How Do Lawful Gun Owners Help Public Safety?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights guarantee to the freedom to keep and bear arms. Groups pushing gun control are lamenting mourning the results of the 2024 presidential election because they recognize that their greatest supporter – President Joe Biden – is losing his bully pulpit. Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be one of the main targets of the federal government.

Amy Swearer shared her thoughts about the reverse fortunes of gun owners in her article posted at The Daily Signal. 

But ordinary lawful owners of firearms never have been the driving force behind violent crime.

Not only that, but they regularly rely on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their loved ones from violent criminals when the government can’t or won’t be there to ensure their safety.

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed – or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place….

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use during crimes that we found in October. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

·         Oct. 1, Seattle: A woman came out the front door of her residence and pointed a shotgun at two process servers, police said. One of them, drawing his own gun, shot and killed the woman.

·         Oct. 7, Hubert, North Carolina: Police said a woman fatally shot her ex-boyfriend after he showed up at her home in violation of a protection order and climbed through a window. Local officials said the man had a lengthy history of domestic violence and was wearing a court-ordered ankle monitor after having violated protection orders at least twice before. He allegedly called the woman 26 times and sent her dozens of text messages in the hours before the deadly encounter.

·         Oct. 10, Sioux Fall, South Dakota: Several people wielding baseball bats confronted a group of motorcyclists at a gas station, mistakenly believing that they had jumped a friend earlier that night. After ducking to avoid a blow from a bat, one motorcyclist drew a gun and fatally shot two of the assailants. He also shot and wounded a woman who pointed a gun at him. Police confirmed that the motorcyclists weren’t involved in the original assault, calling it a case of mistaken identity.

·         Oct. 11, Cut Bank, Montana: Two juveniles broke into a car and stole a handgun before a resident confronted them, police said. One juvenile shot the resident in the leg with the handgun before another resident arrived  and, armed with his own firearm, held the shooter at gunpoint until police arrived. Both juveniles were taken into custody; the wounded resident was expected to recover.

·         Oct. 12, Poplar Bluff, Missouri: A woman shot and wounded a man as he illegally entered her home through her bedroom window early in the morning, police said. The suspect – who police said was caught on camera in 2022 trying to enter other homes – faced unspecified charges.

·         Oct. 16, Columbus, Ohio: When a newsstand employee caught a man trying to steal an item from a cooler, police said, the would-be thief drew a handgun and pointed it at him. The employee called for his nearby brother, who drew his own gun and shot and wounded the thief. He was charged with felony aggravated robbery.

·         Oct. 20, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: After being kicked out of his girlfriend’s house during a dispute earlier in the day, a man returned, pinned her to the floor, and held a knife to her throat in front of her children. One of the children, a teenager, grabbed a firearm and fatally shot the man, police said.

·         Oct. 25, Chicago: When a bystander tried to intervene in a quarrel between a man and a woman on a public sidewalk, the man pointed a gun at him. The bystander – a concealed carry permit holder – drew his own gun and fatally shot his assailant. The incident occurred a day after two other Chicago gun owners successfully defended themselves against violent criminals.

·         Oct. 29, Stratford, Connecticut: Police said an armed resident confronted two would-be car thieves who he discovered breaking into his car, exchanging gunfire with them until they fled. The resident wasn’t hurt.

·         Oct. 31, New Iberia, Louisiana: A man broke into two residences and stabbed two victims – one in each home – before an armed resident in the second home shot and wounded him, police said. All three were taken to a hospital for treatment; the suspect was charged with attempted first-degree murder.

All of these lawful gun owners highlight just how important the right to keep and bear arms is to ordinary Americans.

Swearer explained that Second Amendment protections do not threaten public safety, as claimed by gun control activists. Good people bearing arms “will only threaten the safety of violent criminals” as “lawful gun owners want to defend themselves.”

Can Kamala Harris Be Trusted to Protect the Rights of Americans?

Vice President Kamala Harris is famous for her flip-flopping to win votes. She is currently courting the votes of gun owners by claiming that she owns a gun and any intruder in her home would be shot. According to Amy Swearer at The Daily Signal, this is what Harris was saying while district attorney of San Francisco in 2007: 

We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.

