CALIFORNIA: ATTORNEY GENERAL BECERRA GRABS GUNS; GOVERNOR NEWSOM DEPLOYS "TRACE FORCE" OF 20,000

Kafkafornia Clamps Down

Attorney General Becerra grabs guns; 

Gov. Newsom deploys  “trace force” of 20,000

BY LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/kafkafornia-clamps-down-lloyd-billingsley; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“Gun violence is the last thing our communities and children should have to fear during a public health crisis. Background checks can save lives and DOJ’s firearms operations help make that happen. At the California Department of Justice, we’ll keep doing our part to keep firearms out of the hands of violent and dangerous individuals.”

That was California attorney general Xavier Becerra last week, but his announcement failed to cite any example of actual “gun violence.” The former congressman, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, was hailing raids that confiscated firearms from people who had committed no crime.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the state DOJ mounted “a dozen operations to confiscate firearms and ammunition possessed by owners who failed background checks.” This is the background check California requires for all purchases of ammunition. Failing this particular check is not the same as committing a crime.

From last July 1, when the program kicked in, until December, 2019, the state ran 345,000 background checks and rejected a full 62,000 Californians legally entitled to purchase ammunition. The 62,000 included off-duty sheriff’s deputies purchasing shotgun shells to hunt ducks. Database discrepancies meant the 62,000 had somehow “failed” a background check, implying malfeasance. The law-abiding gun owners then became “prohibited persons,” barred from purchasing ammunition and exercising their Second Amendment rights. 

Attorney Ari Freilich of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters that dangerous people were “committing a serious crime trying to acquire a product designed to take human life,” and that the background check system was working as intended. The outright confiscation of firearms in April, 2020, confirms that this is the case.

Federal judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ammunition law defies common sense and burdens Second Amendment rights, but last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Becerra’s request to reinstate the background checks. As Becerra plans further “operations,” Gov. Gavin Newsom is mounting a surge on a different front.

The governor is tapping UCLA and UC San Francisco to train an “army” of “coronavirus detectives” to “test, trace and isolate people who may have been infected.” That includes those who have no symptoms at all, but are still capable of infecting others. By that standard, Newsom’s army could trace and isolate just about anybody, so Californians might wonder about those doing the tracing.

The governor will redeploy state employees with “the right kind of background cultural sensitivity, cultural competency, different language skills, a health mindset.” On the other hand, according to Politico, the first group of tracers, in San Francisco, included city librarians, attorneys and investigators, “many with no health care background.”

As the California Globe has learned, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will not impose penalties for violations of the HIPPA privacy rule for “public health and health oversight activities during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency.” How long the “trace force” will be deployed remains something of a mystery.

Unlike President Trump, Gavin Newsom does not take questions from reporters in real time and under emergency powers he functions like an autocrat. When thousands of embattled Californians stream to the state Capitol, they find access blocked by blackshirted CHP staatspolizei in full riot gear. Attorney general Becerra has no problem with it, and Californians might recall his record at protecting communities from violent criminals.

In recent years, the MS-13 gang has imposed a “reign of terror” in Mendota, near Fresno, with at least 14 brutal murders. Federal agents, not the state AG, took the lead in prosecuting the gang, and when federal officials made arrests, Becerra made it clear he was not concerned about the gang members’ “status.” The MS-13 reign of terror, and murders of police officers by criminal illegals, prompted no raids like the ones Becerra is now inflicting on those who fail the rigged background checks.

Meanwhile, according to Politico, Newsom’s 20,000-strong trace force “could serve as a template for the nation and create a whole new sector of public health workers.” It certainly could, as people across the country might think, especially those who have lost their jobs during the pandemic. In reality, all Newsom’s emergency measures could serve as a template for what the nation might look like under any Democrat currently in contention for the White House.

In the best Kafkaesque style, a government Stasi force could be empowered to track and isolate just about anybody, “until we have a vaccine,” or a “cure.”  Illegal aliens, even the criminals among them, would remain a protected and privileged class. As in California, this imported electorate would be supported by American taxpayers.

Law-abiding gun owners, even Sheriff’s deputies, could be blocked from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment, and the First Amendment would also stand at risk. So-called “red flag” laws could empower confiscation of firearms and ammunition from anybody the government doesn’t like.

