All posts by Chris Knox

Chris's Blog, Uncategorized

Re-Learning An Old Lesson

An Old Lesson We Keep Re-Learning

I am taking a moment to look back at a couple of relevant excerpts from Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.  One is a piece written written in in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, which raked the East Coast in 1989.  The piece became what Dad used to call an “evergreen” piece that is always current.

The second was written in the middle of the Los Angeles riots of 1992.  This one became especially relevant when Philadelphia announced that arrests for certain low-level crimes would be “delayed” during the current virus outbreak, and in almost the same breath, that firearms purchase checks would not be acted on by police.

It was in the Los Angeles madness that police gave rare acknowledgement to the fact that you, Dear Citizen, own your own security, defense, and survival.  It is not the police department’s job to protect you personally.  It was in those riots that the “Roof Korean” meme embedded itself in gun lore.

I included both pieces in Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War because they both bring such a simple, yet apparently hard-to-learn lesson:  The Second Amendment exists to protect the security of a free state.  To accomplish that end, the individuals who make up that state must be able to individually bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and ultimately, their nation.  To infringe on the right to arms — especially in a time of imminent threat — infringes on a human’s right to exist.

As I post this, we face a pandemic.  At the moment, we are in a surreal calm before … something.  No one knows how it will turn out.  Our contingency playbooks are mostly geared toward localized, or at most, regional disasters.  The only ones who had really thought about a global pandemic were those crazy preppers.  You can tell them by their smug smiles as they watch the panic buying.

Californians line up outside of Turners Outdoorsman in Torrance, California to buy guns during the 2020 corona virus outbreak.

No one knows how this will play out because no one has been through it.  We are fortunate to have power and communications, and the stores that are open with only spot shortages — for now.  No one I know has gotten sick — yet.  And, while I am doing my part to make sure I don’t get sick, I am less concerned about being sick than I am about people being stupid.

The really big concern for me is what stupid people may do when faced with a serious problem — such as store shelves that stay empty for a couple of weeks.

And that’s why, along with the modest inventory of extra groceries my wife and I have laid in against a contingency, I have also set aside a few extra boxes of ammo and keep a piece of hardware accessible.   I hope you’re doing the same, and I especially hope that if you’ve made the decision to keep and bear arms, that you have also gotten the training to do it safely and effectively.

God bless us all, our nation, and the rest of the world.  We will get through this.  Let’s learn from the experience.

On Civilization and Hurricane Hugo

LA-Legacy

Uncategorized

Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War Tenth Anniversary Electronic Edition

Gun Rights War cover art

Now Available
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War  — Tenth Anniversary Electronic Edition

It’s been ten years since Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War found its way to print.  We’re pleased to announce the release of an updated and expanded Electronic Edition.  The link will take you to a list of stores where it is currently available.

You can still get the paper edition from Amazon, or order an autographed copy direct from The Firearms Coalition.

 

Site News

The Firearms Coalition Site Is Back!

Thanks for finding us!  The Firearms Coalition site has a new look and will be getting more regular updates.  We’re still transferring content, so we haven’t made an official announcement, but feel free to browse and comment.  The new format comes from a new content management system.  We’re now using WordPress which, while arguably less flexible, is simpler to administer, and easier to navigate.  Let us know your thoughts.

The Knox Update

Robert Reich on How to Prove “the NRA” is Wrong: Just make stuff up

By Chris Knox and Jeff Knox

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, turned ubiquitous talking head on left-leaning cable news and radio, recently published five talking points that he claims shoot holes in the NRA’s (here meaning all gun-rights supporters’) arguments.  The points are not at all unique to Mr. Reich, so we thought it would be worthwhile to take a closer look.

Reich’s Point Number 1: Gun laws save lives.  Consider the federal assault weapons ban. After it became law in 1994, gun massacres – defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed – fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.

Nonsense.

Reich doesn’t cite a source for his claims because there is no credible source drawing that conclusion.  Start with his definition of “gun massacres” being shootings resulting in 6 or more deaths. Despite a rash of those horrible events, massacres, by any definition, remain rare.  But because of their horrific nature, they draw media, following the ancient newspaper adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a result a the nation fixes its gaze on a single-digit percentage of all crime involving guns, and a fraction of a percent of overall deaths.