Even though Harris voiced support for Columbia v. Heller defending a ban on handgun possession in Washington D.C., Swearer found it “shocking” that Harris “so brazenly and vindictively threatened to violate gun owners’ other constitutional rights.” Since Harris is not an “amateur on criminal law who can claim ignorance,” she should know that “the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Swearer continued, “As a general rule, the government can’t search a person (or his or her property) without a warrant or absent probable cause that a crime has been committed.”

According to Swearer, Harris should also know that “there’s no ‘Second Amendment loophole’ to the Fourth Amendment. There’s no asterisk with fine print excluding gun owners from the rest of the Bill of Rights.” Swearer explained, “The government can’t force us to pick and choose between our rights, nor can it condition the exercise of one right on the waiver of another.”

Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and we have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We also have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures while keeping and bearing arms.

Harris’ comments should rightly terrify Americans. You don’t have to be a gun owner or even like guns to see how dangerous this theory of governance is to a free society, and how dramatically it undermines constitutional norms.

If Harris is willing to unilaterally waive gun owners’ Fourth Amendment rights, it’s not unreasonable to ask what other rights she’d be willing to unilaterally waive, and for whom.

Can the government require all who peaceably assemble to forfeit any right against excessive bail?

Can it quarter soldiers in the homes of people who petition for redress of their grievances?

May it prohibit the free exercise of religion, but just for those who insist on their right to trial by an impartial jury?

Any American who has studied the Bill Rights knows that the correct answer is NO. Our Constitution does not work that way for anyone.

This is why Harris should never come close to becoming President of the United States. VOTE TRUMP!

Will the Supreme Court Rule on This Second Amendment Case?

 The Supreme Court may soon have another showdown on the Second Amendment, according to Amy Swearer. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons earlier this month, likely setting the stage for the next major Second Amendment showdown at the Supreme Court.” 

The case, Bianchi v. Brown, features Maryland residents who challenge the constitutionality of a 2013 state law that generally prohibits them from buying or possessing any firearm deemed an “assault weapon.”

The statute defines that term to include hundreds of specific models of semiautomatic rifles, as well as any other semiautomatic rifle that either (1) has a fixed magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds, (2) has an overall length shorter than twenty-nine inches, or (3) has both a detachable magazine and at least two of the following three features: a folding stock, flash suppressor, or grenade or flare launcher.

While semiautomatic rifles aren’t outright prohibited, Maryland residents are required to buy heavily modified “featureless” versions of those guns. The plaintiffs argue that this prohibition on owning virtually all of the most popular semiautomatic rifles in the nation violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court hasn’t definitively addressed the question of whether the Second Amendment protects the possession of semiautomatic rifles, but to say that its overall Second Amendment jurisprudence favors the plaintiffs’ argument is an understatement, to say the least.

First, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down the District of Columbia’s total ban on the possession of handguns and explained that the Second Amendment’s protections extend “prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The right is not unlimited, and the Supreme Court noted a historical tradition of “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” It emphasized, however, that handguns are “commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and constitute a “class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen American society” for exercising their natural right of self-defense.

Most recently, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court explained that judicial analyses of Second Amendment challenges must be based on text, history, and tradition, and not on any interest-balancing tests that allow courts to determine whether the government has a sufficiently compelling reason for the regulation.

Bruen didn’t specifically delve into what types of arms are protected, but the case is nonetheless instructive about how courts must go about discerning the answer to that question: When the law regulates conduct that is protected by the plain language of the amendment, the government must demonstrate that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Under the Bruen test, the government doesn’t have to show a historical doppelganger for its modern law, but at the very least, it needs to provide evidence of historical laws that were relevantly similarly both in how they burden the right to keep and bear arms, and in the reason for why the laws burden that right. Additionally, the historical tradition must be formed by more than a handful of late-in-time historical outliers.