Disarmament of the people is a prelude to repression, and the targets would be all those deplorables, stricken with various phobias and seeking to get their lives back. The election takes place on November 3. As President Trump says, we’ll have to see what happens.

DURING PANDEMIC, HOUSE DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION REQUIRING FEDERAL LICENSE TO OWN GUNS

DURING PANDEMIC, HOUSE DEMOCRATS INTRODUCE LEGISLATION REQUIRING 

FEDERAL LICENSE TO OWN GUNS 

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/05/26/during-pandemic-house-dems-introduce-legislation-requiring-federal-license-to-own-guns/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

While in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the media has largely ignored a massive anti-gun bill introduced by House Democrats that would require a federal license for all gun owners and impose a 30 to 50 percent tax on all firearms and accessories.

The bill, H.R.5717 dubbed the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, would effectively make nearly all current gun ownership illegal and place firearm regulation out of the hands of the states and place it in the hands of the federal government.

The text of the bill reads:

Except otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any individual who is not licensed under this section to knowingly purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition.

In order to eligible for a federal license, an applicant must have “completed training in firearms safety,” completed a “written test, to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws,” completed “hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use of a firearm,” and must be renewed every ten years.

The left has been trying to impose radical anti-gun laws for years. Gun-ownership is a threat to their totalitarian power in which the wish to impose an authoritarian regime on its citizens. So long as the Second Amendment to the Constitution stands in their way, it is difficult for them to disarm the citizens of the United States — the only obstacle that stands in the way of their complete and total power. For them, trying to sneak this legislation through while everyone is focused on the coronavirus is not surprising. Democrats are dirty and will do whatever they can to get legal gun ownership off the books.

BLOOMBERG'S "EVERYTOWN" RECRUITS ANTI-GUN CHURCH LEADERS IN VOTER TURNOUT

BLOOMBERG'S "EVERYTOWN" RECRUITS ANTI-GUN CHURCH LEADERS IN VOTER TURNOUT 

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/bloombergs-everytown-recruits-anti-gun-church-leaders-in-voter-turnout/#axzz6NAremuYr;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun 

Safety just got religion…sort of. The Associated Press has reported the gun prohibition 

lobbying group “has enlisted more than a dozen religious leaders to boost voter turnout this 

fall in support of candidates who support measures to prevent gun violence.”

This political move could be overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s continued inaction on at least ten Second Amendment cases now pending. Monday’s Court orders did not list any of those cases as either being accepted for review or denied, so the proverbial “can” has been once more kicked down the road. The next High Court conference on cases for the fall term is this Thursday, May 21. Orders from that conference will be released next Tuesday, May 26, according to Scotus.blog.


According to the Associated Press report, “The group’s partners include representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh backgrounds, several of them well-known progressive activists.” There is also an interesting cast of characters reportedly involved in this move, including “evangelical Shane Claiborne, president of the group Red Letter Christians,” the report said, “and Rev. Traci Blackmon, a United Church of Christ executive minister and a central member of the Black Lives Matter movement.”


The AP also identified the Rev. Rob Schenck, “a former evangelical anti-abortion activist who has since shifted to support the Roe v. Wade decision and sought to redefine a ‘pro-life’ agenda as one that supports gun control.”

The “Everytown interfaith project” will reportedly focus on “educating rank-and-file faith voters” about candidates’ stances on “gun matters.” It’s not clear what that means, but it likely will not mean open discussions of incidents in which armed church members prevented mass shooting tragedies.

Last December, several armed parishioners drew their sidearms after a gunman opened fire at the West Freeway Church of Christ near Fort Worth, Texas. The killer was stopped within a few seconds by the leader of a church security team. Jack Wilson stopped Keith Thomas Kinnunen with a single shot, on live video. As they have in the wake of other such successful uses of force by armed private citizens, gun prohibition lobbying groups were uniformly silent, same as they were after Jeanne Assam shot killer Matthew John Murray in the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. in 2007. Murray took his own life after being seriously wounded.

Although he killed 26 people and wounded 20 more when he opened fire at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas in November 2017, the rampage of murderer Devin Patrick Kelley was brought to an end when church neighbor Stephen Willeford shot him with an AR-15 rifle. The gunman fled but a short distance away after driving off the highway, he killed himself.
By no small surprise, the AP story noted, “Several members of Everytown’s interfaith initiative are known as religious critics of (President Donald) Trump’s record.”