With such a small sample size, a difference of one or two incidents has a dramatic impact when presented as a percentage.  Thirty-seven percent of 10,000 would be a significant result, but 37% of 3 would be one more – meaningless statistical anomaly.  There’s no way of knowing exactly what Reich’s percentages are based on though, because he provides no source, and most tellingly, no real numbers.  In short, Reich’s first point is just short of a total fabrication.

Reich’s Point Number 2: The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter. When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers’ goal was [to] permit a “well-regulated militia,” not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.

The First Amendment was written more than 200 years ago and the founders’ goal was to protect people’s right to assemble in person, and protect the press – newspapers printed on paper, not to enable the mass propagation of fake news by internet trolls.  But few today would argue that the First Amendment does not apply to online communications. The rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are not dependent on technology.

It is also worth noting that during the framers’ time, it was common for private citizens who could afford them to own canons, and even fully-armed warships.  The right to arms does not “permit mass slaughter,” and restricting that right does not prevent mass slaughter. Every day over 100 million lawful gunowners don’t kill anyone or terrorize their communities.  Restricting their rights will not prevent evil people from doing evil things.

Reich’s Point Number 3: More guns have not, and will not, make us safer. More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide. In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory buyback program to reduce `the number of guns in private ownership. Their firearm homicide rate fell 42 percent in the seven years that followed.

Once again, Mr. Reich throws around “studies” but fails to mention which ones.  We can easily present more than 30 studies that show that gun control laws don’t reduce risks of violence.  In fact, in the late 1970s Wright and Rossi produced a study funded by the Carter Justice Department of the available literature in order to determine which “gun control” programs were most effective.  They found none. In the mid-2000s, both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Science Foundation did independent reviews with the same objective. Both reviews reached the same conclusion as Wright and Rossi: that there is no clear evidence that any gun control laws have effectively reduced crime.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Reich also fails to mention that murder rates in Australia were declining prior to the massacre that triggered their gun ban and confiscation.  The rates went up slightly in the year right after the ban, then resumed their downward trend at a slower pace than previously, and slower than the rate enjoyed in the U.S., where gun laws were being liberalized, and gun ownership was skyrocketing.

Reich’s Point Number 4: The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun safety laws. According to Gallup, 96 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 75 percent support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and 70 percent favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police. Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common-sense gun safety laws.

Poll results depend on how questions are phrased and asked.  A good many Americans support some of the general ideas around gun control, but absolutely reject specific proposals.  Rephrase the question about “universal” (sic) background checks to ask whether it should be a felony for you to lend your gun to a friend for target practice, and different answers answers come back, as they did in Nevada and Maine when such proposals were put to voters.

According to Gallup’s polling, Hillary Clinton won in November 2016.  But their poll does not count.

Reich’s Point Number 5: The National Rifle Association is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican Party. In 2016, the group spent a record (for them) $55 million on elections. Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.

America is better than the NRA. America is the young people from Parkland, Florida, who are telling legislators to act like adults. It’s time all of us listen.

Gun prohibitionists routinely target the NRA instead of ordinary American gun owners.  It’s certainly easier to stir fear and uncertainty about a large organization funded by a faceless industry than to risk humanizing the opposition.  Even so, the NRA’s power does not arise from industry money, it comes from millions of individuals who freely choose to defend their rights with their voices, their votes, and their dollars.

Something else worth mentioning is that while Reich and other media accuse NRA of buying politicians with their $55 million in election spending in 2016, labor unions reportedly spent $1.7 billion on those elections.

If those talking points are the strongest assault an Ivy League lawyer can launch against the unfettered right to arms for defense of self, family, home, and homeland, then the Second Amendment should be safe for a while longer.  Unfortunately, these and similar points rarely get any sort of honest scrutiny in the media shouting matches, so it’s up to you to call them out every time they pop up again.

The Knox Update, Uncategorized

The Cincinnati Revolt — Forty Years On

(April 3, 2017) This May marks the fortieth anniversary of the infamous 1977 NRA Members’ Meeting, also known as the Cincinnati Revolt. At that meeting a dissident group of members introduced a slate of bylaw changes giving the membership a real voice in the organization’s governance, reorganized the management, and turned the organization down a new path.