In short, under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the government would have to show some longstanding national tradition of not only banning the civilian possession of semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, but banning them because they are a type of weapon that is so inherently dangerous and unusual that it’s not commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It can’t do so.

Swearer continued her article by explaining the “semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are hardly a new invention” with the “first successful semiautomatic rifle design was produced in the 1880s.” In addition, new features – “such as pistol grips, collapsing stocks, and barrel shrouds” – that assault and non-assault rifles “have no bearing on the weapon’s lethality, functionality, or concealment.”

Leftists continue their attempts to destroy Americans’ right “to keep and bear arms.” I hope that the Supreme Court takes this case and rules once and for all.

 

 

 

What Does the Garland v. Cargill Decision Mean?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There was a win for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the Second Amendment when the Supreme Court made a recent 6-3 decision. According to Amy Swearer at The Daily Signal, the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] “exceeded its statutory authority when it reclassified bump stocks as ‘machine guns’ under federal law.” 

Garland v. Cargill “centered around firearms,” but it did not “involve any arguments over whether the Second Amendment protects a right to own bump stocks, specifically, or machine guns, generally,” according to Swearer.

In her article Swearer indicated “the question in this case was far more simplistic: Is a bump stock device a machine gun, in the first place?” Then she continued:

Understanding Cargill requires a bit of background and context. One of the most important distinctions made by federal gun regulations is between machine guns, the possession of which is heavily restricted for civilians, and semiautomatic firearms, which have long been the type of gun most commonly owned by civilians.

Federal law defines a machine gun as a weapon that “shoots, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” A semiautomatic rifle, meanwhile, “requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

In layman’s terms, the distinction between a machine gun and a semiautomatic firearm is all about what must happen for the gun to fire a second bullet.

In a semiautomatic weapon, pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire exactly one round. In order to fire a second bullet, you must release the trigger so that it resets, and then it must be physically pulled again to fire the next bullet.

But when you pull the trigger in a machine gun, the weapon will fire bullets continuously until either you release the trigger, or the gun runs out of ammunition. The trigger doesn’t need to reset and be reengaged.

From a practical standpoint, then, one of the primary differences between machine guns and semiautomatic guns (and the primary reason machine guns are so heavily restricted for civilians) is that machine guns have a much faster rate of fire.

But, importantly, Congress didn’t include “rate of fire” as a factor for determining whether a weapon is [a] machine gun, choosing instead to focus on the internal mechanics of the gun.

Enter the bump stock, an aftermarket device that can be affixed to many commonly owned semiautomatic rifle platforms. These devices don’t change the gun’s internal mechanics – one pull of the trigger will still cause the gun to fire only one bullet.

Instead, the device enables the shooter, through a combination of technique and physics, to pull the trigger much more rapidly than most shooters would be capable of, absent the device….

Even though the device could greatly increase the gun’s rate of fire to rival that of a machine gun, the basic mechanics of the semiautomatic rifle hadn’t changed.

After sharing more information, Shearer explained that the Cargill decision “is a victory that reverberates far beyond the Second Amendment. It’s a win for the rule of law and constitutional government.

In other words, the ATF was infringing on the Second Amendment rights of all Americans as well as other freedom as well. All Americans should thank God for conservative justices.

What Is the Goal for Gun Grabbers?

 The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Second Amendment – also known as the right to keep and bear arms. Every single time that some idiot decides to commit mass murder, the gun-control crowd goes wild. It happened again this week.

Some idiot committed mass murder when he killed 18 people in Maine on Wednesday. Just like clockwork, Vice President Kamala Harris praised the Australian gun bans on Thursday when speaking with the Australian prime minister, according to Sara Garstka at The Daily Signal. 

“Gun violence has terrorized and traumatized so many of our communities in this country,” Harris said Thursday afternoon at the event with Australian leader Anthony Albanese. “And let us be clear, it does not have to be this way, as our friends in Australia have demonstrated.”

