:

Republicans who voted with Democrats to proceed: 16
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.); Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.); Richard Burr (R-N.C.); Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.); Tom Coburn (R-Okla.); Susan Collins (R-Maine); Bob Corker (R-Tenn.); Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.); Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); Dean Heller (R-Nev.); John Hoeven (R-N.D.); Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.); Mark Kirk (R-Ill.); John McCain (R-Ariz.); Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.); Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

At least the WaPo published the names of the squishes. Every one of these "RINOs" just compromised the Bill of Rights.

Now, who is going to publish the amendments to the bill so we may determine if it is a pre-confiscation bill? WaPo wouldn't touch that, but they DID list the Senators who have a "A" rating from the NRA who voted to proceed to debate. All of those Senators either know or should have deduced that the (D)onks wouldn't be pushing for "Background checks" unless this provision would lead to Registration, which leads to confiscation, as I pointed out yesterday.

The worthless "A" list of the worthless NRA:

Senators with an A+, A or AQ rating from the National Rifle Association who voted to proceed to debate: 21.
Alexander (A); Ayotte (A); Max Baucus (D-Mont.) (A+); Burr (A+); Robert Casey (D-Pa.) (A); Corker (A); Chambliss (A+); Coburn (A+); Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) (A); Graham (A); Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) (A); Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) (AQ); Heller (A); Hoeven (A); Isakson (A); Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) (A); Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) (A); Jon Tester (D-Mont.); Toomey (A); Mark Warner (D-Va.) (A); Wicker (A+). (NOTE: An “AQ” rating means a candidate had no voting record at the time of the NRA scoring, but had generally said things in agreement with the group.)

The cat is out of the bag. Senator McConnell now needs to get in front of the cameras and tell his Party that the Bill will not proceed from debate to a vote unless it specifically forbids the Government, on penalty of  it's agents going to jail, the Government from compiling names or serial numbers, models, etc of gun owners or guns.

If that strong anti-compiling language is in there, I might even favor the backround check bill myself, because it forever takes away the "gun-show" canard from the antis, and that canard is one of their big weapons right now. There also needs to be language declaring the Bill automatically repealed if Federal law is ever passed that would facilitate compiling a Registration scheme, and language that holds enforcement of the law in abeyance until a fast instant check system is actually up and running.

This Bill could work for us, yes it could.

Advice to the NRA: shut down your "A" list. Just compile all the recent Federal gun legislation, and those who voted for it or against it. That's all we need from you, NRA. From here, it looks and smells as if you sell positioning on that "A" List to folks who don't deserve it.

The Pelosi School of Legislation

...sems to be the way the entire Democratic Party operates.

Pelosi, of course, got notorious for replying to a GOP legislator about the contents of the ObamaCare legislation, "You have to pass the bill to know what's in it", she said.

This has become the mantra again for gun control legislation, as JPFO notes.

I'll wager that the NRA knows what's in Senator Reid's Bill though. They have to have schmoozed the bones of the law out of Reid, but they aren't telling us, because they again believe that their schmoozing is more important than a few extra days to get opposition rolling against "the Bill that 90% of gun owners agree with" (if you believe this, I can sell you any one or several bridges in Portland).

Senator Mitch McConnell isn't fooled, though, and says he will force a cloture roll-call vote unless Reid lets the world see what is most likely his National Gun Registration Bill, laughingly called a "Background Check" Bill.

Anyone want to bet me that there is no provision in that Bill requiring the Feds to destroy records of background checks? That would be Registration, and while this Bill probably won't mandate Registration of previously-owned guns, you can bet that AFTER passing it, the Feds will say, "Oops, we goofed, we meant to say that ALL guns have to be Registered." Obama might even do that by Executive order. A companion Bill to do that will then be produced if Obama doesn't jump that shark, and the claim made that that was what Reid and his steamrolled Senators intended all along, so THAT Bill will have to be passed, too.

Australia, anyone?

The Government can't confiscate what it can't identify, so as long as Registration is defeated in ALL of it's forms, the Second Amendment lives on. The minute any form of Registration becomes the law of the land on the Federal books, though, you can stick a fork in the 2A, it's done. The only thing that could save the Second and the entire Constitution after that would be to actually USE the Second Amendment for it's intended purpose.

It's really this simple, folks: Reid's Bill is defeated or modified to preclude ANY form of retaining background check info (with jail time for any Government official violating the don't-keep-data provision), or we have to use the Second Amendment.

Take your choice. Do you want to let your Senators know of your opposition to Reid's Bill, or do you want to join a militia to remove the Government? For a few days, you have that choice.

For just a few days.

Gun confiscation begins in New York State

...it says here.

When I warned Veterans about PTSD and gun rights being terminated, I wasn't far off. The dot.mil offers any troop who claims disability for PTSD these psychoactive drugs.

In New York State, those taking the drugs are now being physically stripped of their legally registered firearms, along with  "accessories" - I guess they get the holsters, too. It's all "executive action", there's no due process involved.

I expect that armed resistance in favor of the Bill of Rights will start any day now, and Obama will pull out his plan to disarm the entire country. We'll see who blinks first at that point.

