Category Archives: Right to Keep and Bear Arms

It couldn’t happen here, could it?

Posted on by

I read. By that, I mean I read a lot. If you see me away from home, you may notice I have my tablet with me. I have a couple of thousand books on it. I finished a book last night, Joe Steel by Harry Turtledove. http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1406509652l/22544038.jpgI’m not going to give it a review. I rarely, if ever, review books. I’ve read a lot of Turtledove’s books and his favorite theme is Alternate History. I would suggest you read this one. It has some critical insights within it.

The alternate history in this book is simple…what if Joe Stalin’s parents had emigrated to the US well before Joe Stalin was born? Leon Trotsky, a darling of some current leftists, would have succeeded V. I. Lenin to lead communist Russia. Joe Stalin, who is called Joe Steel in the book, becomes a California congressmen running against FDR in 1932…and FDR and Eleanor mysteriously die in a fire in the New York Governor’s mansion.

I remember my father saying, he was an FDR democrat, that the country came to within a hair’s breadth of a revolution in 1932. Progressive propaganda blamed Wall Street for the nation’s woes. Some of that blame is valid; much was not.

The book uses that concept to show how the US could be changed into a dictatorship by an unprincipled strongman. I don’t know Turtledove’s politics but some of the tactics used by Joe Steel are eerily similar to some being used by Barak Obama.

How could the US be suborned into a dictatorship? The answer is in the book if you look: complacency, ignorance, and bigotry against the fundamental principles of this nation with a well-planned attack by democrats against free enterprise and capitalism. Take a look at our current politics and you’ll see the parallels in the book.

When FDR’s tactics were blocked by the Supreme Court, FDR attempted to pack the court with his cronies. In Joe Steel, Stalin has them charged with trumped up violations and shoots them for treason. The aims of FDR and Joe Steel were the same, only the tactics were different.

The book disturbed me. Not by its theme nor of its plot; it disturbed me because it could easily happen here. We don’t have someone knocking on our door in the middle of the night. They use battering rams instead.

***

If you’re a student of military history, you may have noticed something that is no longer allowed in the US military. Not all that long ago, a soldier’s weapons were stored, not in the armory, but with him in his barracks. In the 1990’s, during Clinton’s administration, that changed and those weapons were removed, taken from the troops. If the question was asked, “Why?” no real answer was given. There is one very reasonable motivation—the military leadership feared their troops.

The disarming of the military had consequences. One direct consequence was the massacre at Ft. Hood. There have been other, less well-known incidents as well.

Ted Cruz has an answer. Allow troops to carry personal weapons on base. It won’t alleviate the fears of mutiny by the leadership. It will, however, allow troops to have the means to be able to defend themselves and their families.

Ted Cruz takes on the military, says ‘Second Amendment rights are removed’ from troops on base

Base commanders fear accidents, escalation of personal disputes

By Jacqueline Klimas – The Washington Times – Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz is asking lawmakers to consider allowing troops to carry personal firearms on base for protection, reviving a fight that has previously been a nonstarter with Congress after military leaders said they didn’t support the change.

While many lawmakers said Tuesday they were open to having a discussion on changing the rules in a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing, most said that they would defer issues of base security to military leaders — who have historically been against allowing concealed carry on their posts.

Mr. Cruz formally sent a letter to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the committee, on Tuesday afternoon asking for a hearing on the subject, saying that current restrictions impede Second Amendment rights and weaken the safety and security of troops.

“The men and women in our military have been at war for over a decade; they understand the responsibilities that go along with carrying a firearm,” Mr. Cruz wrote in the letter. “Yet their Second Amendment rights are removed at the front gate.”

I suggest you read the entire column at the Washington Times website. It’s worth a read.

Facebook

The Judge Speaks

Posted on by

Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News wrote an editorial that appeared on the FOX News website. It was relatively short. Its reasoning is specific. It is an indictment of the Patriot Act and the abuses that have occurred since its passage.

Is our Constitution just a worthless piece of paper?

