Firearms Friday: For Whom Are You Really Voting?

This is how we started the year... how will it look in four years? 

Well, the campaigns are now in full swing and it seems like every other commercial is sponsored by the Clinton campaign (or some associated group). There are also the various campaign spots from local politicians filling the screen as well but that is another topic for another day. Back to the national campaigns… so far I haven’t seen much regarding the qualifications of Hillary Clinton being ‘promoted’ in these advertisements rather they have been going out of their way to attack Donald Trump and some of his statements which have been clearly taken out of context.

Heck, even my wife has been disturbed by this trend. But this shouldn’t really be a surprised for those of us who have put some thought into the presidential race as there are no ‘qualifications’ or ‘accomplishments’ to be found in her record that would, in any way, support her candidacy. After all, an ad buy promoting Obamacare, Benghazi, and private servers wouldn’t really be part of a winning strategy. It is actually rather pathetic the lack of concise information present to support her rather than simply opposing Trump.

However, I digress. What I really want to bring to the fore is what is of utmost importance in this election cycle. It isn’t Obamacare or the economy. It isn’t race relations or military operations. It isn’t international relations or the national debt. While these are all important in their own right they are not of primary concern this time around. In fact, it really isn’t about who is occupying the White House. It’s about the Supreme Court not the Presidency!

In addition to the seat left vacant upon Antonin Scalia’s death this past February, there are likely to be three other appointments which need to be made by the next president. After all, there are currently three associate justices who are 78, 80, and 83 years old respectively. For those of you interested, below is a list of the current court with ages and by which president they were appointed:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), 61, George W. Bush

Anthony Kennedy, 80, Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas, 68, George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginzburg, 83, Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer, 78, Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito Jr, 66, George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor, 62, Barak Obama

Elena Kagan, 56, Barak Obama

The Supreme Court is the body that will determine the direction of this nation not the individual in the oval office. Whomever wins this election and takes office in January will determine the course of this country for the next generation not the next four or eight years. Personally, and I know I am not alone in this thinking, I would prefer a conservative court that upholds our rights (especially the second amendment), limits the power held by those in Washington, and, most importantly, support and defends the Constitution. It is scary to think about the possibility of a court where five of the justices where appointed by a Clinton and two more where appointed by Obama. That is a future that none of us can afford.  

Firearms Friday: We Need A Reminder

The past week has been an interesting one to say the least with regard to the protection of our rights. Following the defeat of four gun control measures proposed in the Senate as a knee jerk reaction to the mass murder that took place in Orlando, many democrats decided to stage a sit in. Leading this act of defiance was Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) who, if anything, did a great disservice to his own noble legacy. He was a leader in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s fighting for the equal rights of all Americans regardless of the color of their skin and now he is fighting equally hard to strip law abiding Americans, of all races, of their rights.

He would do well to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson who wrote in an early draft of the Virginia Constitution in 1776 that “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thankfully, this brief, misguided, and ineffectual action came to an end just as fast as it formed. However, that hasn’t stopped many politicians from continuing the debate and calling for the formation of an asinine utopia. A prime example can be found in the musings of Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who feels that members of congress need and deserve armed protection but that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to possess a firearm.   

Unfortunately, there are many in this country that have bought into this falsehood that only certain people should be able to possess firearms namely the military and law enforcement. Of course, those same people are filling our streets with manufactured outrage whenever a member of law enforcement is involved in a shooting. These are the same people that troll the internet and leave comments along the lines of “the founding fathers never intended for the second amendment to apply to modern firearms… they couldn’t have anticipated “high capacity magazines” and assault rifles [they really mean semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15]… they only had muskets.”

Well, that is one stinky pile that they have stepped in. The simple fact is that the founding fathers were well informed as to what the present had to offer and what the future might entail. To this point, many people have responded to the aforementioned types of comments referencing the Puckle gun as one of the developments of the time. However, while the revolver like mechanism speaks to the innovation of the time, it doesn’t combat the tainted perspectives on display. For that you actually have to look further back in history to the Kalthoff repeater which saw action with the Royal Foot Guards of Denmark in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658-59) and the Scanian War. While not prevalent, the magazine fed (up to 30 rounds) firearm had a rate of fire unmatched until the mid-nineteenth century. This firearm was a legend by the time the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and it is certain that they were aware of the technology.

