The Santa Fe DA says this about Alec Baldwin:
“Guns don’t just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, he did that, and it was in his hands.”
Now I still think that Alec Baldwin has enough money and celebrity to get out of it. We all know that there are two sets of laws in this country: One for rich lefties, and one for the rest of us. That doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, just that he will use connections to get out of it.
Slate is always good for seeing the left’s faulty opinions, and this article is no exception. My first thought when I read the headline: “The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First” was something along the lines of, “Oh, what fresh idiocy is this?”
The article begins by pointing out that there are numerous restrictions on the time, manner, and place of free speech. Examples include rules that a ensure that expression does not interfere with their normal use. Rallies interfere with picnics and family gatherings. Parades and picketing block traffic and access to homes and businesses. The author then asks if firearms prevent the public from use and enjoyment of public spaces before going on to say:
Individuals may be injured and even killed when firearms are misused, improperly handled, or even when they are used properly. Even when a gunshot strikes the intended target, others may still be injured because the bullet may pass through the target and injure someone else or because the presence of the gun and gunfire cause a panic.
This is flawed, because the mere possession of firearms do nothing of the sort, any more than mere possession of a bible, political literature, or other materials that some find offensive interfere with the public’s use of a space. What the author is doing is conflating possession with use. No one is saying that people should be permitted to fire weapons in the middle of the street. The above argument is nothing more than the tired, old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument.
The author goes on to say:
the plaintiffs are not demanding the right to merely carry the firearm; they are demanding the right to use the firearm for self-defense. Thus, the fundamental question is not whether the presence of firearms threatens public safety but whether their use threatens public safety. The answer should be obvious, and the lessons of First Amendment jurisprudence should apply.
I actually agree. You see, using a firearm for self defense means that the person using that firearm is doing so to protect his own (or another’s) life from the unlawful use of force from a person illegally using that force. Just as a judge may prevent me from yelling out and disturbing his courtroom, no judge would argue that I cannot yell out to warn the occupants that the building is on fire, or that there is a man about to strike the judge with an axe from behind.
The author actually goes on to make a great point, and one which I agree with in principle, but I am betting not in the way that he is intending:
According to the court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional.” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.
If the court adopts this approach, it will follow a clearly marked path that will force New York to reconsider its standards for restricting guns in public, but allow it to still maintain some such standards. If the public forum doctrine is good enough for those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, it should be good enough for those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights as well.
My agreement here is that they should be permitted to require permits for concealed carry, as long as those permits are issued under clear, and unbiased criteria. I would accept shall issue- that is, anyone who completes a reasonable safety course and is not a prohibited person shall be issued a permit.
I am betting that isn’t what the author is thinking.
That is what the 9th circuit said today when it ruled that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was not an unconstitutional taking.
Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings
and as far as the ban being a violation of the takings clause:
the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.
Therefore, they didn’t take anything. The Australians were disarmed in 1996. By 2020, nearly all guns were confiscated. This was the result:
Two months later, and the military began taking Australians off to the camps:
The courts are not going to come to our rescue. There will soon be only two choices: Fight, or be taken away to the camps for our own safety.
The Rittenhouse trial has exposed a central belief of the antigun left. There is this article, from a licensed New York attorney who specializes in International Human Rights and Islamic studies. The central belief of her opinion?
Kyle Rittenhouse had viable alternatives to patrolling the streets of Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle… He chose otherwise, and that choice should have had legal consequences.
Then there are several student organizations at Arizona State University, including: the Arizona State University Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, and MECHA de ASU. All of them are communist organizations, most are race based.
One of these groups- La MEChA, even has this in their constitution:
Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.
This MEChA group has a chapter on many College Campuses in this country. For example, they posted on the University of Texas webpage in 2007 (since taken down):
In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories
I wrote about them in 2007, back when they were advocating for an armed rebellion. It appears as though they don’t mind guns, as long as the guns are in their hands, not the hands of their would-be victims.
The groups are demanding that Rittenhouse be expelled from Arizona State. In their statement, they had this to say:
Rittenhouse took the lives of innocent people with the intent to do so—by strapping an assault rifle to himself in a crowd of unarmed citizens. That is the textbook definition of intention.
Nevermind that the citizens he shot were armed with a length of chain, a skateboard being used as a club, a handgun, incendiaries, and other weapons. No, having a firearm for self defense is, to the commies, evidence that you intend to commit murder.
The Rittenhouse case is being used as an indictment of armed self defense as a concept. They hordes of violent Antifa and BLM warriors need unarmed victims for their tactics to work. If their intended victims are armed and begin to actively resist, their movement falls apart.
There is a reason why those “protests” have only been successful in Democrat run, gun restricted states. When your victims have the means of resistance, it’s a bit harder for them to become victims in the first place.
Remember what the ADA said in the Rittenhouse case:
Because ‘Everybody Takes a Beating Sometimes’
This professor who is forced to use his PhD at a community college is of the opinion that juries should be given all of the facts, so they don’t arrive at “incorrect” decisions. He uses the Rittenhouse trial as his exhibit A, claiming that the jury should have been told that Kyle was seen at a bar with a bunch of “Proud Boys” five months after the shooting took place, even though that incident had exactly nothing to do with the events that took place during the Kenosha riots.
