San Diego Wants To Tax Constitutional Rights.

The city of San Diego has decided to tax legal owners of weapons within its city limits. In addition, the city is looking at requiring citizens to purchase liability insurance if they own a gun.

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The amount of the fee hasn’t been determined, but Mayor Sam Liccardo said Wednesday it would probably be “a couple dozen dollars” and would not be charged to those who could not afford it. He said insurers have advised the city that including gun coverage on their policies would add little or nothing to typical premium costs.

Letter To The Editor From Uninformed People.

We haven’t done one of these in awhile but this letter to the editor at the Florida Today newspaper caught our eye.

Guns, God and a well-regulated militia

Mr. Piowaty’s letter of Feb. 18 makes a statement that obfuscates the main issue of the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated militia” is the key opening clause that you people want to overlook. Who regulates all these gun owners who think themselves a militia? As explicitly stated in Art. 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, ” … reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the Militia …” It couldn’t be clearer.

Can you imagine what those yahoos who broke into the Capital would have done if they had carried guns?

And, just what are your God-given rights? Guns didn’t exist when Jesus walked the earth and assault guns didn’t exist when the Constitution was written.

Gun Magazine Confiscation Stopped In California.

A law allowing for the confiscation of gun magazines with over ten bullet capacity has been deemed unConstitutional by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Prop 63 had been passed and required owners of “high capacity magazines” turn them in, modify them to not hold as many rounds, or send the magazines to another state.

According to the Volokh Conspiracy, the opinion by Judge Roger T. Benitez is solid and addresses many issues.

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today’s decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The 86-page opinion is the most thorough judicial analysis thus far of the magazine ban question. The opinion is founded on a careful analysis of the record, and thus provides an excellent basis for future appellate review on the merits, perhaps one day by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Covering all bases, the opinion analyzes the confiscation law under a variety of standards of review. First is the standard favored by Judge Benitez, what he calls “The Supreme Court’s Simple Heller Test.” In short, magazines over 10 rounds are plainly “in common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Ergo, they may not be confiscated. The analysis is similar to then-Judge Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion in the 2011 Heller II case in the D.C. Circuit.

The Duncan opinion then examines the confiscation statute under various levels of “heightened scrutiny”: categorical invalidation, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny. The confiscation statute is found unconstitutional under each of these standards.

Under the various heightened scrutiny tests, the government bears the burden of proof. The opinion explains in depth why the evidence put forward by the California Attorney General does not come close to carrying that burden. The core problem is that the Attorney General’s evidence, which relies heavily on expert declarations, is speculative, shoddy, or unrelated to the statute at issue.

“Tolerance” Personified By Parkland Teacher.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Teach Greg Pittman

After the horrific shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, many of the students took to protests and public appearances to decry the 2nd Amendment and people’s rights of self defense.

Kyle Kashuv was not one of those students.

Kashuv went the other direction and defended the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, people’s rights, etc., and made the claim that the problem was not guns, but the people shooting them. His stance brought him some notoriety and some criticism, but the young man has not wavered on his beliefs.

Last weekend, Kashuv, who had never fired a weapon, was invited to a gun range with his father. Kashuv took a picture of the day and tweeted about it:

It was great learning about our inalienable right of #2A and how to properly use a gun. This was my first time ever touching a gun and it made me appreciate the #Constitution even more. My instructor was very informative; I learnt a lot. #2A is important and we need 2 preserve 2A
— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) April 21, 2018

Returning to school Kashuv was detained and interrogated by the school’s security officer and then the Broward County Sheriff’s Department.

Clinton Delegate Explains How Democrats Will Ban All Guns.

Gee. What a shocker this is.

In this video, a PVA journalist encounters a Hillary Clinton Alternate Delegate who discusses how the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton hide the fact that they want to ban all guns.

Couric’s “Under The Gun” Is “Under The Gun,” Again.

Under-the-GunIn a post a few weeks ago, we wrote about how the “documentary” produced by Katie Couric and directed by Stephanie Soechtig was less than honest in the editing of an interview with the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (VCDL). In the movie “Under the Gun,” the members of the VCDL seemed to be confused as to the question that Couric asks of the members of the VCDL when in fact they had answers which stumped and confused Couric.

Couric initially declined to apologize and said the edit making the VLDL’s people was there for dramatic effect. (After all, nothing says “drama” in a documentary like deception.) Couric has now issued an “apology,” but the “apology” shows the depth of the deception as well.

As Executive Producer of “Under the Gun,” a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). My question to

the VCDL regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, was followed by an extended pause, making the participants appear to be speechless.

When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I questioned her and the editor about the pause and was told that a “beat” was added for, as she described it, “dramatic effect,” to give the audience a moment to consider the question. When VCDL members recently pointed out that they had in fact immediately answered this question, I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.

VCDL members have a right for their answers to be shared and so we have posted a transcript of their responses here. I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.

I hope we can continue to have an important conversation about reducing gun deaths in America, a goal I believe we can all agree on.

Transcript with VCDL Response:

Freedom’s Safest Place | My Story.

Right off the bat we want to say that this is an ad from the National Rifle Association (NRA.) We are not members of the NRA but support them in their programs for safe, legal gun ownership as well as support them in their fight against the creeping of forces looking to end the right of people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.

I was born in Greece in 1939.
Nazi war planes bombed us unmercifully.
Executions in the streets were common.
I saw horror you could never imagine.
Human beings became animals, starving and desperate. (more…)

“Scary” Gun Means Man Faces Felony Gun Charges In New Jersey.

When 72 year old Gordon VanGilder was pulled over by a New Jersey policeman for a minor traffic infraction, he probably never would have dreamed the encounter with the officer would end with VanGilder facing 10 years in jail, 3 1/2 of which must be served with no chance of parole.

VanGilder was pulled over and the deputy sheriff used the ol’ tactic of “you don’t mind if I search your car, do you? If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn’t be a problem.” The officer threatened to get a dog to search the vehicle if necessary.

VanGilder, a retired school teacher, thought he didn’t have anything illegal in the car but did tell the cop about a 225 year old unloaded flintlock pistol he was transporting that was in the glove compartment.

Because the flintlock is such a dangerous, scary looking weapon, the following day four deputy sheriffs arrived at VanGilder’s home and arrested him.

We generally respect laws and think the way to change them is to work through the legislative process. However, when you have legislatures and an executive branch that signs such ridiculous laws into effect with no thought to the God given and natural rights of people, the only way to deal with these situations is to tell the government to take a long walk off a short pier.

In this case, the legislators, the governor, the sheriff’s department and the prosecutor are not worthy of being in the public sector and in a position where they are to be serving and protecting the people of the state of New Jersey.

« Previous Entries