The vice president was referring to a series of gun-buyback programs in the commonwealth of Australia. The regulations followed a 1996 firearms massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died and began with the National Firearms Agreement of 1996, which declared semiautomatic weapons illegal and prompted the surrender of close to 650,000 firearms. Since then, the Pacific Rim nation has tightly restricted gun ownership and continued to buy back legally owned guns and confiscate illegally owned firearms. But the measures have not been very effective at reducing the number of legally held firearms in the nation.

While the past 27 years of gun restrictions in Australia have decreased the number of gun-owning households by half, as of 2016, the number of firearms per licensed owner had increased from 2.1 to 3.9.

In 2017, there were an estimated 3.6 million firearms in Australia, compared with 3.2 million in 1996, the year of the mass killings in Tasmania, the Sydney Morning Herald reported in 2019. The newspaper noted that in 1997, after then-Prime Minister John Howard’s initial buyback of guns, there were an estimated 2.5 million firearms in the country.

Australia has established that bearing arms is a privilege and not a right. Today, Australian gun laws do not even include self-defense as a “justifiable reason” for owning a firearm. “It is a false choice to suggest we must choose between either upholding the Second Amendment or passing reasonable gun-safety laws to save lives,” Harris said in a written statement about the Maine shootings. “Congress can and must make background checks universal. Pass red flag laws. Ban high-capacity magazines. And renew the assault weapons ban.”

The Biden administration has been working to advance Second Amendment restrictions in the United States, establishing in September the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which Harris oversees. The office will push to “enact universal background checks and ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” the vice president said in a statement about the initiative.

Democrats and other leftists want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. One of their tactics is to claim that guns take the most American lives each year. However, they never mention the 500,000 to 3 million American lives that are saved each year by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In addition, they never mention the 2363 unborn American babies killed every single day through abortion, adding up to 860,000 deaths of unborn American babies every single year. [Figures are from Garstka.]

So, abortions kill more Americans than guns every single year. It seems that saving American lives is not the purpose for gun control advocates. Therefore, the demand for gun control is simply a way to gain control of the citizenry, just like all tyrants.

What Do Americans Say about the Second Amendment?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the Second Amendment. This amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms.” Most Americans understand that they have this guaranteed right, and they purchase more guns when they feel threatened. During and after the 2020 race riots, Americans bought guns. During COVID-19, Americans bought guns. When calls are made for more gun control, Americans bought guns.

            Armstrong Williams, host of “The Armstrong Williams Show” and columnist for The Daily Signal, knows that the right to bear arms “is a touchy subject these days, but its effect on our daily lives cannot be overstated.” Americans recognize that life becomes more dangerous by the day, so they do what they can to defend themselves and their loved ones. He stated, “our cities re in a dangerous downward spiral” and emphasized that the cities are “increasingly filthy” with “skyrocketing” crime rates. If you doubt his words, he suggests that you “Take a stroll through any big city” to see what is happening. 

            Katherine Schaeffer of the Pew Research Center published an article giving “key facts about Americans and guns.” With increasing numbers of Americans purchasing guns, Democrats continue to propose new restrictions on access to firearm for law-abiding Americans. Her “key finding about Americans’ attitudes about gun violence, gun policy, and other subjects” are taken from surveys made by Pew Research Center and Gallup. 

1. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one.

2. Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm.

3. Around half of Americans (48%) see gun violence as a very big problem in the country today.

4. Attitudes about gun violence differ widely by race, ethnicity, party and community type. [Blacks (82%), Hispanic (58%), and White (39%) say it is a very big problem.]

5. Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019.

6. Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings.

7. There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive.

8. Gun ownership is closely linked with views on gun policies. This is true even among gun owners and non-owners within the same political party.

9. Americans in rural areas typically favor more expansive gun access, while Americans in urban places prefer more restrictive policies. 

What Is Biden Doing with the Second Amendment?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Democrats and the Biden administration do not understand the meaning of this amendment because they do not understand the meaning of the individual words. Shall means that something will happen, not might happen. Keep and bear arms means that Americans have the right to own guns and to carry them.