Depending on who tells the tale, Cincinnati either marked the dawn of a new day when the NRA giant rose from its slumber to fight for the Second Amendment, or the night that a junta of political extremists staged a coup to take over a quiet target shooting and conservation club. Neither of those narratives is entirely accurate, yet each contains its own grain of truth.

NRA bosses rarely talk about the affair. Over the past thirty years, the only mention of Cincinnati from official NRA has been to claim it as a political banner, usually accompanying some proposal to undo another piece of what was accomplished that night. The most recent example was this year when NRA President Allan Cors solemnly invoked the Cincinnati reforms in his plea for members to approve a group of Bylaw amendments designed to erase the last vestiges of those reforms (the amendment package passed resulting in a significantly more difficult process for Director candidates to get on the ballot).

Even though most of the membership control gained in Cincinnati has been lost, the real legacy of the 1977 Annual Meeting stands. The NRA is politically active, and will be for the foreseeable future. That’s the good news. The bad news, is that should the NRA ever again go off the rails, the members will find it very difficult to force a course correction.

In 1977 the NRA was at a crossroads. A decade of bad news for the Second Amendment had members worried about what was to come. Smart money said that more gun control was inevitable. Members looked to the NRA to protect their gun rights, but they saw an organization that was not up to the task.  In fact, it was in retreat. The NRA Board had already voted to sell the Washington headquarters building, and the management was more interested in raising funds for a “College of the Outdoors” to be built at Raton, New Mexico than in drumming up money to fight for the Second Amendment.

The Raton project was a grand dream with an estimated price tag of $30 million—ten times the NRA’s entire budget for 1975. Determined to make Raton a reality, NRA leaders contracted with Oram International Group, a New York consulting outfit that advised large not-for-profits on fundraising matters. Oram produced a 100-page report describing how the NRA could fund Raton. The gist of the report was that the NRA could never raise the money from its members, so they needed to seek philanthropic foundation grants. But those who controlled such grants did not like the NRA’s public image. “The current media image of the NRA,” the report states, “destroys its ability to raise money from foundations, especially the large ones such as Rockefeller, Ford and Mellon.” So, they advised NRA to get out of politics, soften their image, and focus more on environmentalism and habitat protection – in short, to become what one wag called a Sierra Club with guns.

Copies of the Oram report leaked out, apparently from several sources, to Neal Knox, John Wooters, Houston activist, Francis Winters, and a dozen others who formed a dissident core. The dissident group burned up phone lines and mailboxes for months prior to the Cincinnati meeting. They finally met in person in San Antonio, just a month before the meeting. There they finalized plans for a member revolution. Critical assistance came from attorneys David and Susan Caplan, who had expertise in New York corporate and not-for-profit law (the NRA is chartered in New York). It was the Caplans who pointed out that the assembled members held significant power in the annual meeting. The plan was to introduce a slate of bylaw changes, and let the members decide whether to adopt them and change NRA’s course, or reject them and continue down the road to New Mexico.

As the Meeting of Members was called to order on Saturday morning, everyone knew something was about to happen, but no one knew what. Neal Knox had run a series of editorials in Handloader and Rifle magazines demanding a politically engaged NRA. Those editorials resulted in his being appointed, despite his own objections, to introduce the slate. No one knew how the assembled members would react, but before the cries of “Second!” died out, it was apparent the members were with them. Over the next eight hours, the membership took control of the meeting, then passed the amendments one by one. They voted to restructure the Board elections, allowing for Board candidates to be nominated by petition, allowing for recall of officers by the members, and provided for direct membership election of the Executive Vice President. They then restructured the organization’s management, fired key officials, and elected Harlon Carter as EVP.

The changes turned the NRA into a gold mine. Membership doubled and contributions soared, and the gun control that had seemed inevitable, stopped in its tracks. The members wanted, and proved they were willing to fund, an NRA that would defend the Second Amendment.

Member control has eroded over the years, even as the NRA’s power and influence has grown. Today, the only real power the members wield over the organization is the ballot of their dollars. But the power of NRA is, as always, in its members.

The Oram report was made public in 2016, forty years after being submitted to the NRA, under the terms of its original contract. A copy is available at this link: Oram-NRA.

# # #

The Knox Update

We’re All Gonna Die!

The Horror of Guns Everywhere!