By

During his [George W. Bush] presidency, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. This legislation permits federal agents to write their own search warrants when those warrants are served on custodians of records — like doctors, lawyers, telecoms, computer servers, banks and even the Post Office.

Such purported statutory authority directly violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy in our “persons, houses, papers and effects.” That includes just about everything held by the custodians of our records. Privacy is not only a constitutional right protected by the document; it is also a natural right. We possess the right to privacy by virtue of our humanity. Our rights come from within us — whether you believe we are the highest progression of biological forces or the intended creations of an Almighty God — they do not come from the government.

If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they?

This is not an academic argument. If our rights come from within us, the government cannot take them away, whether by executive fiat, popular legislation or judicial ruling, unless we individually have waived them. If our rights come from the government, then they are not rights, but permission slips.

The terms of the Patriot Act were made public, and those of us who follow the government’s misdeeds could report on them. After all, this is America. We are a democracy. The government is supposed to work for us. 

We have the right to know what it is doing in our names as it is doing it, and we have the right to reveal what the government does. Yet, under this law, the feds punished many efforts at revelation. That’s because the Patriot Act prohibits those who receive these agent-written search warrants from telling anyone about them. This violates our constitutionally protected and natural right to free speech. All of this has been publicly known since 2001.

Then, in June 2013, Edward Snowden, the uber-courageous former CIA and NSA official, dropped a still smoldering bombshell of truth upon us when he revealed that the Bush administration had dispatched the NSA to spy on all Americans all the time and the Obama administration had attempted to make the spying appear legal by asking judges to authorize it.

Snowden went on to reveal that the NSA, pursuant to President Obama’s orders and the authorization of these judges meeting in secret (so secret that the judges themselves are not permitted to keep records of their own rulings), was actually capturing and storing the content of all emails, text messages, telephone calls, utility and credit card bills, and bank statements of everyone in America. They did this without a search warrant based on probable cause — a very high level of individualized suspicion — as required by the Constitution.

Snowden revealed that Obama’s lawyers had persuaded these secret judges, without any opposition from lawyers representing the victims of this surveillance, that somehow Congress had authorized this and somehow it was constitutional and somehow it was not un-American to spy on all of us all the time. These judges actually did the unthinkable: They issued what are known as general warrants. General warrants were used against the colonists by the British and are expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. They permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds. That’s what the NSA does to all of us today.

Last week, we learned how deep the disrespect for the Constitution runs in the government and how tortured is the logic that underlies it. In a little-noted speech at Washington and Lee Law School, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, told us. In a remarkable public confession, he revealed that somehow he received from some source he did not name the authority to reinterpret the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy so as to obliterate it. He argued that the line between privacy and unbridled government surveillance is a flexible and movable one, and that he — as the head of the NSA — could move it.

This is an astounding audacity by a former high-ranking government official who swore numerous times to uphold the Constitution. He has claimed powers for himself that are nowhere in the Constitution or federal statues, powers that no president or Congress has claimed, powers that no Supreme Court decision has articulated, powers that are antithetical to the plain meaning and supremacy of the Constitution, powers that any non-secret judge anywhere would deny him.

If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they? No value. In such a world, our Constitution has become a worthless piece of paper.

At the time of its passage, not much was known about the Patriot Act. It was a hasty response to 9/11 and to the intelligence failures that occurred before and after the attack. The Clinton administration had been diligent in weakening our military and intelligence organizations. The media built one scandal after another regardless of the merit of the incidents. In addition, interservice rivalry prevented sharing of information between agencies purposed for intelligence gathering. The intelligence organs had lost their identity and became politicized…to our detriment.

As with any pendulum, it had swung from one side of effectiveness to the other. The Patriot Act did not maintain the effectiveness of intelligence, it misdirected the aim of intelligence from outward to…inward. And we have all suffered from that change in direction.

A liberal Senator from the North East claims people want high-capacity magazine because, “they are arming against the government.” Apparently, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has never considered why people feel the need to arm themselves against the government. His statement is sufficient reason as it stands. But it is the abuses of government, such as those perpetrated by the Patriot Act, that provides the motivation Senator Murphy fears. Perhaps if he asked that question, “Why?” he would discover another answer and another alternative for his ire.