            Biden is intent on changing the meaning of the Second Amendment or taking away this guaranteed freedom. He recently gave a speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, to tout his “Safer America Plan” and a gun control bill that he signed into law. Amy Swearer listed what she considers to be the “top 5 most unserious things Biden said about guns and the Second Amendment” in his August 30, 2022, speech. 

1. “Right now you can’t go on [sic] and buy an automatic weapon. You can’t go out and buy a cannon.”

Biden has made some variation of this assertion numerous times since taking office as president, and every time it has been roundly debunked by fact-checkers.

Private cannon ownership apparently was so widespread that one of the first types of “gun control” laws implemented in the early 1800s by some towns was a prohibition on firing one’s cannon inside city limits during certain times or without permission.

Today, it’s still not uncommon for civilians to own heavy ordnance, including 18ty-century cannons and their modern equivalents. In fact, civilians even may buy tanks and other tactical military vehicles if they can afford the steep price tags….

It’s also simply not true that civilians can’t legally buy machine guns today. These firearms are subject to special taxing and registration provisions under the National Firearms Act, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act prohibits civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986. Nevertheless, over 700,000 of them currently are registered to American civilians.

2. “Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times lighter and can pierce Kevlar?”

A simple internet search by an intern could have told the president that this statement about an AR-15’s muzzle velocity and weight was laughably false.

Although a .223/5.56 bullet – the most common caliber for an AR-15 platform – is certainly among the lighter and faster of rifle rounds, it’s not even close to the lightest or fastest, much less five times faster or lighter….

As for Biden’s claim that rounds fired from an AR-15 can “pierce Kevlar,” this is true of almost all common rifle calibers against soft body armor, which is not typically graded to stop rifle rounds.

3. “For God sake [sic], what’s the rationale for these weapons outside of a war zone? They inflict severe damage … the AR-15 just rips the body apart.”

Biden can’t really believe that AR-15s are solely useful for combat. If he did, he and other gun control advocates wouldn’t universally exempt law enforcement officers from these bans (including while the officers are off duty).

In the United States, law enforcement officers aren’t waging offensive warfare or engaging in open combat on a battlefield. Instead, they are peace officers, responding to common criminal threats in a civilian context. They routinely carry AR-15s precisely because these guns are genuinely useful for a wide variety of lawful civilian purposes….

4. “For those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15 … You need something more than a gun.”

This is an odd assertion for the president to make after dedicating so much time to the mutually exclusive argument that AR-15s are ultra-deadly weapons of war and useful only for combat purposes.

Either the gun is a useless hunk of carbon fiber without any value in a hypothetical armed defense against a tyrant’s military forces, or it is a war zone weapon that should be limited to the battlefield. It cannot be both at the same time.

More importantly, Biden’s argument misunderstands how any large-scale armed defense against a tyrannical government or foreign invader would unfold and underappreciates the role of federalism in ensuring a far more adequate response to such a scenario.

The Framers well understood that an armed but disorganized citizenry alone might struggle against a large standing army under the control of a tyrannical central power. This is precisely why every state has its own organized militia unit, in the form of its State Guard and National Guard units.

Any hypothetical large-scale revolt against a tyrannical federal government almost certainly would involve these well-trained and well-equipped state organized militias – including their fighter jets, tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, and special operations forces….

5. “There are certain gun dealers that are basically … not gun dealers, they’re wholesalers providing the weapons to anybody who has the money.”

Is Biden alleging that these “gun dealers” are breaking federal laws, either by failing to obtain a Federal Firearms License or by failing to abide by laws requiring such licensees to conduct background checks on firearm purchasers?

If so, the president, as chief executive, should direct federal law enforcement agencies to do their jobs, investigate this alleged criminal noncompliance, and ensure these criminals are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law….

By definition, if these transactions are conducted lawfully, the prospective buyer passed a federal background and took possession of a firearm that he was permitted to own under all relevant state laws….

            Anyone who has listened to any of Biden’s speeches knows that he is unserious president. He may believe the things that he says, but his reason for saying the things that he does is that he must keep his left-wing base. If he does not say the things that they want, they may leave him without any supporters.

What Have We Learned from the Russian Invasion of Ukraine?