The disclosure of Everytown’s alliance with progressive church leaders underscores the importance of this fall’s elections. The Bloomberg-backed lobbying group has already announced it will be spending some $60 million via its Victory Fund to change Congress and state legislatures to gun control majorities. This would bring a halt to President Trump’s effort to balance the federal courts with pro-Second Amendment jurists.

If the High Court eventually does take one or more of the pending Second Amendment cases now waiting for action, it could mean the court is preparing to hand down a ruling that further defines the right to keep and bear arms. Five of those cases involved the Second Amendment Foundation. Earlier this month, the Court instructed the City of San Jose, Calif., to respond to a writ of certiorari from the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Lori Rodriguez, et al. v. City of San Jose, which involves the city’s confiscation of legally-owned firearms and the city’s refusal to return them. That response is due on or before May 20—this Wednesday—which could be a signal the Court may be taking action on that, and maybe other, Second Amendment cases during this Thursday’s conference.

Meanwhile, Second Amendment attorneys and activists wait patiently for the justices to act, while looking over the horizon at the uncertain outcome of the November 2020 elections that will either take back the House, protect the Senate majority and keep Trump in the White House another four years, or flip everything to Democrat control. That would make what happened earlier this year in Virginia something of a trial run for the nation, and gun owners are all-too-aware of how that turned out.




About Dave Workman


Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.















____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/harris-tries-getting-back-in-bidens-graces-with-everytown-veepstakes/#axzz6NB0hSwy9

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: GUN GROUP SUES TO RE-OPEN OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES

GESTAPO POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: 

GUN GROUP SUES TO RE-OPEN 

OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Prepared to Go to U.S. Supreme Court
Murphy Admits 2A Shutdown is not about Coronavirus

BY SCOTT BACH

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/gun-group-sues-nj-to-reopen-outdoor-shooting-ranges/#axzz6MKCDuND3; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) filed a federal lawsuit to force the State of New Jersey to reopen outdoor ranges, which have been shut down since a March 21, 2020, executive order by Governor Murphy.

Now that Murphy has allowed the reopening of parks, golf courses, and tennis courts – outdoor facilities that are purely recreational and do not facilitate any Constitutionally protected activity – he can no longer pretend to have any legal argument for blocking the Second Amendment right of citizens to build and maintain firearms proficiency at outdoor ranges.

A copy of the complaint in the lawsuit can be viewed by clicking here.

Gov. Murphy’s March 21 executive order shut down all ranges and gun stores, supposedly due to concerns over the Coronavirus pandemic. ANJRPC thereafter immediately sued to reopen gun stores and Murphy backed down on that issue before a court could force his hand. But ranges remained shuttered, and ANJRPC exercised extreme self-restraint and waited for the right moment to bring a range case – and that moment has now arrived as Murphy has reopened non-essential outdoor activities that are not constitutionally protected.

ANJRPC also plans to sue regarding indoor ranges, but only after a similar period of disciplined waiting for the right conditions where legal odds are enhanced. Bringing an indoor range claim at the wrong time could have disastrous consequences under the current pandemic conditions.

ANJRPC is prepared to take this new case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. The Second Amendment was designed precisely for the kind of emergency America now faces, to ensure that law-abiding citizens would be able not only to own firearms but to train with them to develop and maintain proficiency to provide for their own safety if necessary. The idea that a single public official can simply turn gun rights off is absurd on its face.

What’s more, Governor Murphy’s overt hatred for the Second Amendment is laid bare in his executive order, which ironically declares that non-vital retailers like liquor stores, marijuana dispensaries, and cell phone stores are “essential” and therefore can stay open, while ranges are not “essential” and must close.

Governor Murphy has even admitted that his assault on the Second Amendment was motivated by his hatred of guns, not by safety concerns about Coronavirus. When recently asked by a reporter why he didn’t deem Second Amendment facilities to be “essential,” he stated, “a safer society for my taste has fewer guns and not more guns.” He said nothing about Coronavirus, which is apparently just his pretext for shutting down the Second Amendment.