Others politician in this current environment, like Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), look to try and please both sides by introducing legislation that would do nothing more than muddy the waters and create a system as flawed as the individuals running it. All that it would cost us is a little bit of our freedom. Well, as Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania in 1759, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I’m not giving up my rights for the false sense of security that would be gained by the weak minded. Additionally, those who introduce such measures are walking a very dangerous line especially in Pennsylvania where it is written in our constitution (Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21) that “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” 

Sometimes we just need to remind people of these facts rather than allowing the propaganda to flow, unmolested, throughout the media. Right now, we face a serious crisis. It is not about what we own it is about the mentality of the people. It is about the the willingness to overlook the acts and intentions of the individual in order to assign blame to an inanimate object. It is about the willingness of some to give up essential freedoms for the empty promises of security. And, most importantly, it is about the paralyzing plague in this county that is mental illness and our unwillingness to do something about that problem. That is really what has to change.

Firearms Friday: Knowing Where And How To Travel

Traveling can sometimes come with a whole host of issues… at least for those of us that have a concealed carry permit or just enjoying going to the range every now and again. Even traveling within your home state can be problematic if you find yourself venturing into urban areas. This is why it is important to know the laws and regulations of the place to which you are traveling.

When I am traveling within the Commonwealth, I know that there are certain areas where the legal concealed carry of a firearm will bring undue attention, and attempts at legal action, from residents and local authorities. While an uncomfortable predicament in certain areas, I do abide by the regulations outlines in those more densely populated areas. Further, even when in a firearms friendly part of the state, I do pay close attention to the signage posted by proprietors. After all, they have a right to ban firearms from their establishment and I have the right to not give them my business.

For those who have a concealed carry permit that are traveling beyond the borders of your home state, the first step is to find out which states will honor your rights. For me, the states that will honor (through reciprocity agreements) my Pennsylvania concealed carry permit are as follows:

• Alaska
• Arizona          
• Arkansas        
• Colorado        
• Florida
• Georgia          
• Idaho  
• Indiana           
• Iowa   
• Kansas
• Kentucky       
• Louisiana        
• Maine 
• Michigan        
• Mississippi      
• Missouri         
• Montana         
• New Hampshire         
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Dakota 
• Tennessee       
• Texas  
• Utah   
• Vermont         
• Virginia          
• West Virginia 
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

It is a surprisingly extensive list given the “Shall Issue” status that Pennsylvanians enjoy in this current political climate… it goes to show the authority that a State Constitution should have in granting rights to citizens. What is not surprising is the fact that many adjoining states will not recognize my right to carry (i.e. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) so when planning my travel I must take the appropriate steps to make sure that I am not in violation of the laws in those states. Of course, I try to limit my exposure to such intolerant climates.

And that is the most important thing to remember when traveling and being a supporter of the second amendment in general. While we are members of the majority in this country, there are many that will insist on relegating us to the role of second class citizens. They would prefer to segregate us from the rest of the entitled population and attach derogatory labels and unfounded allegations on us in an attempt to promote their intolerant message in the hope to strip us of our rights.

Well, that isn’t going to work as we are law abiding citizens that promote and the defend the rights of all people and want nothing more than to prevent violence rather than incite it as the anti-gun movement has done for years. However, those motives speak to the importance for us to be diligent in our observation of state and local laws. The last thing we want is to give them the ammunition because while they may oppose our rights, they will shoot you every chance that they get.  

Firearms Friday: Justice Scalia

A couple of weeks ago we lost a tremendous intellect on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away. While there have been many who have criticized his views over the years, including in the firearms community, there is no questioning the passion that he had for the Constitution and for the true intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. In fact, there were times when he himself didn’t completely agree with his own decision but reached the conclusion that he did because it was the right decision. As he has been quoted as saying, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Surprisingly, one of the more balanced ‘obituaries’ written shortly after his death can be attributed to Mark Sherman at the Associated Press who rightly focused on Scalia’s commitment to textualism. In part, he writes:

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

Unfortunately, his passing leaves a gaping hole in the highest court in the land. Not because he sided primarily with one party or another but because he was an originalist. There is too much ‘selective interpretation’ in politics and in the courts today and having someone relying solely on the text is a tremendous grounding asset that has been taken for granted for too long. Additionally, the passion that he freely expressed for our founding document is something that was evident in the eloquence of his majority opinions but especially in his dissenting opinions.