I am betting he wouldn’t be in favor of the jury hearing ALL of the truth, just those portions of the truth that would tilt the jury to his desired outcome. For example, I am sure he wouldn’t have wanted the jury to hear about the 5 young boys (who were as young as 9 years old) that Rosenbaum raped, or that Rosenbaum wasn’t taking the medicine that he had been prescribed for his mental illness. Perhaps the jury should have been told that Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a handgun, that he had been convicted of “intoxicated use of a firearm” in 2015, domestic abuse, burglary, or that his paramedic license had been revoked.
I am betting that he wasn’t in favor of the jury in the Martin/Zimmerman case hearing about Trayvon’s possession of stolen property and burglary tools.
The professor doesn’t want juries to be fully informed. Imagine the jury in the Chauvin trial being informed about George Floyd’s criminal past, including how he put a gun to a pregnant woman’s abdomen as he robbed her.
I know what kind of person the author of this piece is. His reviews on “Rate my Professor” paint a pretty clear picture. His students mostly receive an “A”. His students claim that they don’t have to show up to class, there is no textbook, and the only thing they have to do in order to get a high grade is to “volunteer” in social justice work and then write a paper about it. One student called him “hands down the most woke professor I’ve ever hand.”
This is how protesters and Antifa are accomplishing their recruitment. The colleges of this country are being used as communist insurgent recruiting centers.
He got his degree in Portland, now he has exported his communist propaganda machine to a community college in Ohio.
That little commie greaseball can eat shit.
Now the left believes that veterinary care should be free. I know that it’s Slate, but they are a great window into the mindset of the left.
Who pays for all of this “free” stuff? I swear, they are like spoiled children. They want to have everything handed to them.
Reporters get their feelings hurt before whining like little girls, all because people are criticizing them.
New Federal law being proposed. Let me explain:
The problem: There’s no requirement for a background check on ammunition sales. So you can be someone who just stole a gun, illegally got your gun from some kind of trafficking, or were in possession of it and you are intending a crime. You can walk into any store and buy the bullets and nobody is going to check. If we extend background checks to ammunition, we immediately save lives
Fred Guttenberg, father of Jaime Guttenberg
Fred Guttenberg is pushing for the proposed law, named Jaime’s law after the man’s daughter. Jaime was killed in the Parkland shooting in South Florida. Here is the thing: this law wouldn’t have done a single thing to prevent the shooting that killed his daughter. The killer in that particular case obtained his gun legally because authorities couldn’t be bothered to do their jobs.
If the law passes, it won’t fix a single one of the hypotheticals in the above quote. If a person steals a gun, buys one on the black market, or is intending to commit a crime, there is no way that such scenarios would result in failing a background check.
No, the real purpose of this law is to inconvenience shooters. It requires that ammunition can only be bought from licensed dealers. It also appears to require a permit to purchase ammunition at anywhere other than a shooting range where the ammunition will be fired on the premises. The law also states that there is no limit to the fee that can be charged for the background check.
Keep buying ammo, it may be needed very soon.
All politics are local. That’s why I am on my HOA board. One of the residents of my neighborhood lives right at the entrance. His house is the first one you see. Attached to his fence facing the street is a flag with a caricature of the President and “let’s go Brandon” on it.
Here is a complaint the HOA got from another resident:
Are we allowed to have offensive flags hung on our fences? The first home on the right has had his Let’s go Brandon flag up off and on as he feels like it. I do not care about which political side. I care it implies a curse word and it’s the first thing people see entering into our neighborhood.
“Let’s Go Brandon” is a political slogan which has been widely used as a minced oath for “Fuck Joe Biden” in reference to Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States. Chants of “Fuck Joe Biden” were first heard at sporting events in early September 2021. Wikipedia
That flag is offensive, not Freedom of Speech.LOL. That is why the HOA asked for someone to take down their Trump 2024 sign.
Great so I am allowed to fly a flag that has a curse word on it? I had to explain to my child with Autism on it what it means. He knows the President’s face and name and was confused by the flag. I was forced to explain it. FUCK JOE BIDEN. Classy for our neighborhood welcome flag. I don’t care which Political party it is for or against. I care it implies an offensive word.
At least everyone would not have to see it if it was moved to his garage or front.
The first sign he had up said, “Fuck Joe Biden”. He replaced that with the flag. Since no sign rule.Either way my son got educated on both. He faces them towards the entrance.
Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. … United States (1969) established that profanity spoken as part of a true threat does not receive constitutional protection.
We told her that there is no HOA rule covering flags, and was thus not an HOA issue. I also explained to her that this is not a “face to face insult” or “fighting words” to anyone except Joe Biden himself.
We then forwarded the complaint to the homeowner in question, who told her to come on over so he could explain it to her.
The left is upset that Chik Fil A hates the gays, but still has so many customers that they drive off because the lines are too long.
Even Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg confesses it’s hard to react vehemently to Chick-fil-A’s staunch anti-gay politics when its chicken is, to him at least, so good.