By Jeff Knox

(January 5, 2017) If the hype of the anti-rights crowd and their friends in the media is true, all Americans are on the verge of being gunned down in the streets if a new bill that was just introduced in the House becomes law. The new “national reciprocity” bill would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses and permits issued by other states, and would also protect the right to carry for citizens from states where no license or permit is required. The bill, H.R. 38, was introduced by North Carolina Republican, Richard Hudson, and is just the latest in a string of similar bills that have been floating around Congress for a number of years. The key distinguishing feature of this one is the protection of carry rights for people who are not currently required to obtain a license to legally carry a concealed firearm in their home state. Vermont, for instance, has never had a law against carrying a concealed firearm, so they have never had a licensing system. Eleven other states, like Alaska and Arizona, do offer licenses, but the licenses are not required for carry within the state. Lawful unlicensed carry is referred to within the rights community as “Constitutional Carry,” alluding to the idea that the Second Amendment is the only carry license any U.S. Citizen should ever need. Most Constitutional Carry states also offer licenses so that their citizens who choose to obtain one can avoid hassles and delays when purchasing firearms – the license allows them to forego the National Instant Background Check System – and those who wish to carry when visiting other states where their state’s licenses are recognized.

There is a bit of a rift within the rights community over the idea of federal legislation forcing states to honor carry permits from other states. The main argument being one of state autonomy. Many gun rights advocates believe such measures violate the 9th and 10th Amendments since the feds assume authority to force states to recognize others’ licenses. There is also fear of establishment of some sort of federal minimum standard for issuance of carry licenses. The concern is that if a federal standard is accepted, the standard could eventually be tightened to the point that no one would be able to get a license. There is also the simple concern that what the feds give, the feds can take away. Many would prefer to just keep the federal government out of the carry debate and leave it with the states.

The Hudson bill avoids any hint of national standards, and addresses the recognition issue from a “full faith and credit” perspective – having states honor them as they do other states’ drivers licenses. The basic argument is, if Arizona trusts me to carry a gun, and I do so safely, why would I be considered a threat in New Jersey? Realistically, most people who commit violent crimes with firearms are not first-time offenders. Most have extensive criminal records and are actually forbidden to even touch a firearm or ammunition under federal law. This fact seems to elude those who are always calling for additional firearm laws. The criminals are already illegally in possession of firearms, so what is another law going to do? Does anyone suppose criminals illegally carrying firearms, are going to do it more, or be more dangerous, if more honest citizens are carrying firearms? Laws against them carrying them don’t seem to be much of an impediment. Conversely, liberalizing lawful carry – with or without licensing – has never resulted in the “blood in the streets” predictions of the hoplophobes. Turns out that criminals and stupid people do criminal and stupid things regardless of laws, while responsible citizens act responsibly, regardless of the laws.

There are some real concerns among rights advocates regarding the details of H.R. 38. The provisions for honoring the carry rights of citizens of Constitutional Carry states seems to have been added as an afterthought, and the protections against prosecution should be much stronger. It looks like the bill was written to require states to honor the carry licenses and permits issued by other states, then amended to also honor the right to carry if such a right is recognized by the person’s home state. That amendment makes the original section somewhat redundant, as it would cover everyone, but it really should be more carefully worded. The bill should simply and clearly mandate that every state must recognize and honor the carry rights legally enjoyed by citizens when they are in their own home state – whether by license, permit, or recognition as a right – and there should be real consequences for any state, or officials who fail to fulfill their obligations under this law.

Expect to see Congress – particularly the Senate, where the pro-rights majority is very thin – use the existence of the two separate sections, and the disagreement within the rights community, as leverage to water down the bill and divide advocates.

Since the Senate will be the harder test, I would prefer to see the bill advanced there first, rather than going through the struggle and publicity of a big battle in the House, only to have the legislation die in some Senate subcommittee. If we can get a decent bill through the Senate, it should fly smoothly through the House, meanwhile the needed improvements can be worked out for the House version. The new President has already committed to sign a national carry bill upon arrival on his desk.

So far an equivalent to Rep. Hudson’s bill has not been introduced in the Senate. Hopefully that will soon be rectified. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to give their Representatives a call to urge them to co-sponsor H.R. 38, while addressing its shortcomings.