It is a shame that the two things that have been talked about most since his passing is the lack of respect by the President in not attending his funeral (but he took the time to meet with the ‘death to the police’ Black Lives Matter organizers) and the ongoing debate surrounding the nomination of a replacement. Here is a revolutionary idea, why don’t we honor his memory by nominating someone who views our Constitution in the same unbiased way making decisions based on the text rather than the social flavor of the month. No politics, just focusing on the text. I’m not even asking for nine, I just want to see one Justice on the Supreme Court who takes their oath literally.

Firearms Friday: A Tale Of Two States

The laws that have been proposed, speeches given, and legislation that has been passed over the past few years is troubling to say the least and unconstitutional at worst. While we have been able to fight and defeat many of these bogus promises of safety, there are a few that managed to get on the books and have been restricting the rights of second amendment practitioners ever since. One of the more egregious and confusing laws which was brought to my attention recently is one that comes from, don’t be shocked, California.

A number of years ago (effective January 1, 2001), legislators in the Fool’s Gold state enacted PC 12131 which established the “Safe Handgun Roster.” While sold to the public as a means to limit the sale of unsafe firearms in the communist bloc, the reality of the legislation is that it was a means to shake down the firearms industry by imposing unnecessary testing and exorbitant fees on an annual basis. No wonder why Leland Yee turned to the black market!

The definitions of those firearms that meet the criteria to get on this list was then expanded upon in 2007 as “legislators passed AB 1471 which mandated that all semi-automatic pistols must employ microstamping technology.” What this now means is previous generations of firearms are safely housed on this arbitrary list while new generations are considered un-safe. A perfect example of this is the cluster that one law enforcement finds themselves in as they attempt to transition to the 4th generation Glock 19 as their service weapon. According to the Attorney General, the office of which previously exempt law enforcement from selecting from the list, they are a generation too late and therefore cannot use their newly purchased roster of service side arms.

There is a much more comprehensive blog post on Full30 at the following link, which was referenced for much of the material above, if you would like to read more about this SNAFU: https://blog.full30.com/ca-gun-law-stupidity-knows-no-bounds/.

However, not all the news recently makes you want to slam your head against the wall repeatedly. Come to think of it that might make that a semi-automatic assault wall which would also be illegal in California. It also used to be illegal in Maryland until the good news was handed down by the Maryland 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. The case challenged the 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute which bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.”

Some of the important highlights which were reported in the Washington Post include:

In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler [appointed by President Clinton in 1998], the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

Why the arms are part of the Second Amendment

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “common” and “standard.” There are more than 75 million of them in the United States. Indeed, “most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to 17 rounds.” In fact, “Virtually every federal court to have addressed this question” has found that magazines over 10 rounds are in “common use,” and thus are covered by the Second Amendment.

Why strict scrutiny is appropriate

First, because the prohibition “burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.”

Second, because the burden is substantial, “not merely incidental.” For example, the statute imposes “a complete ban” on “AR-15 style rifles—the most popular class of centerfire semi-automatic rifles in the United States.” Notably, the ban “also reaches every instance where an AR-15 platform semi-automatic rifle or LCM [large capacity magazine] might be preferable to handguns or bolt-action rifles–for example hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive marksmanship events, all of which are lawful purposes protected by the Constitution.”

Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and changing magazines while under violent attack may not be possible.

A statute that “completely prohibits, not just regulates, an entire category of weaponry . . . might be ‘equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.'” (Quoting D.C. Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case.) The extensive prohibition is “akin to a law that ‘foreclose[s] an entire medium of expression.’ City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994). Such laws receive exceptionally rigorous review in the analogous context of the First Amendment, id., and we see no reason for a different method here.”