            There are numerous lessons to be learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One of the most important of lessons is the value of the Second Amendment rights in America. The colonists had recently won a hard-fought war with the greatest military in the world. They understood the importance of being prepared for war. The people of Ukraine also understand the importance of citizens having access to guns.

            In an article written by Bernadette Hassan, Natalia MeInyk, communications director for the Ukraine-based Bendulidze Free Market, spoke about the situation in Ukraine before the Russian invasion. “You could not own handguns legally; only hunting weapons if you had a license. All handguns were ‘award’ weapons, randomly distributed by our Ministry of Defense. Usually, you needed to have some connections to get these weapons.” 

            Things changed a little during the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. Some citizens, but not all citizens, were armed but with restrictions. “In areas not under immediate attack, the government said to these territorial units, ‘If you are not under immediate danger of attack, please return the weapons. We will safely store them in a warehouse. If something happens, you can come and get them.’ Of course, [the Ukrainian people] said, ‘No, thank you.’”

            There has been a slight improvement in Ukraine, sort of like “two steps forward, one step back.” Ukraine government wants to arm citizens while also restricting access with mandatory storage of guns in a warehouse. MeInyk continued with her explanation.

It never was such a big issue in the broader Ukrainian society, because we were a peaceful nation. A lot of people honestly believed [and] I was one of them: ‘Why would you need a weapon? We are not going to war, and if you are not a hunter … why do you need it?’

But after the Russian invasion, it appears we really do need it.

            There was a cultural change in Ukraine about self-defense after the invasion. “It was nearly impossible to get a time slot at a shooting range because so many Ukrainians went in to learn how to actually handle a gun, because they have no idea…. It’s not the case of the Ukrainian government sending Ukrainian people to die…. This is the conscious decision of thousands of Ukrainians to protect their freedom, protect their land, and to protect the future of their children.”

            There is a meme making the rounds on social media claiming that there are more hunting licenses sold in the United States each year than the number of soldiers in the ten largest armies in the world. Snopes rated the meme partly true. There are more hunting licenses, tags, permits, and stamps sold in the U.S. in 2018 (about 37 million) than the number of total members in the world’s ten largest armies (about 25 million). However, one hunter could purchase a license in more than one state and have numerous tags, permits, and stamps. 

            Nevertheless, there are millions of hunters in the United States who know how to use rifles and pistols. There are millions of other people who own guns and use them for target practice or shooting clay pigeons. In addition, there are still millions of other people who purchase guns for self-protection and know how to use them. The number of armed hunters could be one of the reasons why America has not been invaded by a foreign nation. The writers of the Second Amendment had it correct when they guaranteed Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Who Is the Most Serious about Stopping School Shootings?

              The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Second Amendment and the strident calls for more gun control. The Democrats use every opportunity possible to call for more gun control, and the tragedy at Uvalde, Texas, provided such an occasion. On the other hand, Republicans realize that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is not the answer, and some Republicans are taking other action.

             The State of Ohio is serious about preventing any incidents like the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. This is shown by the fact that the state legislature passed a bill allowing school districts to arm employees, and Republican Governor Mike DeWine will soon sign it.          

            President Joe Biden opposes hardening schools to avoid school shooting, and the Democrats in Ohio opposed the legislation even though it is optional for the school districts. Democrats claim that signing the bill into law will send the wrong message because of the Uvalde shooting. However, “the Republican majority in the state’s legislature insisted that the measure could prevent future tragedies like the one in Uvalde.” 

            Under the new legislation school personnel will need 24 hours of training before being allowed to arm themselves on campus. “The firearm training that school employees will now receive will be specific to respective schools and school systems and will include ‘significant’ scenario-based training.”

            According to Governor DeWine, “Ultimately, each school will make its own decision. So we’re not telling any school district – we have over 600 school districts in the state – the school board of that school will decide whether they want to arm teachers or not.” He continued, “We will also be giving schools the choice of providing additional training, that we will stake out [and] provide for if they decide that they want more than 24 hours for a teacher.” The legislation also calls for “eight hours of requalification training annually to recertify [school employees] ability to carry while on school grounds.”