The Knox Update

The President’s Leash

The President’s Leash

By Jeff Knox

(August 24, 2016) Republicans who say they “just can’t endorse Donald Trump for President” are being foolish. Certainly there are valid reasons to be concerned about Trump’s candidacy, but those concerns should pale against the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency. While Trump is a bit of a wild card, his non-politician, straight talk has struck a chord with a broad segment of the American people who are fed up with political correctness and wheedling double-speak.

As President, Trump would face a strong system of checks and balances, just as the framers envisioned. Skeptical Republican politicians should express their faith in this constitutional system as a reason for voters to not only elect Trump, but as a reason to vote for skeptical Republicans. They should be positioning themselves as the “loyal opposition,” ready to work with Trump to accomplish the good of his agenda, while providing a thoughtful check against rogue actions. Skeptics can run as watchdogs, taking a position of strong support for Trump as someone they can work with to accomplish what Americans want and need, while not blindly taking orders, as some Republicans might, nor rejecting Trump’s proposals out of hand, as Democrats will do. Thoughtful Republicans must position themselves as the gatekeepers who will support the good, oppose the bad, and help Donald Trump make America great again.

The alternative is a Hillary Clinton presidency with Republicans serving as little more than speed bumps in the way of her agenda. Republicans divided and in disarray would have little hope against a strong and united Democrat Party and Congress. Hillary Clinton in the White House, Congress dominated by Democrats and RINO’s, and a “liberal” majority in the Supreme Court, along with a fawning liberal media would be a freight train of ever-expanding government and centralized control, with little in the way of obstacles to check their “progress.”

Most Americans are familiar with the famous quote form Lord Acton; “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is an accepted truism, and it was recognized as such long before Acton penned his famous quote. The founders of the United States understood this truth, and designed the new American government to be based on individual liberties, protected by laws and limits on government power, and guarded by thee separate and co-equal branches. At every level there are checks and balances designed to prevent any one person or group from wielding so much power that they can commit crimes without being held accountable for their actions. This begins with the establishment of clear limits to government power in the Constitution, and ends with guarantees of a free press, the rights to petition and assembly, and for the gravest extreme, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Even though the Democrat Party offended some of its most “progressive” members with their manipulation of the primary election, the party itself has united strongly behind Hillary Clinton. Every Democrat in Congress will follow the marching orders that Clinton issues, and unless Republicans stop their infighting and undermining of the Trump campaign, those Clinton Democrats are likely to be in the majority in at least one, if not both houses of Congress.

Can you imagine Hillary Clinton as President, with Chuck Schumer as the Senate Majority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House? The media has demonstrated its unwavering support for Clinton, and her appointment to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court will remove the last vestige of checks and balances that might obstruct her agenda.

Our system is supposed to be designed so that the courts check Congress and the President, Congress checks the courts and the President, the President checks Congress and the courts, and the free press acts as a check on all of them. And this all happens within the constructs and protections of the Constitution and the laws of the land – ideally with the best interest of the nation and the people at heart.

The problem is that in spite of all of the protestations to the contrary, many people in “public service” are much more concerned with their own fortunes, personal power, and ideologies than they are with protecting individual liberty and our nations founding principles.

Much has been said about Donald Trump dividing the Republican Party, but little has been said about what effect that division would have on a Trump presidency. In reality Trump’s nomination was a result of existing divisions within the Republican Party, not a cause of them. More importantly though, as President, Trump would not only have to overcome or override objections from Democrats in Congress, he would have to overcome resistance and objections from members of his own party – not to mention challenges in the courts, where even naming a replacement for Scalia would only keep the Court relatively “moderate” at best.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand, enjoys united support among party leaders and members of Congress. She and her husband have proven themselves to be self-serving masters of political manipulation, willing to blatantly lie to promote themselves and avoid consequences for their actions. If she wins the presidency, it is also quite likely that Democrats will also win a majority in the Senate, and possibly the House. Her pick to fill the current opening on the Supreme Court would mean a solid 5-vote, “liberal” majority on the Court along with domination in Congress.

In other words, if Donald Trump is elected President, he will be on a short leash and have to fight for his agenda, while Hillary Clinton would be unfettered, with very little in the way of checks and balances. A Trump presidency would be a four-year long battle with occasional, carefully worked out victories. A Hillary presidency would be an unrestricted dictatorship, which would unquestionably be absolutely corrupt.