As we have seen, the senatorial GOP led by Mitch McConnell have no interest opposing the tyrannical acts of government. No, instead of opposing, they support such acts to the detriment of us all.

I have presented Judge Napolitano’s editorial in an attempt to expand its presence across the internet. It’s worth reading and consideration.

Facebook

In case you haven’t heard

Posted on by

One of the legislative actions passed in this last Missouri session was a proposed Constitutional Amendment. The amendment, known as SJR 36, would add text to the state constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms is an ‘unalienable’ right. The current ballot summary follows.

[Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR 36]

Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?

State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

* Fair Ballot Language to be Completed by June 30, 2014.

The St. Louis Police Chief, and a Bloomberg surrogate from Mothers Demand Action, Rebecca Morgan, object. Chief Dotson is a well known gun-grabber.

Judge weighs rewrite of Missouri gun rights plan

By DAVID A. LIEB Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY • A Missouri judge denied a request Wednesday to stop election officials from distributing absentee ballots for a proposed state constitutional amendment dealing with gun rights.

Although he declined to issue a temporary restraining order, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem said he would consider whether to rewrite the summary for the Aug. 5 ballot measure as requested in a lawsuit brought by St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson and a gun-control activist.

Absentee voting is to begin Tuesday on the measure, which was referred to the ballot by the Republican-led Legislature.

The summary that legislators prepared will ask voters whether to amend the Missouri Constitution “to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right.”

…

According to the lawsuit, the summary wrongly implies that the measure is establishing a constitutional right, when one already exists. It also contends the summary fails to note that the measure would require strict legal scrutiny of any laws restricting gun rights, including those limiting the ability to carry concealed guns.

Attorney Chuck Hatfield, who filed the lawsuit, said the ballot summary is insufficient and unfair. “The title says what’s already existing law — it doesn’t tell the voters anything — and then the title ignores all the things that are important, all the things that are actually changing,” Hatfield said.

A second lawsuit posing a similar challenge to the “fairness and sufficiency” of the ballot wording was brought Wednesday by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer M. Joyce and Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters-Baker.

Beetem rejected Hatfield’s request to block election officials from giving voters ballots containing the disputed wording while he considers the merits of the case. The judge gave no specific date for when he will rule on the request to rewrite the summary.

…

The proposed constitutional amendment was sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, who is running for state attorney general in 2016.

Schaefer, who attended the hearing, said afterward that the proposed standard of “strict scrutiny” for gun-rights restrictions would be a significant change. But Schaefer said he believed that was adequately conveyed by the summary’s wording about an “unalienable right” to bear arms.

The complete article can be found here.

The two suits are just more examples of the extremes the anti-gun radicals will go to suppress our Constitutional rights. The battle isn’t over. The Judge refused to block the release of absentee ballots. Those will be issued with the current ballot summary written by the Legislature. The jury Judge is still out on the remainder of the lawsuits.

Facebook

What’s good for the goose…

Posted on by

I see that another government agency is building a private army, arming them, putting them in the universal government black uniform and buying body armor. Which agency? It’s not just an agency, it’s an entire governmental department, the Department of Agriculture. According to another website, the USDA soliciting bids for .40S&W submachine guns.

That begs the question that, so far, no governmental department nor agency has answered—why? What justification drives this solicitation? As before, that question remains unanswered.

A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks “the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W.”

According to the solicitation, the Dept. of Agriculture wants the guns to have an “ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding,” and a “30 rd. capacity” magazine.

They also want the submachine guns to have a “sling,” be “lightweight,” and have an “oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.” 

The solicitation directs “all responsible and/or interested sources…[to] submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone.” Companies that submit information in a “timely” fashion “shall be considered by the agency for contact to determine weapon suitability.”

What use does the USDA have for these? Arming Meat Inspectors? Then add the body armor, what is the need? Is there an armed militia of Angus cattle who are arming themselves for protection from slaughter-houses?