Please watch for further updates on this developing new case. If desired, you can donate here to the case.






About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs: The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state and federal level that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org

ANTI-GUN BUREAUCRATS PUT GOOD PEOPLE IN DANGER TO PUSH FOR CORONAVIRUS GUN CONTROL

ANTI-GUN BUREAUCRATS PUT 

GOOD PEOPLE IN DANGER TO PUSH FOR CORONAVIRUS GUN CONTROL

BY DAN WOS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/04/anti-gun-bureaucrats-put-good-people-in-danger-to-push-for-corona-gun-control-video/#axzz6JJcCbouI; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Opinion
By Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy



USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Although the corona crisis has caused many people to come together and show their compassion for their fellow man, it has simultaneously brought out the worst in others. With America on lock down, domestic violence on the rise and some states letting criminals out of prison, some state officials are using executive orders to prevent good people from defending themselves.

According to a study by Gary Kleck, a Florida Criminologist, guns are used defensively, 2.5 million times per year in America. In other words, guns potentially save 2.5 million lives per year, most often without a shot even being fired. 46% of those lives saved are women. In times of crisis it would appear that some state offices are playing for the wrong team when it comes to the safety of the American citizens who employ them.

Reports came out recently that people were flocking to gun shops so they too could have the leverage they might need in a time of crisis. Gun stores reported lines up to four hours long just to get into the building. Ironically, many of these wanna-be gun owners were first-time purchasers and previously anti-gun liberals now realizing just how important guns are in the real world. Amidst the mad rush on gun-shops, some states decided to deem firearms retailers “non-essential” in the hopes of using the corona-crisis as an excuse to grab some quick gun-control.

Upon recognizing this unconstitutional behavior, Gun Owners of America (GOA) quickly put the federal government on notice and encouraged the FBI to avoid breakdowns in the National Instant Check System (NICS). In a letter, GOA’s Senior Vice President, Erich Pratt said:


“Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is revealing and exacerbating the underlying constitutional infringements with the NICS system. If state or federal governments do not remain open, then Americans will be denied their Second Amendment-protected right to purchase firearms.” “The long-term solution is for Congress to repeal this law. But in the short-term, the federal government is faced with a choice: ignore the Brady Transfer Date, thus intimidating gun stores into denying Americans their rights, or reallocate resources so that Americans will not be denied their rightfully purchased firearms.”


Soon after, President Trump deemed gun stores essential but some state officials didn’t like this idea and have continued to restrict the ability of their citizens to exercise their rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. Some have even expressed their disdain for gun-sales publicly.

Although Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey claims she wants to protect the lives of women, her actions show us otherwise. In a Tweet from Healey, she said:

Maura Healy @MassAGO Apr 1 ~ “Gun shops and shooting ranges are NOT essential businesses during a public health emergency. We cannot undermine the safety of our police officers, first responders, and domestic violence victims.”



By implying that gun-owners “undermine the safety” of others, Healey seems to be creating the false narrative that gun-owners are either reckless or purchase guns with the intent of doing harm to police officers, first responders or their domestic partners.

Healey might be revealing more about herself than she intended with this statement. The biggest problem with this perspective is that often times the people calling for gun-control are compelled by the very thoughts and visuals conjured up in their own minds. Why would Healey instantly gravitate toward recklessness or bad intent? Maybe she needs to take a look at that. Another thing that Healey seems to completely miss is the importance of domestic violence victims (most often women) to be able to keep themselves safe. Wouldn’t it make sense for domestic violence victims to be able to protect themselves? Apparently, Healey wants them unarmed and helpless.

Why are some of a particular ideological view so intent on gun-restrictions?

One theory is that in order to create a government-controlled society, you must first create chaos and make good people vulnerable so they run to the arms of government.

Another theory is that due to the progressive propaganda that is continually pumped into the left-wing bubble, some actually believe that criminals are now “victims of society” and lawful gun owners are the new terrorists. Either way, the reality is, some of our elected government employees are working overtime to make sure you can’t defend yourself.

