Categories
2nd Amendment BILL OF RIGHTS Intelwars Natural Rights right to keep and bear arms

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right

There are those among the gun-control crowd who advocate repealing the Second Amendment. They think that by doing so, they would be prohibiting people from owning guns. Unfortunately, they have a woeful lack of understanding of rights and the Constitution.

People’s rights do not come from either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That’s what many in the gun-control crowd do not understand. They think that the reason people have the right to own guns is because of the Second Amendment.

As the Declaration of Independence points out, people’s rights come from nature and God. Thus, even if the federal government had never been established, even if the Constitution had never been ratified, and even if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the right to keep and bear arms because people’s rights preexist government and are independent of government.

By its very terms, the Constitution does not give anyone any rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Constitution was simply to call the federal government into existence and to set the powers that it would have. If a power was listed, the government could exercise it. If a power was not listed, it could not exercise it.

Thus, the question naturally arises: Did the Constitution give to the federal government the power to control people’s ownership of weapons? It did not. That’s because the American people did not want a government that would have the power to infringe on people’s natural, God-given rights.

What about the Bill of Rights? It too does not give anyone any rights. A careful examination of the language of the First and Second Amendments shows that those two amendments are simply restrictions on the power of the federal government to infringe on rights that are natural and God-given and that preexist the federal government. In fact, a better name for the Bill of Rights would have been the Bill or Prohibitions.

Why did our American ancestors insist on passage of the Bill of Rights? After all, since the original Constitution did not give the federal government the power to deprive people of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religions, and the right to keep and bear arms, why did Americans deem it necessary to expressly restrict the federal government from infringing on such rights?

The answer is that the American people wanted to be doubly certain that federal officials got the message, which was: Don’t even think of using your power to destroy our rights. Our ancestors knew that the Constitution had called a government with limited powers into existence, but they used the Bill of Rights to make certain that federal officials clearly understood that they were expressly prohibited from infringing on people’s rights.

What about rights that were not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights? That was the idea behind the Ninth Amendment. It essentially says that people have more rights than are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing on those as well.

Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not affect people’s natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms. For that matter, neither would abolition of the Constitution and the federal government. Rights that are endowed in people by nature and God are permanent and inalienable and exist independently of government.

This article was originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation and is republished here with permission.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment BILL OF RIGHTS Intelwars Natural Rights right to keep and bear arms

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right

There are those among the gun-control crowd who advocate repealing the Second Amendment. They think that by doing so, they would be prohibiting people from owning guns. Unfortunately, they have a woeful lack of understanding of rights and the Constitution.

People’s rights do not come from either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That’s what many in the gun-control crowd do not understand. They think that the reason people have the right to own guns is because of the Second Amendment.

As the Declaration of Independence points out, people’s rights come from nature and God. Thus, even if the federal government had never been established, even if the Constitution had never been ratified, and even if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the right to keep and bear arms because people’s rights preexist government and are independent of government.

By its very terms, the Constitution does not give anyone any rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Constitution was simply to call the federal government into existence and to set the powers that it would have. If a power was listed, the government could exercise it. If a power was not listed, it could not exercise it.

Thus, the question naturally arises: Did the Constitution give to the federal government the power to control people’s ownership of weapons? It did not. That’s because the American people did not want a government that would have the power to infringe on people’s natural, God-given rights.

What about the Bill of Rights? It too does not give anyone any rights. A careful examination of the language of the First and Second Amendments shows that those two amendments are simply restrictions on the power of the federal government to infringe on rights that are natural and God-given and that preexist the federal government. In fact, a better name for the Bill of Rights would have been the Bill or Prohibitions.

Why did our American ancestors insist on passage of the Bill of Rights? After all, since the original Constitution did not give the federal government the power to deprive people of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religions, and the right to keep and bear arms, why did Americans deem it necessary to expressly restrict the federal government from infringing on such rights?