Unlike some other courts that have upheld magazine and firearms bans, the Kolbe majority did not purport to be expert in gun-fighting tactics, or to claim that judges know what law-abiding citizens “need” for self-defense. To the contrary, the 4th Circuit recognized that under the Second Amendment and Heller, choices about self-defense are reserved to the defenders. For “whatever reason” particular arms are preferred by particular law-abiding citizens, “The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself. . . . The extent of danger—real or imagined—that a citizen faces at home is a matter only that person can assess in full.” (Quoting 7th Circuit Judge Manion’s dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park).

In the short term, this reestablished the second amendment rights of the citizens of Maryland but that it the short sighted measure of this case. The reaffirming ramifications of this decision could potentially be applied across the nation serving as the judicial support, firepower if you will, sometimes needed to protect and defend affronts to our Constitutional rights. Nicely done Maryland. Glad there are some in the courts will to take a stand and do something that the President refuses to do… defend the Constitution of the United States of America!

What Was That First Line Again?

So is this okay now?

It has been an interesting week to say the least. Actually, it has been an interesting couple of weeks. I glossed over this topic a little in my post yesterday but let's take the time now to dive a little deeper. 

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling to legalized same sex marriage throughout the United States.  While I don’t have a particularly strong feeling one way or the other, I was intrigued by the first sentence of the ruling which reads, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” It was interesting because it summed up another debate that has been happening across the United States.

This same line could be applied to those who see the stars and bars as a means of self-expression. While the recent history, and interpretation of history prior to the modern era, of that flag have tainted the original perspective, there are some that still hold onto that symbol not for the suppression that it has come to represent but because of the ideal of state’s rights that it stood for. In that vein, there is no denying that slavery played a role in dividing the nation but rights are what lead the country to war.

We have to remember that at that time most were indifferent to the institution of slavery both in the north and the south. However, when the federal government stripped away the rights of the states, that is what the people in the south rallied around. Hence the terms still used to this day “The War of Northern Aggression” and “The Battle for Southern Independence”. State’s rights is why the stars and bars have remained in South Carolina as the state flag flying above the capital.

But, like many things these days, the flag offends people so it must be hidden away and never spoken of again. Many of those same people proudly displayed a bright flag of their own today to support the rights of people. Again, while I don’t care one way or another, I am sure there are many people that are offended by that display of pride. Where is the outcry to remove those flags? Shouldn’t the same rules apply to all people and to all flags?

What it all comes down to is that you can’t have it both ways. You either support the rights of individuals to express themselves and live the lives they want to lead or you want to strip away the rights from people. Frankly, I would like to be left alone. Let me live my life, express myself openly, and enjoy my rights. The government shouldn’t be telling people or states what to do, who to marry, what we can own, what we can display, what we can and can’t say, and overall how we should live our lives. Enjoy your rights and remember this… just say no to big government!

Someone Is Drunk Behind The Wheel!

I'm okay to drive!

So the big speech is tonight and all those watching the Latin Grammy Awards will have to pardon the interruption at the President overextends himself. In an unprecedented move, the President is expected to extend amnesty to roughly 5 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Contrary to what you might hear on MSNBC or CNN, this is completely different than that of the amnesty granted by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in that they were making ever attempt to keep families together in the wake of an ill-conceived piece of legislation passed by congress while still working within the parameters of that law.  

Tonight we will see a President not working within the limitations of the law but someone who is willing to exceed his power and make decisions without bothering to take a minute to listen to the voice of the people. For someone who is supposedly a ‘Constitutional Scholar’ he has not acted in a way that would make me believe that claim. Given the latest vote by the house clearing the way for a lawsuit to be filed against the president on the grounds of exceeding his authority, this bombastic and self-righteous move is not a surprise… especially the PR move to schedule to speech on the same night as the Latin Grammy Awards (you are incredibly naïve if you think this is mere coincidence).

So what is fallout going to be like after this dictatorial declaration? I really couldn’t say as there are so many possibilities and factors that are playing into this whole crisis. However, given the scope of the aforementioned lawsuit and the permissive language used within it, I am pretty sure that this whole incident will be added to the case. Oh, did I mention that the attorney hired to try the case was actually an Obama supporter and has come to the realization over time that he is indeed overreaching his powers? Well, that is the kind of president that we have to put up with for two more years.   