When people feel their lives or livelihood are in jeopardy, they act to protect themselves and their families. Often times this means getting a gun to preserve the value and assets that have been built and accumulated over the years. Sometimes that means purchasing a gun to be able to save your own life, should you be attacked. Self-preservation is a natural instinct. Forcing people into unarmed helplessness takes strategic planning, leverage, intent, and effort.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
www.goodgunbadguy.net



Dan Wos

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.



www.goodgunbadguy.net

MASSACHUSETTS' HISTORICAL IRONY: SECOND AMENDMENT GROUPS SUE GOVERNOR BAKER AS BATTLE ANNIVERSARY LOOMS

ANTI-GUN REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR

MASSACHUSETTS' HISTORICAL IRONY: 

SECOND AMENDMENT GROUPS SUE GOVERNOR BAKER AS BATTLE ANNIVERSARY LOOMS

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/04/historical-irony-2a-groups-sue-mass-gov-baker-as-battle-anniversary-looms/#axzz6JDnchOP2; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Irony: Gun rights groups have filed a Second Amendment lawsuit against Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker as the 245th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord looms.

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- A coalition of Second Amendment groups has filed a federal lawsuit against Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker over gun control issues during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, ironically just days before the 245th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord that ignited the American Revolution.

This time around, instead of British Regulars marching to confiscate arms and munitions from the Colonial militia, it’s the Baker administration “eliminating all lawful channels of access to constitutionally protected arms and ammunition by mandating the closure of all businesses that sell firearms and ammunition to the consumer public,” the lawsuit says.

“These actions amount to a ban on obtaining modern arms for personal defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” the 18-page complaint alleges.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Partnering with the Second Amendment Foundation are the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (Comm2A), along with several retailers and private citizens.

In addition to Baker, two other state officials and four municipal police chiefs are named as defendants in the complaint.

The complaint makes it clear that:


“The Plaintiffs bringing this action do not mean to minimize the severity or urgency of the coronavirus pandemic. The exigencies surrounding this viral pandemic both justify and necessitate changes in the manner in which people live their lives and conduct their daily business. However, this emergency—like any other emergency—has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition. The declaratory and injunctive relief that Plaintiffs have been forced to seek in this action is necessary to uphold this bedrock principle of constitutional rights and the rule of law.”


According to Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), which supports the legal action but is not a plaintiff, information acknowledging a Department of Homeland Security recognition of gun shops as “essential” was posted in an initial notice, but within three hours it had disappeared, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

In a telephone interview with Ammoland News, Wallace acknowledged this may be the culmination of a longer-running problem with Baker.

“We’ve had virtually no relationship with him,” Wallace said, despite the fact that Baker is a Republican. In Massachusetts, that actually has not worked out so well for gun owners.

“The greatest irony,” Wallace observed, “is that every time we’ve had a bad bill signed, it’s been with a Republican governor.”

When emergency loan funds were made available for businesses in the Commonwealth, Baker specifically excluded gun shops gun shops, along with real estate firms, adult entertainment businesses and multi-level marketing firms. At the time, Wallace issued a statement accusing the governor of discrimination.

Presently, most police agencies are not accepting new applications for firearms licenses, which are required in Massachusetts to even possess empty cartridge cases, Wallace warned.

In a subsequent message to its members, GOAL stated, “As soon as this public health crisis was announced, GOAL began to try to work with the Baker Administration to address issues we knew would be coming. The first piece was to request an emergency order to extend all firearm licenses until the crisis was over. That request had the support of the two police chiefs’ association because it would have freed up their staff during this time. That request was denied even though the state had already done it for a lengthy list of other state-issued licenses. Since then, there has been a clear effort on behalf of the Baker Administration to block access to the Second Amendment.”

The exception to the gun shop shutdown is an order from James Gagnon, commissioner of the state Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, in which he advises gun dealers that supply firearms and ammunition to police agencies were allowed to remain open.

According to the Enterprise News, some gun stores are defying Baker’s order. A shop in Middleboro was still open, and owner John Costa told the newspaper, “The government can go pound tar. We are essential. We have every right to protect our citizens. We have every right to give them what we need to protect themselves.”

Wallace said gun control has not worked in Massachusetts, except to reduce the number of licensed gun owners. In 1998, he recalled, there were 1.5 million gun owners, but a major gun control package pared that number down dramatically, to less than 250,000, he said.

GOAL, which was founded in 1974, has some 16,000 members. Wallace has been with the organization since 2000.