Agriculture Department puts in request to buy body armor

By Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times, Friday, May 16, 2014

Swat team personnel gather for a briefing before entering the the former Roth’s grocery store to investigate an armed robbery at School House Square in Keizer, Ore., on Tuesday, March 18, 2014. A Brinks employee was robbed at gunpoint when he was servicing an ATM machine, said Keizer Police Deputy Chief Jeff Kuhns. (AP Photo/Statesman-Journal, Timothy J. Gonzalez)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has put in an acquisition request to buy body armor — specifically, “ballistic vests, compliant with NIJ 0101.06 for Level IIIA Ballistic Resistance of body armor,” the solicitation stated.

The request was put in writing and posted on May 7 — just a few days before the same agency sought “the commercial acquisition of submachine guns” equipped for 3-round magazines, Breitbart reported.

The May 7 solicitation reads: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, [seeks] Body Armor [that’s] gender specific, lightweight, [containing] plate/pad (hard or soft) and concealable carrier. [Also a] tactical vest, undergarment (white), identification patches, accessories (6 pouches), body armor carry bag and professional measurements,” Breitbart reported.

The solicitation also reads that “all responsible and/or interested sources may submit their company name, point of contact and telephone number,” the media outlet reported. And “timely” respondents “shall be considered by the agency for contact,” Breitbart said.

Add it to the list of federal agencies making requests for guns and ammunition in recent months.

The same article mentions the purchase of ammunition by the US Postal Service. The USPS, unlike the USDA, has long had an investigative component, Postal Inspectors. They are federally commissioned officers and has racked up a record of arrests for mail fraud. The USDA has neither the history nor the need for armaments like the Postal Service.

I read somewhere that the number of NFA purchases by citizens (to the uninformed, NFA purchases include full-auto weapons, suppressors, and short firearms, a legacy from Prohibition and the Gangster Era,) has increased dramatically. In line with that is the purchase of body armor by citizens as well, in some areas, more body armor is bought by locals than their law enforcement agencies.

These purchases of body armor has raised concerns for some municipalities and they’ve passed ordinances banning the purchase of body armor by law-abiding citizens. According to one website that sells body armor, they will not ship their products to Connecticut nor to New York for buyers who are not military or law enforcement organizations.

One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to be armed—on par with government. Citizens who are armed—and protected, equally with the government are better prepared to resist governmental tyranny.

The bottom line? Buy body armor for yourself while you can. It’ll be another motivation to maintain your weight…and girth. Body armor is useless if it doesn’t fit. Prices for body armor is less than a new AR.

Facebook

Aftermath

Posted on by

We had another incident of “workplace violence,” yesterday. the reports were still sketchy when Senator Feinstein started blaming assault rifles. The liberal media tweeted that “gun control creates tyrannies like Australia and Canada.

As it turns out, there was no AR-15 used. The shooter brought a shotgun and then took one or more pistols from his first victims, private contract guards. The facts are irrelevant to liberals. Their purpose is to pursue their agenda regardless of the facts. Oh, they’ll use facts when it supports their agenda, but when there aren’t any facts, they’ll ignore the ones that are present.

If we want to refute the acts of these liberals, we must adopt ‘some’ of their tactics, i.e., never lose sight of our end-goal, never let up pushing our agenda, never cease working to change government, to limit its scope and downsize it and limit the power of the federal government.

There is some good coming from the Navy Yard shootings. There is a building ground swell to address the problem of ‘Gun Free Zones.”

How many must die in gun free zones before we learn?

Monday, September 16, 2013 – Judson Phillips: Cold, Hard Truth by Judson Phillips

WASHINGTON.  September 16, 2013. – Why in God’s name do we make our military people so vulnerable that they have to rely on the DC police today?

Confusion swirled around the shootings at the Washington Naval Yard today. Was it one gunman or was it several? How did this gunman or gunmen get access to a secured military facility? How did one rifle and possibly one shotgun get onto a secured military facility?