            The legislature is not the only public body that is divided over the legislation. “Reportedly, major law enforcement groups, gun control advocates, and the state’s teachers’ unions oppose the legislation,” but “Notably, local police departments and certain school districts within the state expressed support for the legislation.”

            In addition to giving school districts the choice to arm school employees, the state is going further in its efforts to harden schools. Governor DeWine “recently announced that the state’s construction budget will provide $100 million for school security upgrades and $5 million for security upgrades at colleges across the state.”

            Hanging a “Gun Free Zone” sign outside each school has not prevented school shooting. School shooters have obviously not paid attention to the signs. It is time to do more to protect innocent people. While deluded people claim that more gun control will solve the problem, people living in reality can see that disarming law-abiding citizens will not disarm those with the intent to kill.

The best way to prevent more school shootings is to make the experience more difficult. Arming school employees and training them to use guns safely is one way to deter would-be shooters from coming to the school. If schools are also locked down with one way to enter the school and an armed guard at the entrance, want-a-be shooters may think twice about going there. The old way is not working, so it is time to try something new.

Should We Keep the Second Amendment?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the Second Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms. The new nation of United States of America had recently fought an eight-year-war against Great Britain when the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written. They understood the value in citizens owning and knowing how to use guns as well as being prepared to defend the nation.

The framers of the Constitution may have turned over in their graves at this comment from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a recent press conference: “Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”

I can assure Trudeau that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were not concerned about sport shooting or hunting. They wanted citizens who were prepared to defend their nation from foreigners and the citizenry from the government. Today, they would recognize that citizens should be prepared to defend themselves, their families, and their homes from invaders. Jarrett Stepman, a contributor at The Daily Signal, wrote the following: 

The Canadian measure, if passed, would prevent the importing, buying, or selling of handguns, with only a few exceptions. The Canadian government also announced it will begin a mandatory buyback of “assault-style weapons” by the end of the year. [Emphasis added.]

How quickly “commonsense” gun control in Canada has progressed from restricting the sale of “assault-style” weapons in 2020 to confiscations and a proposed prohibition on the sale of handguns in 2022.

It’s clear that many Western leaders are using societal crises to justify trampling on the rights of their citizens. What’s at stake is something deeper about how society and governments should be ordered.

In Canada, Trudeau said, there is effectively no right to own a gun. Firearms are only for sport, he said, a privilege.

            Trudeau was supported Bill Blair, Canada’s minister of emergency preparedness. “In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.” He continued,

This is a principle that differentiates ourselves from many other countries in the world, notably our colleagues and friends to the south. In Canada, guns are only intended to be used for hunting and sport purposes.

            American gun owners should be grateful that they live in the United States instead of Canada. Stepman wrote that “Canada has gone much further in banning guns than has the United States. Gun confiscation isn’t far off.” He stated that such action is “the logical conclusion of the idea that all deaths attributable to guns are preventable, and any law or right preventing it is illegitimate.”

            According to Stepman, Trudeau and Blair are wrong about their statement that gun ownership is a “privilege and not a right.” Stepman continued, “It is a right, just not one protected by the Canadian government. That’s an important distinction.”

            The separate amendments in the Bill of Rights did not create rights. According to Stepman, the “10 amendments were intended as an additional, explicit layer of protection – a set of boundaries – around rights that were known to exist.” He continued by stating that the Ninth Amendment was written to make this fact absolutely clear. The “enumeration of rights in the Constitution is not intended to suggest that any other right is subject to be taken away by the government on a whim.”

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the amendment reads.

In other words, the Framers created the Bill of Rights to make additional guarantees for rights that exist whether or not there was a government. If a right wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and shouldn’t be protected.

The Bill of Rights proved to be a hotly contested issue among the Founding Fathers. Some insisted the 10 amendments were necessary, and some believed they would be detrimental.

The structure of the new government, detractors argued, would be the better guarantee of rights than an enumerated list.

Regardless, few would have denied that certain unalienable rights existed.