In a prepared statement announcing the lawsuit, Wallace expressed pleasure at being able to work with the other organizations on this legal action, even though GOAL is not involved as a plaintiff.


“Since the beginning of the fight against Covid-19, the Baker Administration has launched a systematic campaign against our Second Amendment civil rights. It is imperative we ensure our civil rights and systems of checks and balances on our government are protected, especially during times of crisis.”–Jim Wallace, GOAL


SAF’s Alan Gottlieb was quick to acknowledge the irony.


“Closing gun stores and preventing citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights is not the way to fight a viral pandemic,” Gottieb said. “How ironic that rights groups must take the governor of Massachusetts to court over a Second Amendment issue as the 245th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord approaches. Government gun control is precisely the reason our ancestors stood together on April 19, 1775, and the Baker administration should seriously re-think its position.”

“It is disheartening to see one of our original freedom fighter colonies decide to take a page from General Thomas Gage,” Adam Kraut, FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy concurred. “During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment guaranteeing that the constitution would not prevent peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. Yet, the modern day Massachusetts government seeks to do just that. There is no COVID-19 exception in the Constitution, and even this crisis has constitutional limits.”


Brent Carlton with Comm2A echoed their sentiments.


“It’s sad that rather than devoting their full attention to addressing this serious public health emergency, the Baker administration is treating this crisis as an opportunity to set the precedent for suspend constitutional rights that they oppose,” Carlton observed. “The Baker administration can no more block exercise of the Second Amendment by preventing Massachusetts residents from purchasing firearms than the Trump administration can limit the First Amendment by closing the New York Times or CNN.”

“State and local governments cannot suspend the Constitution and its guarantee of fundamental human rights,” FPC President Brandon Combs added. “Massachusetts has again gone out of its way to prevent individuals from exercising their right to keep and bear arms when they want and need to most. But the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. We are proud to fight for the rights of Bay Staters alongside our friends and fellow plaintiffs in this case.”


In recent weeks, SAF and the FPC have been involved in several legal actions, in California, North Carolina, New Jersey, all involving similar complaints about gun store closures amid the coronavirus outbreak.

The battles of Lexington and Concord are widely held to have been the real start of the Revolutionary War, despite the fact they happened more than a year before the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, dated July 4, 1776. There was a brief, but fatal, skirmish between the Lexington militia on the village commons as some 700 troops marched toward Concord to seize what they believed were rebel munitions, including cannons.

After Lexington, troops continued their march to Concord, but by the time they arrived, word of the trouble had spread. By some estimates, at least 2,000 militia members from various communities had converged for what proved to be a confrontation at Concord’s North Bridge.

Following these two battles, some 15,000 militia members surrounded Boston and placed it under siege. Almost two months later, on June 17, the battles of Breeds and Bunker hills were fought.

From then on, it was a shooting war.

Today, the fighting is done in the courts, but the underlying issue appears to have changed very little.






About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books #add on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

BYE BYE 2ND AMENDMENT: VIRGINIA MAN CHARGED FOR SHOOTING MASKED INTRUDERS

BYE BYE 2ND AMENDMENT: VIRGINIA MAN CHARGED FOR SHOOTING MASKED INTRUDERS

‘This is very sad for America’

BY KELEN MCBREEN

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/bye-bye-2nd-amendment-virginia-man-charged-for-shooting-masked-intruders/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Police in Virginia are charging a smoke shop employee for shooting at masked intruders who were breaking into the store early Sunday.

33-year-old Hamzeh Abushariah was asleep in the back office of Arlington Smoke Shop when he heard loud noises at 4:30 in the morning.

With the clamor waking him, Abushariah grabbed a firearm and encountered three masked individuals inside the shop, robbing the place.



The employee fired three shots in the direction of the thieves, striking one who turned out to be a minor.

Arlington County police arrived, found the underage robber suffering from the gunshot wound and took him to the hospital with serious, but not life-threatening, injuries.

The other two suspects were able to escape and have yet to be located.

To Abushariah’s surprise, he was charged with “malicious wounding, reckless handling of a firearm and violation of a protective order,” according to a statement from police.

Police also say they are holding Abushariah without bond.

Responding to the arrest of his employee and defending the Second Amendment, Arlington Smoke Shop owner Jowan Zuber made an appearance on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight on Tuesday.