The Knox Update, Uncategorized

Hillary’s Plan to Nullify the Second Amendment

by Jeff Knox

(August 17, 2016) Donald Trump was widely criticized by media, Democrats, and even some Republicans after he made a joke regarding Second Amendment remedies to Hillary Clinton’s plan to “essentially abolish” the Second Amendment. As if “reporters,” commentators, and politicians were all reading from the same script, they consistently pointed out that Clinton had no such intentions – in spite of the fact that this is exactly what she intends to do.

Clinton has repeatedly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case, calling it a “bad decision.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, along with four other justices dissented in the Heller case, has also called it a bad decision and suggested that the Court might revisit that ruling at some future point, but reversing Heller is not necessary to “essentially abolish” the Second Amendment. Heller was actually a very narrow and limited decision. While it did resolve the question of the right to arms being an individual right, rather than some sort of “collective” right, beyond that it only established that an individual had the right to possess a functional handgun within the confines of their own home. While the decision suggested that the right was broader, the Court did not officially rule beyond the issue of self defense within the home. Their followup decision in McDonald was also a 5-4 decision, with Ginsburg and her three compatriots dissenting, which recognized the Second Amendment as dealing with a “fundamental right” which could not be ignored by the states.

Since those decisions, a number of cases dealing with questions of just how far the right to arms extends, and what sorts of restrictions on the right are permissible, have made their way to the Court, but virtually all of them have been turned away without a hearing, and in each of those cases, the Federal Court of Appeals had ruled in support of government limits and against individual rights.

All that is necessary for the Second Amendment to be “essentially abolished,” is for the Supreme Court to rule on one or two of these cases and deliver decisions that support those very bad lower court decisions. By officially limiting Heller to only apply to the keeping of a self-defense handgun in the home, setting the level of “scrutiny” at the lowest threshold, and approving all manner of state and local restrictions, the Supreme Court could thoroughly neuter the Second Amendment without reversing Heller, and without having to amend the Constitution – essentially abolishing the meaning, intent, and application of the Second Amendment for all practical purposes.

There is no doubt that this is exactly what the Court would do if Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer had one more vote on their side. That’s why Donald Trump was absolutely correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton would “essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” and that’s why it is so critical that she not be given the opportunity to accomplish that goal.

Barack Obama has nominated Judge Merick Garland to fill the vacancy created by Scalia’s death, but Republicans in the Senate have insisted that they will not even consider the Garland nomination. They say the new president should be the one to nominate Scalia’s replacement. If Clinton is elected, not only is her pick likely to be much more radical than Garland, but Republicans will be obligated to consider the appointment and they are likely to have a slimmer majority in Congress, and quite possibly be in the minority, making it very difficult to reject a radical pick.

Meanwhile in California, a very significant Second Amendment lawsuit is waiting in the wings for possible petition to the Supreme Court. The Peruta case has been bouncing around the courts since 2009. It challenged San Diego County’s policy of only issuing concealed carry licenses to individuals who could demonstrate a specific need to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, above and beyond that of the public at large. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that the “needs requirement” was a violation of the Second Amendment, but the court then called for an en banc hearing of the case and reversed the ruling of the panel. That ruling was about as disingenuous and convoluted as could be imagined. What the court basically said was that while the Second Amendment might guarantee a right to carry a firearm for self-defense, it does not guarantee a right to carry a gun concealed, therefore the San Diego county policy is not at odds with it. What is so egregious about this decision is that California forbids the open carry of firearms, leaving licensed concealed carry as the only legal alternative, so the court has decided to make this a Catch-22. A suit has now been filed challenging the ban on open carry, but at best we are looking at years more litigation, and it will all be for naught if Clinton names Scalia’s replacement.

The attorneys in the Peruta case are now in a difficult position. They don’t want their case to be the one the Supreme Court uses to eviscerate the Second Amendment, but they have only a limited window in which to petition the Court for a hearing.

And of course, in the midst of these legal wranglings, California has adopted a half-dozen new, harsh gun control laws and has an even harsher initiative on the ballot for November. A group of activists have started a petition to force removal of the offending new laws, but it is a “Hail Marry” effort, and will be meaningless if the anti-rights initiative passes. Californians must stop the anti-rights initiative, and the rest of us must stop Hillary Clinton. Anything less will most assuredly be disastrous.