What I can tell you is that this result of the reckless actions will be comparable to slowing down and trying to figure out how it all happened as you pass an accident scene on the highway. Fingers will be pointed, blame will be passed around, and no one is going to have any answers. Just get ready for the traffic jam and potential shutdown of the government highway that may result from the actions of one irresponsible man who decided to get behind the wheel while drunk with power.

Bringing Equality To The Courtroom

Pennsylvania House of Representatives

I have been keeping an eye on the state legislature for the past couple of weeks in the hope that actions would be taken to uphold previously passed legislation designed to curb the plethora of firearms regulations that are constantly being debated across the state under the public and media radar. While firearms preemption has long since been enacted, these state measures have largely been ignored by those who refuse to understand firearms and insist on restricting our rights. This week the Pennsylvania legislature took a step forward by providing additional means for citizens of the commonwealth to protect their second amendment rights. You can imagine my relief when I received the following email from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action:

After four years of effort, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives finally passed critical firearms preemption legislation. Yesterday, the state House voted to concur on the Senate amendments to House Bill 80 by an overwhelming 138 to 56 vote. HB 80, when signed into law, will strengthen the state firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout Pennsylvania.

State firearms preemption was originally enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, more than fifty localities have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law, creating a myriad of local gun laws that make compliance difficult for responsible gun owners. HB 80 will provide a way for responsible gun owners to hold these municipalities responsible for infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Contrary to reports from the Philadelphia Inquirer and statement made by other politicians, this is NOT a means of weakening the laws that we all agree must be enforced against straw purchasers. That is NOT what this legislation is designed to do and this is not how it should be applied. We all agree that those who break the law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Additionally, the vast majority of firearms owners support stiffer penalties for those who are found guilty of breaking those laws especially those found guilty of illegally purchasing firearms.

The problem lies in that those who support “common sense firearms legislation” don’t have any common sense when it comes to firearms or the second amendment. Law abiding gun owners are constantly going out of their way to accommodate state, local, and federal laws no matter how absurd they really are but this is not enough for the Bloomberg devotees. There are already enough laws on the books that we abide by, many of which we disagree with but follow, and we should not face further regulation and restrictions of our rights.

So, ignoring the liberal hype and media mongers, what is the real purpose of this legislation? Essentially, the law allows citizens of the commonwealth to bring suit against local and state agencies with the assistance of national organizations such as the NRA, 2^nd Amendment Foundation, National Association for Gun Rights, etc. Laws and regulations are ever changing in the commonwealth thanks to the actions of irrational hoplophobes and this strengthening legislation is a means to even the legal playing field as many of us do not have the means to defend our rights in the courtroom. After all, we are only looking for equality, the ability to exercise our rights without fear of the repercussions and a means of support if we are refused those rights and we are forced to fight for them. Of course, there is also this little piece of legislation in Pennsylvania law which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Open Carry Debate: Your Message Is Lost When People Stop Listening

Last week there was a rather raucous debate regarding open carry laws in Texas. Rallies organized by Open Carry Texas have been held on numerous occasions to amend a state law that only allows for the open carry of shotguns and rifles but bars the open carrying of handguns without a concealed handgun license. Currently, Texas is only one of 10 states that specifically blocks the open carry of handguns, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Last week, participants took things a step further and rather than keeping to one area, they entered local businesses with long guns handing from their shoulders and laying across their backs.

This week, the debate continued with the NRA leaning in on the discussion initiated by local carry advocate groups. It’s not the rallies or the advocacy for change that the NRA opposes, it is the recent change in the methods that these people have deployed by going in to public places and private businesses to ‘make their point.’ While the people and the protest are nonviolent, it still crossed a line that has resulted in rather significant backlash. The comments made by the NRA have caused quite a stir among those ardent open carry supporters which didn’t take kindly to the following statement (as part of a larger piece) published on the NRA website on Friday:

The second example comes to us from the Lone Star State, which is second to none for its robust gun culture.  We applaud Texans for that, but a small number have recently crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness.

Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today.  Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn't ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity.  Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.

Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places. 

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms. 

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary.  It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here).  In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners.  That's not the Texas way.  And that's certainly not the NRA way.

In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants.  We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights. Firearm owners face enough challenges these days; we don't need to be victims of friendly fire.