The answer is that the American people wanted to be doubly certain that federal officials got the message, which was: Don’t even think of using your power to destroy our rights. Our ancestors knew that the Constitution had called a government with limited powers into existence, but they used the Bill of Rights to make certain that federal officials clearly understood that they were expressly prohibited from infringing on people’s rights.

What about rights that were not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights? That was the idea behind the Ninth Amendment. It essentially says that people have more rights than are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing on those as well.

Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not affect people’s natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms. For that matter, neither would abolition of the Constitution and the federal government. Rights that are endowed in people by nature and God are permanent and inalienable and exist independently of government.

This article was originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation and is republished here with permission.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Biden gun control Biden guns gun rights gun tax Intelwars

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Gun owners in the United States could face a massive $34 billion tax burden in the coming years should Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s proposed gun control plan take effect, the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday.

The outlet cited figures calculated by the National Shooting Sport Foundation (NSSF), showing that some 20 million modern sporting rifles and 150 million ammunition magazines presently in the country could be subject to a tax under Biden’s plan.

On his campaign website, the former vice president proposes ending easy access to “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” by banning their manufacture and sale and “regulat[ing] possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.”

That regulatory law already affects the possession of machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles, which owners are required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The law also includes a $200 tax.

If the existing law were to be applied to the 170 million modern sporting rifles and ammunition magazines as Biden proposes, that $200 tax on each unit would amount to $34 billion. While it should be noted that Biden has not explicitly called for a new tax on firearms, his proposed plan implicitly results in a new tax unless something in the law were to be changed.

Under the plan, Biden gives “individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: Sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.”

So, in essence, those gun owners who choose to keep their weapons would be forced to register them with the ATF and pay the $200 tax.

In a fact-check of a similar claim made earlier this month, PolitiFact acknowledged as much, though it concluded that “it’s not certain that Biden’s proposal would automatically trigger a $200 tax” as some of the plan’s details have yet to be ironed out.

Responding to the news, NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva indicated that the sheer number of affected firearms and magazines ought to give the Biden team pause before enacting such sweeping regulation.

“I think if [Biden and his team] were smart, they would look at those numbers and get an idea of where America stands on gun ownership and gun rights,” he told the Free Beacon.

It just so happens that the news comes alongside a Gallup survey showing support for stricter gun laws has fallen to its lowest levels since 2016. Perhaps public opinion would sway Biden away from his campaign position, but don’t hold your breath.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment BILL OF RIGHTS Court Cases Incorporation Doctrine Intelwars

Federal Courts Fail Again in Washington Gun Case

Conservatives and libertarians often turn to the federal courts to “protect their rights” through an application of the Bill of Rights to the states. This is a bad strategy. Most of the time it fails, and we end up with bad precedents that apply to the entire United States.

Case in point: a federal judge recently upheld strict Washington State gun control laws.

Voters passed the new regulations on firearms in 2020. Initiative 1639 raised the legal age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21 and instituted enhanced background checks. It also prohibited the sale of these rifles to non-residents. The ballot initiative passed by nearly 60 percent.

Opponents of the new law decided to make a federal case out of it and sued in federal court, arguing the restrictions violate the Second Amendment. Last month, U.S. District Court of Western Washington Judge Ronald Leighton upheld the Washington law, citing current federal law that bans the sale of handguns to people under the age of 21 along with state laws imposing age-restrictions on gun sales dating back to the 19th century.

“These authorities demonstrate that reasonable age restrictions on the sale, possession, or use of firearms have an established history in this country,” Leighton wrote.

The judge’s opinion notwithstanding, the federal government has no constitutional authority to place any restrictions on firearms. The Constitution does not delegate any firearm regulating authority to the feds, and the Second Amendment slams the door on any regulation on firearms within the scope of other constitutionally delegated powers such as regulation of commerce. “Shall not infringe” does not come with an asterisk. No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

But this should have never been a federal case to begin with. It should have been decided in state court under the Washington state constitution. Section 24 of the state constitution restricts state regulation of firearms.

“SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

So why did it end up in federal court? Because of the bastardization of the 14th Amendment known as the “incorporation doctrine.”

When it was ratified, the Second Amendment was not understood to apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights restricts federal power. The preamble to the document makes this clear. Nobody arguing for the ratification of the Bill of Rights claimed it applied to state or local governments. In fact, if they had, it would never have been ratified. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court invented the “Incorporation Doctrine” out of thin air based on a dubious reading of the 14th Amendment that anybody seriously considered the Bill of Rights as a restriction on the actions of state governments.

A lot of civil libertarians like the incorporation doctrine because they believe the federal courts will protect our liberty from overreaching, onerous state and local governments. In theory, the incorporation doctrine empowers federal courts to police the states in order to stop state governments from violating individual rights. In practice, it centralizes power at the federal level and allows the Supreme Court to apply liberty-destroying decisions to the entire United States.

This case is a perfect example. Not only does the federal judge’s opinion uphold the Washington state law, but it also sets a precedent that other judges will follow in other states. And if the Supreme Court eventually affirms the opinion, it will be cemented as the law of the land. The centralizing nature of the incorporation doctrine ensured that bad precedent will be applied across the entire U.S.

So, why do so many liberty-minded people possess this impulse to centralize power? What drives their fixation on monopolizing decision-making at the highest level?

In a nutshell – power. They operate on the misguided notion that they can someday gain control of the levers of power and impose liberty top-down.

The problem is it almost never happens. Centralized government is antithetical to individual liberty. It will never care about you.

And you will never control it.

“But, what if the state courts get it wrong?”  they plead. “State and local governments can be just as tyrannical as the federal government,” they insist. “Are you saying we just have to put up with state or local tyranny?”

Fair questions. State courts often do get it wrong. Washington state courts may well have upheld the new gun control just like the federal judge did. In practice, judicial branches of both state and federal governments typically side with the government when it comes to the extent of the government’s powers. But a bad outcome at the state level only applies to that state. A bad outcome at the Supreme Court ends up as a judicial precedent that applies all across the entire United States.

Centralizing government in the name of liberty will always fail in the long run.

You might get a few crumbs from the table now and then. The Supreme Court will occasionally issue an opinion that protects liberty in the short term. But most of the time, it will hand down garbage that empowers government at the expense of your rights.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment California guns home invasion Intelwars Self-Defense watch

Man shoots intruders, one of them fatally, after they shatter home’s window in middle of night

As gun sales spike amid a growing wave of violence in America’s streets over the past several months, one would assume that thoughtful, reflective criminals would be aware that the odds of targeting gun owners likely increase by the day.

And it would seem that a pair of southern California crooks simply hadn’t been reading the writing on the wall.

What went down?

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said two suspects were trying to get into a home in Pico Rivera — about 20 minutes southeast of Los Angeles — around 1:20 a.m. Friday, KTTV-TV reported.

The resident woke up to the sound of shattering glass and saw one man inside the home, the station said, and the resident reportedly grabbed his handgun and shot the suspect.

Lt. Brad Hall told KCBS-TV that the resident shot the suspect in the chest.

The resident then went to the back patio, where he encountered the second suspect, KCBS reported, adding that the resident thought he saw the suspect make a move toward his waist.

Afraid the second suspect was grabbing for a gun, the resident fired again, striking the suspect, who died at the scene, Hall told KCBS.

Deputies who responded to the incident in the 8400 block of Serapis Avenue, east of Rosemead Boulevard, found the suspect lying dead in the home’s back yard, KTTV reported.

Image source: KTTV-TV video screenshot

The deceased suspect’s name was not released, KCBS said, adding that it’s unclear whether he was armed.