Where is the brave NY US Attorney who can empanel a Grand Jury, and indict Governor Cuomo? There are plenty of brave Sheriffs and their Deputies who will serve the arrest warrant. This won't stop until some politicians are in jail for denial of civil rights under color of law*.

H/T - There will be no more Hat Tips on this subject unless I have explicit permission to reveal my source. Sorry attribution fans, I am not going to make it easy for Gauleiter Napolitano.

##############################################################################

* 18 USC 242-245

The police are your enemy?

...contrary to what the Left would have you believe, law enforcement is firmly on the side of our Constitution, as they have sworn to be.

Via Uncle, this interesting survey of law enforcement professionals who have to prove their actual police status to join this group which surveyed their members.

Quoting from the survey summary:

• 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime
• 71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions
• 91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable
• 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains.
• 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety.
• 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents

Several "truths" that are promoted by Bloomberg* and his ilk are directly refuted by this survey:

1. "Cops all want less guns in the community, especially semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity pistols" This is a lie, a direct lie.
2. "Real police leaders are all in favor of gun control" Another direct lie. Since the survey is done within a police-only organization composed of all ranks of cops, and nearly 3/4 of the responding officers support those police leaders who Just Say No to anti-2A laws, we can put this frequent mantra of both Bloomie and the POTUS to the lie. Every time you see an anti-gun pol standing for a photo-op with a bunch of ranking police officials, that pol(s) are doing a deliberate distortion, and those cops are in a very small minority of LEOs.
3. "Cops just want you to let them control crime, they don't need your armed help". A very insidious lie. Several of the above points in the survey (as I listed them, the first, second and last) address this canard of Bloomie's, and all those points give it the status of a lie.

I found another excellent article on refuting Bloomberg's and the Left's gun control ravings. Forbes Magazine is one of the best business magazines out there, and the ten points which their article lists to refute Bloomie speak for themselves.

You have to ask yourself, as I have been asking from the start, just why do these lefties all want to restrict the Second Amendment?

As I have told you before, but now with added proof, "Gun Control" is not about controlling guns, it is about controlling Gun Owners, about nullifying the very intent of the Second Amendment, which granted the status of a Permanent Civil Right to those seeking arms to form Militias to act as a check on the power of our Central Government..

When are we, the Unorganized Militia duly authorized, going to hold our Governments responsible for directly attempting to subvert our Constitution?

We need to think about our duty and responsibility to our Constitution, for if we do not take steps to defend and uphold it, it will soon be gone.

It's tempting to write and promulgate Amendments to the Constitution for purposes of restricting the National Debt and other worthy causes, but in MY humble opinion, the next (28th) Amendment should deny all criminal immunity for any politicians who want to remove any of our enumerated Civil Rights as written in the Bill of Rights. This Amendment needs to provide for immediate removal from public office, any elected or appointed official other than a Judge of the Supreme Court, who proposes or advocates for any restriction of the Constitution and it's amendments as originally promulgated and adopted by the several States in 1787. The new Amendment should leave open the possibility of a Constitutional Convention calling for a NEW Constitution, but unless the politician or Administrator's proposals lead directly to such a Constitutional Convention (without advocating for the denial of the present Constitution), their proposals to alter the present Constitution must be considered treasonable.

Our Constitution is presently under attack by those who have assumed that they have the right to advocate for it's destruction, in whole or in part. There.Is.No.Such.Right., nor has such a right ever existed. The First Amendment gives us the right to air our opinions, but when those opinions begin to sound like they are proposals for reducing the Constitution's basic enumerated Rights, the right to make those utterances, to propose those laws, simply does not exist. When those utterances and proposed laws become the focus of a political party or a political Administration, both of those groups have exceeded their Constitutional authority, and it is then up to the 2A-authorized Militia to take appropriate action to protect our Constitution.

Yes, it is really supposed to work that way. The Founders actually imagined that a Federal Government might have to be removed to restore the Constitution, and those musings led to the Second Amendment being written as a shield for the Constitution. You may read, in the Federalist Papers, Federalist # 28 and 29 by Alexander Hamilton and #46 by James Madison, just why these Founders believed the Second Amendment to be so important to our very survival as a Nation of free people.

############################################################################

* Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, possesses huge wealth, and uses it to try to destroy several Constitutionally-guananteed freedoms, notably the freedom to Keep and Bear arms. It occurs to this writer that we have Federal laws to seize the funds that terrorists use to make war upon this Nation and it's Constitution, so why haven't Bloomberg's funds been seized?

What gun...

For a Chicago "rob-mob" of 500 felons?

I propose a Savage 10/110, in 338 Lapua Magnum, with a decent Nightforce optic.

You see, if you are going to use a gun to solve this problem, you may only need one shot - that being to eliminate whatever Chicago politician enables the rob-mob to organize and rob with impunity. When that crime-enabler is out of business, there is hope that the one taking his/her place will not be so tolerant of this sort of criminal behavior.

You are NOT going to be able to protect yourself when the density of criminals is 500/mile. Your survival in that case is to not be there. The City's survival is to get rid of those who enable this behavior with stupid City policy.

This action of the "rob-mob" was organized armed insurrection. Where was the Chicago PD the National Guard the citizen's militia to prevent this?