Some people within the firearms community may not agree with this statement. However, I am not one of those people. I firmly stand behind these words and encourage common sense to return to the open carry and overall Second Amendment debate. While I believe that the legal ownership of firearms should not be limited and that most local, state, and federal laws should be repealed, we also need to respect those around us and stray away from such boisterous statements as those recently seen in Texas.

Yes, it is there right to legally carry in such a manner but that doesn’t make it a good idea. While this is a form of peaceful protest, we still live in a culture of fear which must be taken into account when making such a statement. People are uneducated with regard to firearms and, therefore, they are afraid of them. This lack of understanding is not going to be addresses when those same people are griped by their fears and are offended by these kinds of displays. Just like the heinous acts by individuals that have been promoted in the media has swayed views to one side, such aggressive means of protest will have the same effect.

This is not to say that I am against open carry rallies. When similar firearms are on display in one location, I agree that those are a great way to make your voice heard. It allows us to show our support for our rights but also does it in a specific area that people with any trepidation can avoid. I also support those who chose to openly carry a handgun. I don’t necessarily think that it is the best idea and believe you are asking for more trouble than its worth but I support the right and those who decide to carry in such a way. I much prefer concealed carry which is the generally preferred personal carry option for more people than you think.   

Some of you may not be familiar with some aspects of this debate and some of the differences that exist between states so I will take a moment to relay some information regarding Pennsylvania law as it pertains to open carry and concealed carry, the foundation of which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Essentially, the carry laws in Pennsylvania can be boiled down to the following summaries from the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association website:

Concealed Carry:

Pennsylvania, like most states requires people to have permit to carry a concealed firearm as regulated by the following statute:

18Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license

·         (a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.  

This license can be in the form of Pennsylvania's "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF) or a permit issued by another state that Pennsylvania recognizes as valid through a reciprocity agreement.

Open Carry:

While Pennsylvania has a specific law that requires a License To Carry Firearms for the concealed carry of a firearm, and the carry of firearms in vehicles, the law is silent on the legality of openly carrying a firearm in other situations, making it de-facto legal.

There is however a law that requires a License To Carry Firearms to carry either way in "cities of the first class", which as defined by law is only the city of Philadelphia.

18Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

·         No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

o    (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

o    (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.

With that said, we would like to point out that there is much debate among firearm owners about whether openly carrying firearms is really a good idea. While we will leave that choice to the individual we will state that in many urban areas (namely Philadelphia) doing so will draw unwanted attention from law enforcement that may include (but not be limited to) the following repercussions:

 

1.      Being stopped and questioned by law enforcement.

2.      Having your License To Carry Firearms seized and sent back for revocation.

3.      Being arrested either improperly or for other charges like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance.

While this may not happen should you choose to carry openly, many urban law enforcement officers we have talked to have expressed a very negative opinion towards the idea. Some have suggested that law enforcement will do everything in their power to make your life difficult should you choose to.

As a “shall issue” state, Pennsylvania is rather unique with regard to the northeast region of the country and, so far, has kept the laws of the Commonwealth in line with both the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the United States Constitution. Firearms owners, should not be tempting public ire unnecessarily and should take the responsible step of getting their concealed carry permit. Even those who currently chose not to carry on their person, it is something that should be obtained. So while the debate will surely continue in states across this nation, we should be cognizant of both our message AND the audience to which we are speaking. If our actions prevent people from listening then our message will be lost. Keep fighting for your rights just make sure that you do so in a manner that promotes education and understanding.

A Memorial Day Perspective

Gettysburg National Cemetery, 2013.

Today is one of those days when I can’t help but be grateful for sacrifices made by others to ensure that we are able to live the lives that we do. Without those who gave all for this country we would not be able to enjoy the rights and freedom that we do today. It is for this reason that I am so angered when some insists on stripping the rights and freedom of people through the stroke of a pen which flies in the face of the sacrifices made to preserve all that we have in this country.