The first suspect fled the home, after which a woman getaway driver transported him to a hospital, where he was undergoing surgery, the station said. His condition is unknown, KCBS reported. KTTV said sheriff’s deputies arrested him at the the hospital.

Hall said sheriff’s deputies took the woman getaway driver into custody, KCBS reported. Other people were in a different part of the home when the shooting occurred, but Hall told the station they weren’t hurt.

What happened to the resident?

The resident wasn’t arrested, but KTTV said he was taken to the sheriff’s office for questioning. It’s unclear whether he will face any charges, KCBS reported.

KTTV said the incident is being investigated as a burglary or home invasion robbery.

The two suspects may be linked to a gang, Hall told KCBS. There was no word on whether the home was specifically targeted or if the break-in was random, the station added.

“We always see people coming in, coming out, on bicycles, a lot of people were just outside most of the times,” neighbor Raul Perez told KCBS.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Arson gun rights Intelwars oregon Oregon wildfires Second Amendment West coast wildfires

Armed Oregon woman holds suspected arsonist at gunpoint until cops arrive

As wildfires rage along the West Coast, law enforcement has nabbed several suspected arsonists, including multiple arrests in Oregon.

One armed Oregonian was ready to defend her property — and her state — from the actions of a suspected would-be arsonist, and now her story is going viral on social media.

What happened?

Kat Cast posted a video to Facebook over the weekend showing her taking action to get a man she believed to be an arsonist off her property, on the ground, and eventually into the back of a police vehicle and the local clink.

In the video, Cast can been seen getting out of her car with gun drawn and approaching a suspicious man who was walking on her property.

According to Cast’s Facebook post, she said she found the man walking on her property as she was driving in. All he was carrying was a book of matches, Cast stated.

Some of you still think we’re not being under attack. I found this individual walking in my property as I was driving in, all he had were some matches in his hand. Walked him out of my property at gunpoint and then when we got to some asphalt ground on the main road made him lay down while the cops arrived.

In the video, the suspect lies down on the road as Cast approaches him, shouting, “Get on the floor. Get on the floor right now — face down.”


Image source: Facebook/Kat Cast video screenshot

“What are you doing on my property?” she asks, to which the suspect replies that he didn’t know it was her property.

“Did you light anything on fire?” she continues.

“No, ma’am,” he replies.

Then she demands to know what he’s doing with the book of matches, and he claims he smokes.

“You smoke? Where are your f***ing cigarettes?” the woman demands to know.


Image source: Facebook/Kat Cast video screenshot

Turns out he didn’t have any cigarettes — just matches he was carrying around in his hand while strolling along her property.

Cast tells the suspect to stay on the ground because the police were on their way: “You can just stay right there. I’ve got the cops coming’.”

Content warning: rough language

Shortly after the video stopped, Cast said, cops did arrive and take the man into custody.

According to Cast’s Facebook post, the suspect has “multiple warrants one of them being assaulting a police officer.”

Cast also made it clear that the suspect should consider himself lucky that she found him and not her husband.

“Had my husband been here he would have been dead,” she wrote.

Blowback and encouragement

In an update to her post, Cast noted that many people, including the media, had been reaching out to her about the story. Many, she said, doubted her story and said it looked staged, but most of the comments were supportive.

Because she did not want more stress put on her family, she said she would not be talking to the media about the incident.

I read all your msgs to me, even the private ones, I can tell you that this truly did happen and there is nothing fake about it, I do not wish to keep private msgs between you and I, not with you or the dozens of people who are reaching out to me. Some with terrifying words, but mostly I am truly humbled by many kind words that have been said to me. I do not wish to speak to anyone, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a journalist who wants to put out on the news, I will not put my family in danger by exposing myself any more than what I have already, besides the media will just twist my words. Feel free to use the pictures that you have obtained if you want but I will not interview with anyone. I will tell you something though if I need to do this again to protect my family and my neighbors, I will in a heartbeat do it again, except this time I will not be as nice as I was. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In all things, may the victory come to us while the glory goes to God. Blessings -Kat.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment guns Intelwars looters looting oregon Oregon wildfires Property watch

‘You loot, we shoot’: Armed property owners in Oregon threaten would-be lawbreakers amid wildfires

Some residents in Clackamas County, Oregon, have taken to posting roadside signs warning potential lawbreakers that if they’re caught looting or setting fires, they may find themselves facing the wrong end of a gun — and feeling the pain of a bullet.