            The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights to protect “an individual’s right to protect himself and the larger community,” according to Stepman. “In addition, it was created to ensure that the federal government wouldn’t have the ability to disarm citizens en masse.” He concluded, “Without private firearm ownership, the United States as we know it today wouldn’t have existed.”

            Other countries have taken the same path that Canadians are currently treading with the most recent one being Australia. Officials in such countries “seek to implement mass gun control alongside other vast curtailments of liberty” such as existed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadians have already seen their freedom of speech assaulted with the ruling elite deciding what type of speech is acceptable.

            The freedoms of Americans are also being threatened, so we should understand that the United States could find itself on the same path as Canada and Australia. Americans should decide NOW whether they want to live in the type of nation outlined by the Constitution, or in the type of nation where God-given rights are destroyed by government. If we lose our Second Amendment rights, we will not be able to defend any of our other rights.

 

What Does the Future Hold for Kyle Rittenhouse?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when parents are active counselors in the lives of their children and teenagers. We will never know how many lives can be influenced for good by parents who are active in teaching, counseling, and protecting their children.

            Americans have watched for three weeks the trial of a teenager – Kyle Rittenhouse. Someone should have been counseling the seventeen-year-old young man to stay home on that fateful night. From all accounts, he could be described as a good and compassionate teenager who went about helping other people. In fact, he got in trouble because he wanted to help people on that fateful night in August 2020 when he made the decision to get involved in protecting his community from rioters. If he could go back and make the decision again, he could decide that bad would override any good that he could accomplish.

            Rittenhouse was acquitted on all five charges and was declared not guilty. This is the verdict that should have come because he was defending himself – a constitutional right. This decision does not make the determination that his actions were good. It only states that he acted in self-defense when other people were trying to kill him. He will live the rest of his life and all eternity with the knowledge that he killed two men. The jury was right to acquit him. They kept him out of prison, but they cannot give him a normal life. His life will never be the same as it was before that fateful night. Even though acquitted, he will pay a terrible price for his actions.

            For one thing, Rittenhouse will have difficulty being accepted into any university or getting a job. Whether we like it or not, he will be judged differently by universities and employers. He and his family might move to a different area because their lives will not be safe in their hometown. With a name like Rittenhouse, they will have difficulty disguising themselves. Therefore, gossip and trouble will follow them forever. I wish them luck and peace.

 

What Can We Expect from Second Amendment Case at Supreme Court?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the Second Amendment right guaranteed to the people to “keep and bear arms,” meaning the natural right to defend themselves. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. According to Amy Swearer at The Heritage Foundation, this is the first in more than a decade that the Supreme Court has heard a Second Amendment case.

            The law in New York prohibits most people from carrying firearms in public for self-defense. Swearer wrote that New Yorkers must prove that they have a “good cause” for “needing” to carry a gun before they are given a permit to do so. New York is not the only state to restrict the right to keep and bear arms because “seven other states” have “similarly restrictive public carry laws.”

The laws create a “special subset of people” who have the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Swearer gave the following details about the case.

The petitioners in this case are two New York residents with extensive experience and training with firearms. Both were denied concealed carry permits because licensing officials determined they did not “face any special or unique danger to [their] life.”

The two gun owners argue that New York’s restrictive and discretionary system for public carry permits is unconstitutional because it effectively stripped them of their right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

New York, for its part, argues that its laws constitute perfectly reasonable regulations that are fully consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

            Shearer explained why she believes that the case is an “uphill battle for New York.” She wrote, the “oral arguments before the Supreme Court highlighted serious problems with New York’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and the history of gun control.” The arguments also “underscored the uphill battle the state faces in defending the constitutionality of its public carry laws.”

One reason given by Shearer for such a decision is that the New York Solicitor conceded “many points that seriously damaged New York’s overall argument.” Shearer predicted that the majority of the Supreme Court will decide in favor of the petitioners. They will rule that “ordinary citizens” have the right “to carry firearms in public for self-defense,” and “states must permit residents to exercise this right subject only to reasonable regulations on time, place, and manner.”