As I have done before, to give you a concise description of the holiday, I am pasting the introduction below that can be found on Wikipedia:

Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the United States for remembering the men and women who died while serving in the country's armed forces. The holiday, which is celebrated every year on the last Monday of May, was formerly known as Decoration Day and originated after the American Civil War to commemorate the Union and Confederate soldiers who died in the war. By the 20th century, Memorial Day had been extended to honor all Americans who have died while in the military service. It typically marks the start of the summer vacation season, while Labor Day marks its end.

Many people visit cemeteries and memorials, particularly to honor those who have died in military service. Many volunteers place an American flag on each grave in national cemeteries.

Annual Decoration Days for particular cemeteries are held on a Sunday in late spring or early summer in some rural areas of the American South, notably in the mountains. In cases involving a family graveyard where remote ancestors as well as those who were deceased more recently are buried, this may take on the character of an extended family reunion to which some people travel hundreds of miles. People gather on the designated day and put flowers on graves and renew contacts with kinfolk and others. There often is a religious service and a "dinner on the ground," the traditional term for a potluck meal in which people used to spread the dishes out on sheets or tablecloths on the grass. It is believed that this practice began before the American Civil War and thus may reflect the real origin of the "memorial day" idea.

Memorial Day is not to be confused with Veterans Day; Memorial Day is a day of remembering the men and women who died while serving, while Veterans Day celebrates the service of all U.S. military veterans.

One amendment that I believe that should be made to this holiday is to honor those active duty personnel and veterans who lost their lives due to physical or psychological injuries received in combat. This is an issue that seems to be forgotten, especially considering the controversies running rampant in the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and VA Hospitals throughout the country. We need to honor those veterans fighting those battles beyond the theater of war and do all that we can to ensure that they are not one of those fallen after the war is over.

We must honor those who fought and remember what the fought for. While an imperfect union, it is the best that we have and we should not allow the flick of a pen to change the course of our country and question the freedom in this country that we all tend to take for granted. We must remember, support, and defend all that those men and women gave their lives to defend. That is the best way we can celebrate Memorial Day today and every day.

Sometimes The Only Cure Is Blindness

When it comes to education or employment I am like most people. I could give less than a crap about what race you are or where you come from. It all comes down to qualifications and ability. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case in this country and there are undoubtedly instances here and there when race and background are seen as differentiators. It is unfortunate but it is also reality.

Racism has always been a problem in this country. I would even call it an epidemic. It is a virulent societal infection for which there is only one cure… blindness.

The latest decision by the Supreme Court in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is at least a step, albeit small, in the right direction. Affirmative Action was something that had a place and time. It is by no means a perfect solution but it at least prompted a slight increase in diversity in the educational system and the workforce. And what is the best way to fight racism? That’s right, with more racism. After all, Affirmative Action is inherently racist.

You don’t need to think about it too much to realize that the law was designed so that race is considered in all aspects of higher education and in the workforce. Regardless of the pool of applicants, there are certain quotas that must be met. How would you feel if your child was turned down from a college because the school must maintain a certain level of diversity? How would you feel if you got a job over someone else, someone who may have been more qualified, because of the color of your skin?  

We have gone from one extreme to the other as we try to play political sociologist. While it is without question wrong to discriminate, it should be equally despicable to be racist. And yes, in this scenario, those are two different concepts as it has always been wrong to discriminate based on race and you can’t turn someone down for a job solely based on race when they are otherwise equally or more qualified than the other applicants. However, the requirement to admit students based on certain racial ratios is not discrimination, it is racism. So, as you can see, they are treated as two completely different concepts. This is Affirmative Action in action.

Now, while Affirmative Action is not completely eliminated from the books it is at least in the hands of the people. That is what was done, the Supreme Court is allowing the states to determine whether race can be a consideration in admission to state schools. Specifically, as reported in the Washington Post, “By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the 2006 decision by Michigan voters to bar consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities.”

In a show of restraint by the Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.) wrote the main opinion:

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it… There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

So, in the end, it is up to us. We must demonstrate our blindness, fight for what is right, and also come to terms with the fact that life is not always fair! It is our individual efforts, responsibility, and work ethic that make up who we are. While we all have the opportunity to live life to be proud of in this country happiness is not guaranteed. It is our right to pursue happiness. Our decisions, our efforts, and our ability to see past many of our differences are essential in the achievement of that happiness. As was determined by the justices, it is our decision.