Over the next few days these questions will be answered but there is one question that must be answered.

When will we learn from these tragedies?

The early reports about the shooting talked about the police officers that responded to the shooting. At least two cops are among the victims.

Let’s think about this for a second.

The United States Navy is one of the most powerful military organizations in the world.  The Navy’s arsenal could wipe most nations off the face of the earth. It was the Navy that killed Osama Bin Laden.

So why was one of our most important Naval facilities so vulnerable?

It is because it was made a gun free zone.

Like Washington D.C., one of the crime capitols of America, the Washington Navy Yard was a gun free zone. Translation: It was a target rich environment.

The United States Navy is actually made up of two parts. The first is the Navy, the other part is the United States Marine Corps. 

The Marines advertise themselves as “The Few, The Proud, The Marines.” They have a storied history of fighting incredible battles against overwhelming odds. Before political correctness killed it, the Marines used to refer to themselves as the “Mens’ Department of the Navy.”

Marines and a lot of sailors are trained to use weapons. 

This is Fort Hood all over again.

At Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan burst in on soldiers preparing to deploy. Even though many of these soldiers were combat trained, they were not allowed to carry weapons at Fort Hood. 

Hasan was only stopped when he was shot by civilian police officers on the base.

Now we have seen the same tragedy revisited at the Washington Navy Yard.

These tragedies are not simply limited to Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard.   When a crazy gunman wants to go on a rampage, where do they choose to go on their rampage? They choose a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone.  So was Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. 

The problem in America is not too many guns. The problem is we listen to politicians who should not even be entrusted to decide what is for dinner. We have seen this pattern too often. 

Politicians, many of whom are protected by armed men, disarm Americans and make us victims. 

The cold, hard truth is when Americans are armed they can fight back and shootings like Fort Hood and the Navy Yard would not happen. Our founding fathers understood this.

How many more times are we going to let the politicians be wrong before we the people stand up and tell them no?

That is a very good question. Here in Missouri, we attempted to correct that situation for our schools by allowing teachers and other school employees to be trained in the use of weapons and to carry weapons in schools. Why? To protect our children. That effort failed. Our democrat governor vetoed the bill and quislings in the state senate failed to override his veto.

Other states have been more successful, Texas for instance. It is time for us to address these issues. The liberals point to Europe, Australia and Canada as examples for gun control. I would note that Canada’s gun registration law and database failed. People refused to comply and eventually the registration program was rejected. In Australia, the former liberal government was just voted out—by a significant margin. There, gun control wasn’t the prime issue but it was an issue. We have yet to see what the new “conservative” government does but I would suspect a lessening of their gun control laws to be a part of their agenda.

The liberal always seem to point to Europe as an example to emulate. They overlook or deny Europe’s flaws and forget one vital item. We are not Europeans. Many of us has European ancestry but we left Europe behind. We have no desire nor need to emulate a failing society.

Colorado is a nearby example. The democrats are in a state of denial. They blame everyone and everything for the loss of their two state Senators. They refuse to believe it the success of the recall was due to the bills the democrats in Colorado’s legislature. NY Mayor Bloomberg spent $350,000 of his own money in support of the two recalled senators and failed. The democrats deny that outside influence is another factor for their failure. Most importantly, they overlook the fact that democrats voted to recall the senators as well and in significant numbers!

We have our work set out for us here in Missouri. We can take heart in the examples above that our cause is not futile.

Cowboys vs…no, not Aliens—the Post Office

Posted on by

USPSThe U.S. Postal Service has been taking lumps in the last few weeks and some customers and cities are fighting back. One case is between the USPS and the city of East Cleveland, OH. The issue there is traffic and parking tickets…some $700 worth of traffic tickets issued to USPS drivers who ignored speed limits, traffic lights and no-parking zones. The USPS replied through a USPS litigator.

“In providing mail service across the country, the Postal Service attempts to work within local and state laws and regulations, when feasible,” Breslin wrote in response to a summons for payment. “However, as you are probably aware, the postal service enjoys federal immunity from state and local regulation.” — The Leaf Chronicle.