The Knox Update

Yes, Hillary Will Abolish the Second Amendment

Hillary Will Abolish the Second Amendment

By Jeff Knox

(August 17, 2016) Donald Trump was widely criticized by media, Democrats, and even some Republicans after he made a joke regarding Second Amendment remedies to Hillary Clinton’s plan to “essentially abolish” the Second Amendment. As if “reporters,” commentators, and politicians were all reading from the same script, they consistently pointed out that Clinton had no such intentions – in spite of the fact that this is exactly what she intends to do.

Clinton has said; “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get.” Combine that statement with the 5-4 decision in Heller, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s declaration that the Court’s ruling in Heller was a “bad decision,” and her suggestion that the Court should revisit that ruling if they could get a fifth like-minded justice on the bench, and you have a formula for “essentially abolishing the Second Amendment.” But reversing Heller is not necessary to accomplish that. Heller was actually a very narrow and limited decision. While it did resolve the question of the right to arms being an individual right, rather than some sort of “collective right,” the case only dealt with the question of an individual’s right to possess a functional handgun in their home for self-defense. While the decision suggested broader application, it did not rule beyond that narrow issue. Their followup decision in McDonald was also a 5-4 decision, with Ginsburg and her three compatriots dissenting. It recognized the Second Amendment as dealing with a “fundamental right” which could not be ignored by the states.

Since those decisions, a number of cases testing the broader implications of Heller have made their way to the Court, but they have refused to hear any of them. These cases have dealt with questions of how far the right to arms extends and what sorts of restrictions are permissible. In each case, a Federal Court of Appeals had ruled in support of government limits and against individual rights – in clear conflict with the language of Heller and the Second Amendment itself.

All that is necessary for the Second Amendment to be “essentially abolished,” is for the Supreme Court to rule on one or two of these types of cases and deliver decisions that support those very bad lower court decisions. By ruling that things like “assault weapon” bans, bans on carry, and registration schemes are constitutional, and setting the level of “scrutiny” at the lowest threshold, the Supreme Court could thoroughly neuter the Second Amendment without reversing Heller, and without having to amend the Constitution – essentially abolishing the meaning, intent, and application of the Second Amendment for all practical purposes. This would take litigation off the table and put the fight back into Congress and state legislatures.

There is no doubt that this is exactly what the Court would do if Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer had one more vote on their side. That’s why Donald Trump was absolutely correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton would “essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” and that’s why it is so critical that she not be given the opportunity to accomplish that goal.

Barack Obama has nominated Judge Merick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last February, but Republicans in the Senate say the new president should be the one to appoint Scalia’s replacement, and have refused to consider Obama’s pick. If Clinton is elected, Republicans will probably also lose seats in the Senate, and her pick is likely to be much more radical than Garland.

Meanwhile in California, a very significant Second Amendment lawsuit recently suffered a crushing reversal and is ripe for being petitioned to the Supreme Court. The Peruta case has been bouncing around the courts since 2009. It challenged San Diego County’s policy of only issuing concealed carry licenses to individuals who could prove a particular need to carry a concealed firearm. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a strong ruling that the “needs requirement” was a violation of the Second Amendment, but the court then called for an en banc hearing of the case and reversed that ruling. Their justification was that while the Second Amendment might guarantee a right to carry a firearm for self-defense, it does not guarantee a right to carry a gun concealed, therefore the San Diego county policy is not a violation. What is so egregious about this decision is that California completely forbids the open carry of firearms, leaving licensed concealed carry as the only legal alternative, leaving defensive carry as a privilege, not a right. A suit has now been filed challenging the ban on open carry, but at best we are looking at years more litigation, and it will all be for naught if Clinton names Scalia’s replacement.

The attorneys in the Peruta case are now in a difficult position. They have only a limited window in which to petition the Supreme Court for a hearing, but an appeal now could open the door for a “liberal” dominated Court to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Only a Trump win can prevent that.

And of course, in the midst of these legal wranglings, California has adopted a half-dozen new, harsh gun control laws and has an even harsher initiative on the ballot for November. A group of activists have started a petition to force removal of the offending new laws, but it is a “Hail Marry” effort, and will be meaningless if the anti-rights initiative passes. California voters must stop the anti-rights initiative, and the rest of us must stop Hillary Clinton. Anything less will most assuredly be disastrous for gun rights and much more.