 

 

 

I Think I Agreed With Obama And I Feel Sick!

Yes, I said it. I agree with the President. It occurred a month ago and it felt a little odd, like I was getting sick or passing a stone. I wasn’t sure at the time what to make of the feeling but then I realized that the nauseated feeling churning in the pot of my stomach was caused by me agreeing with one simple statement uttered by Obama at the national prayer breakfast in Washington, DC. During that event he uttered the words "around the world, freedom of religion is under threat."

Obviously, I wasn’t motivated at the time to blog about this strange feeling but certain actions by the Department of Justice have motivated me to finally sit down and write about this one moment when the hell was buried by a blizzard. Actually, it was something I read this week, a local news story that has gone international that served as the catalyst for this post. As was reported at United Press International (UPI), the DOJ is doing wonders for the public school budget in Philadelphia:

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court alleging that the School District of Philadelphia’s grooming policy is discriminatory.

The federal lawsuit claims that the policy discriminates against employees who don’t trim their beards because of religious reasons. District rules currently prevent school police and security officers from having beards that are more than a quarter of an inch long.

According to the suit, school police officer Siddiq Abu-Bakr’s Islamic faith requires him to allow his beard to grow. He had allowed his beard to grow uncut for 27 years while working for the district before being informed that he had to trim it via a written reprimand. Abu-Bakr was told continuing to violate the policy would result in “further disciplinary action.”

Abu-Bakr filed a religious discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the matter was referred to the DOJ.

“No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living,” Spencer Lewis Jr., the director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, said in a statement. “Modifying a dress or grooming code is a reasonable accommodation that enables employees to keep working without posing an undue hardship on the employer.”

While the beard policy is a bit questionable (remember this does apply to religious Jews and Muslims alike) should it really be part of the DOJ’s purview to sue the Philadelphia public schools. Seems more like a waste of time and money, tax payer money. But, in light of my recent revelation, I am moved to support this fight for religious freedom and the expression thereof. While we may not understand many religions it doesn’t mean we should limit them, right? It is a right protected by the first amendment and we know that, as someone who taught constitutional law, the President would do anything to fight for the rights affirmed in the constitution.

Certainly, the DOJ will continue to fight for the religious freedom that we all enjoy and have the full support of this current administration. They would never force someone to do something against their religious beliefs. They would fight for us to make sure those rights are not infringed.

Wait, what’s that? What did you just scream at the screen? Hobby what?  

Oh, that’s right. The DOJ, with the full support of this administration, selectively fights for the religious freedom of the people. Those they don’t agree with they tend to get very angry and judgmental and fight to quash there overly conservative, outdated ideals because if it is not something they believe then it can’t be true and must be suppressed. If that weren’t bad enough, throw in Obamacare and we really have a constitutional CF on our hands. As Ed Whelan write in The National Review:

The pertinent legal question under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause is whether the massive fines that an employer faces for providing an employee health plan that does not comply with the HHS mandate substantially burden the employer’s exercise of religion. As Hobby Lobby spells out (pp. 34-44 of its brief), the answer to that question is clearly “yes” under the Court’s precedents. Indeed, “‘a fine imposed for adherence to religious beliefs is as direct and obvious a burden as one could imagine.” (Brief at 36-37.)… But a victory for Hobby Lobby will not change the fact that the decision whether or not to use embryo-killing drugs or devices will remain entirely with the employees. What it will mean is that employers will not be dragooned to be complicit in conduct that violates their religious consciences.  

Oh, wait, that’s right, Obama doesn’t really care about our rights or the constitution. I am starting to feel much better now. It might have just been gas but I think the origination of the stench was from an external source. All it took was a reminder of how much the President enjoys lying to us all, liberal and conservative alike, as a means to further his own agenda. This is the reason why he picks and choses which amendments to support and which ones he tries to rip from the parchment. And the ones he does ‘support’ only apply to those with whom he agrees.

This is, at the very least, a disturbing stance which has been adopted by both the President and the Department of Justice. We must be vocal in our opposition to such hypocrisy and pay particularly close attention to those who promote ‘ideals’ that are supported by selective adherence to the Constitution! That is our responsibility to ourselves and to our country.