I used to be amazed by the arrogance of governmental spokesmen. That was long ago when I was younger and more…naive. I was soon educated and lost that innocence.

The problem with this USPS stance is that they are not a full federal agency. They are a constitutionally mandated service, independently funded. That’s far from being a federal agency.  I note that NPR, too,is also a quasi-independent agency that is partially funded by tax dollars. I don’t believe anyone thinks NPR is a federal agency comparable with…USIA, the US Information Agency. But, the USPS is a money-losing operation. Unions have locked the Service in the past, not allowing full automation and burdening the Service with an enormous underfunded pension fund.

The USPS answer astounded local city officials. East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton was bewildered by the news.“I was unaware that the post office doesn’t have to stop at red lights or obey the speed limit. But since they are, I wish I’d get my mail faster.”

This case is undoubtedly going to Federal court. Given the tendency of the Judiciary towards more statism over the last six decades, I wouldn’t be surprised East Cleveland loses in court giving the USPS freedom to continue to ignore state and local law.

Another case that is already in court is from Colorado, a 2nd Amendment issue this time. The suit is against the blanket USPS prohibition against weapons by customers of the post office. Again, the USPS uses the “federal agency” excuse and Obama’s government-wide order prohibiting weapons carried by legal, law-abiding citizens on federal property.

PENDLEY: A real gunfight in the Old West

A Colorado case emerges as a test for the Second Amendment

By William Perry Pendley, Monday, February 4, 2013

As defenders of the Second Amendment grapple with President Obama’s second-term onslaught against the “right to keep and bear arms,” a rural Colorado man is already in federal court in Denver challenging the Obama administration’s first-term refusal to adhere to the commands of the Constitution. Briefs have been filed and oral arguments await in Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service, a gun rights case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Tab Bonidy, who lives in rural Colorado outside of Avon—a tiny town in Eagle County, two hours west of Denver — is licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carries one for self-defense from wild animals and criminals whenever he drives the 10 miles roundtrip from his home, where mail delivery service is not available, into Avon to collect his mail. On his arrival in Avon, however, he is barred by a Postal Service regulation from carrying his firearm, or even locking it in his car, on Postal Service property. The Postal Service regulation, which was renewed in 2007, provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on Postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal property, except for official purposes.”

…

In July 2010, Mr. Bonidy wrote the Postal Service and asked it to withdraw its regulation, which is overly broad and, given Heller, of dubious constitutionality. The Postal Service refused. Therefore, in October 2010, Mr. Bonidy, joined by the National Association for Gun Rights, filed a federal lawsuit in Denver. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, defending the Postal Service, have twice moved to dismiss the suit. The judge denied the motion both times.

The argument by the Department of Justice is straightforward. Second Amendment rights are limited to the home. Moreover, Postal Service property is sensitive because the Postal Service says so. Thus, its regulation is reasonable. In addition, in reviewing the Postal Service’s regulation, the district court should defer to the expertise of the Postal Service. Finally, argues the Obama administration, unlike most other constitutional protections, the “right to keep and bear arms” is not subject to strict or even intermediate judicial scrutiny. That is, the federal government must simply demonstrate its regulation is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling governmental interest.”

Mr. Bonidy argues that the Second Amendment guarantees his right to carry a firearm for self-defense in case of confrontation, that his right to do so is clear from the Constitution’s text, which is illustrated by the English Common Law and that it has long been protected by the states. The Postal Service’s Avon property is hardly “sensitive,” especially in light of the Obama administration’s argument that any property that serves a “quintessential government function” is “sensitive” and hence a government-decreed “gun-free zone.” In fact, the Avon post office is open to the public and lacks any indication of being a sensitive place. Finally, although the Postal Service may have a compelling governmental interest when it seeks to protect lives and the mail, its total ban is not “narrowly tailored” to serve those interests.

The last paragraph in the article is most appropriate. It states simply, “In the long battle now beginning to preserve the Second Amendment, it is fitting that an initial and important skirmish occurs out West.”

Facebook