“We thought we’re in the right. Three masked men at 4:30 on a Sunday morning,” Zuber explained to Tucker. “This is very sad for America today, as American citizens practicing the Second Amendment to protect the store and the lives.”

Police reportedly asked Abushariah why he didn’t just “run out the back door” when the intruders broke in.

“This [tells] the criminals out there, hey we can rob stuff, kill people, hurt people, and guess what — people have to run out the back door,” Zuber said. “This is mind-boggling!”

Additionally, Zuber argues his employee’s health is in jeopardy due to the spread of COVID-19 in jails and prisons across the country.

Watch the full Tucker Carlson, Jowan Zuber interview below:

VIRGINIA: GOVERNOR NORTHAM CHARACTERIZES GUN RANGES AS "ENTERTAINMENT" & ISSUES ORDER TO CLOSE~VCDL TAKING ACTION TO RE-OPEN INDOOR GUN RANGES

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

VIRGINIA: GOVERNOR NORTHAM CHARACTERIZES GUN RANGES AS "ENTERTAINMENT" & ISSUES ORDER TO CLOSE~VCDL TAKING ACTION TO RE-OPEN INDOOR GUN RANGES 

BY PHILIP VAN CLEAVE

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/vcdl-taking-action-to-reopen-indoor-gun-ranges-in-va/#axzz6IMPNiY11; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- An Executive Order from Governor Northam has shut down all indoor shooting ranges, classifying them as “entertainment.” Practicing a life-saving skill or learning how to safely shoot a firearm is NOT entertainment!

Virginia Citizens Defense League members have been contacting the Governor and asking him to take the indoor gun ranges off the entertainment list.

So far all we've had is crickets chirping.

On Friday, the William J. Olson law firm sent a letter to the Governor on VCDL's behalf. Click here to read the letter.

Over the weekend the Federal Department of Homeland Security sent out an advisory that gun ranges are to be considered critical infrastructure. This morning Olson sent another letter on Virginia Citizens Defense League's behalf with that new information. Click here to read that second letter.

Still nothing but crickets.

I have requested that the Virginia Citizens Defense League Board of Directors approve a lawsuit that would have a stay on the closing of indoor shooting ranges. If the Board approves, we will move forward quickly.

If you know the owners of any indoor shooting ranges and they are interested in participating in the lawsuit, have them contact me (president@vcdl.org). If you are a paying member of an indoor range, you might also consider contributing to the fight as soon as we announce that the lawsuit is in motion.

These ranges CANNOT afford to stay closed until June. Some of these ranges have millions of dollars invested in them. We HAVE to protect the indoor ranges or we will have very few places to shoot in the future, even after the ban is lifted.

For now, stay tuned…

Article on the DHS range classification HERE




About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.

CIVIL LIBERTIES MATTER MORE THAN EVER IN A PANDEMIC~THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO STOP ASKING QUESTIONS

CIVIL LIBERTIES MATTER MORE THAN EVER IN A PANDEMIC~THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO STOP ASKING QUESTIONS 

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/03/civil-liberties-matter-more-ever-pandemic-daniel-greenfield; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

1 in 5 Americans have been ordered to stay home. Major states and cities have been shut down.

Our response to the coronavirus represents the biggest challenge to the relationship between individuals and the government in this country since the Civil War, WW1 or WW2. These decisions will likely be debated by scholars and historians the way that the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, the Espionage Act, Japanese internment camps, and other emergency decisions continue to be litigated.

A generation ago, the ACLU might have had something to say about the civil liberties implications of shelter-in-place orders. That was a different ACLU that at least pretended to care about civil liberties as an objective value, defending the civil rights of people it disagreed with. The new ACLU is an identity politics zombie whose only civil liberties concerns for the coronavirus response is that illegal aliens won’t be able to enter the country and that prison inmates should be released as quickly as possible.

The ACLU's position on the coronavirus is that, "individual rights must sometimes give way to the greater good. After all, when it comes to disease, we are not just individuals but also one big bio-mass."

"A disease cares little for our notions of individualism," the former civil liberties organization argues.

That is no doubt true. But we don't run our society from the perspective of a disease. And we don’t ask civil libertarians to mind-meld with viruses. Once upon a time, the ACLU might have asked what the Constitution thought of a policy. Now it asks what a disease thinks of the United States of America. And to the disease, the ACLU, and the Left, we're one big bio-mass collective with no room for individualism.

Meanwhile the ACLU has missed the civil liberties debate over what an “essential” establishment is. Shelter-in-place and other variants of the same term list the local definition of what is considered an essential or non-essential establishment. There is, as of yet, no formal federal definition.

Are liquor stores essential? They are in New York, New Jersey, St. Louis and Michigan. But not in Pennsylvania. Pot stores were deemed essential in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

And in Pennsylvania.

But the “essential” debate is really blowing up when it comes to firearms.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva freed 1,700 criminals from county jails and launched an aggressive push to force gun stores to shut down as non-essential.

“We will be closing them, they are not an essential function,” Villanueva insisted. "You have the mixture of people that are not formerly gun owners and you have a lot more people at home and anytime you introduce a firearm in a home... it increases fourfold the chance that someone is gonna get shot.”

Whether or not that’s true, it has nothing to do with whether gun stores are essential or not. Villanueva is wrongly conflating a gun control risk argument with defining what is an essential business.

And when thousands of criminals are set loose, firearms become more essential than ever.

While Illinois had deemed firearms businesses to be essential, Pennsylvania did not. The state’s version of “essential” or “life-sustaining”, like California, covers marijuana, but not firearms. That’s a problem since Philly authorities had announced that they wouldn’t be arresting “non-violent offenders”.

Non-violent offenders, a highly misleading term for a wide variety of some, potentially quite hostile and dangerous criminals, includes car theft, burglary and other threats to personal property.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard a case by a gun shop owner and split, with the majority upholding the Democrat shutdown of gun stores in the state, while a minority dissented, arguing, that it's, “an absolute and indefinite prohibition upon the acquisition of firearms by the citizens of this commonwealth — a result in clear tension with the Second Amendment”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political dial, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas classified abortions as non-essential, though Ohio abortion facilities don’t appear to actually be obeying orders to close down.

Are gun stores or abortion clinics essential?

To people on one side, one of them is the footprint of a murderous industry that shouldn’t even exist and on the other is a constitutionally protected right. Litigation over both sides and both industries has been fought endlessly, but is now being settled by fiat under the guise of emergency measures.

That’s the civil liberties problem with giving government unlimited emergency powers to shut down everything it wants to with very little scrutiny and no meaningful appeal against its decisions.

There is an emergency. But civil rights don’t disappear in emergencies. They matter more than ever.

The use of emergency powers allow government to strip away individual rights with very little oversight. And it’s inevitable that, as in Los Angeles County, those powers will be used for self-serving reasons.

In an emergency, it’s vital to keep government honest by questioning how it uses its powers, examining its motives for using those powers, and pushing to set limits on these emergency powers. The tension between emergency powers and civil liberties is the cauldron out of which freedom is constantly reborn. 

When the government is gifted with the power to shut down anything in an emergency, its officials will make those decisions along the lines of their preconceived cultural, moral, and political views.

Even when the effect is to override existing civil liberties.

The debate over the shutdowns has been presented as a utilitarian contest between lives and the economy: balancing the risk to people and the risk to their ability to earn a living. But beyond the utilitarian debates and the numbers, of unemployment figures, and projected casualties, are the intangible moral and cultural factors that may well mark this nation even generations afterward.

Every emergency violation of civil liberties has left its scars on America. Including the Civil War. If this time is to be different, we must learn the lessons of those pasts before they turn into the new present.

No society is free all the time. But the difference between a free and unfree society is that a free society keeps asking challenging questions even during periods when civil liberties have been suspended. And by asking questions, its citizens work to keep this state of affairs an aberration, not the new normal.

When people become reflexively used to obeying orders, to jumping without asking any questions, then the crisis response becomes a new cultural norm. That’s why the fight to protect civil liberties from shutdown orders should not wait until the crisis is over. Even now may already be too late.

This is not the time to stop asking questions, but to start asking them.

President Trump can take an important first step by adopting a definition of essential businesses that includes gun stores: sending the message that the government stands behind the Second Amendment.

Because civil liberties don’t stop mattering during a pandemic. They matter now more than ever.