KPTV-TV’s lead news photographer Devin Eskew
encountered a number of such warning signs as the state battles huge wildfires:

How are folks reacting to the signs?

While
KPTV-TV reported on the posted warning signs and the Riverside Fire’s devastation, the station didn’t speak to locals who might have reactions to the messages on the signs in Estacada and Colton.

But folks reacting on Twitter to Eskew’s photos of the signs had a few things to say. Some were flat-out against the signs:

  • “I say, let their damned houses burn,” one commenter said. “These guys won’t be missed. #LetTheMAGAtsDie. (I used to be a much kinder person before Trump…)”
  • “Those white trash losers don’t even own anything worth looting,” another commenter wrote.

It seemed, however, that quite a few more users were in support of the signs:

  • “I support this completely,” one commenter countered. “If these lawless criminals can bend the law and do what they want, so can everyone else.”
  • “Anybody who would loot peoples’ homes during a wildfire emergency is a pretty terrible human,” another commenter added. “As for them putting up signs warning those same trash humans away, guess they can’t say they weren’t warned.”
  • “ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT,” another commenter said. “Anyone caught should be dealt with appropriately. We all know the Dems would just say, ‘Poor non-gender [person] needs things, too. Be nice to it and talk to it; it will come around.’ Do what needs to be done to protect your homes.”
  • “It is a sad world we live in that one has to choose to stay within danger to protect property from looters,” another commenter noted. “There was a time when people helped each other, not [stole] from each other. Our society has bred people who think they are entitled to help themselves to whatever they want.”

Anything else?

Clackamas County deputies confirmed Saturday they have made two theft-related arrests in the fire zones, the station said, adding that one was in Mulino and another in the eastern portion of the county.


‘You loot we shoot’: Signs threaten looters in Clackamas County fire zones

youtu.be

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Firearms Gun Sales Gun sales august guns Intelwars

Gun sales continue to soar at record highs in August as riots rage on

As violent riots continue to rage on in communities across the country, Americans have continued to arm up at record-setting levels.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Tuesday that the U.S. saw more gun sales in August 2020 than any other August since the FBI has been logging data on the subject. According to the outlet’s analysis of FBI background check data, there were at least 1.6 million firearm purchases during the past month, a 57% increase compared to August of last year.

The outlet noted that just two other years — 2016 and 2019 — saw gun sales top 1 million in August, and sales in those months were still well under the totals from August 2020.

The record-setting month continues the trend for this year, as Americans have stocked up on firearms amid the coronavirus pandemic and the nationwide movement to defund police departments.

March 2020 saw the most single-month gun sales ever recorded, and every month since has topped year-over-year totals. In July, some retailers reported that they were running out of stock.

On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner reported that 2020 gun sales in America have already topped 2019 levels, with four months still to go in the year. Amazingly, among the nearly 15 million gun sales recorded this year are an estimated 5 million from first-time gun buyers.

A gun safety instructor recently told the Free Beacon that he has never seen more interest in firearms.

“In 15 years of teaching firearm safety, I have never seen a higher level of interest in guns,” said Rick Ector, whose firearms training academy is based in Detroit, Michigan. “I do not need to advertise, and my phone is constantly ringing.”

Ector added that the sales are likely driven by a combination of factors, including the pandemic, economic shutdowns, and violence in the streets in places like Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin.

“Any single issue by itself would lead to an increase of people buying guns,” he said. “We have all four factors ‘in play’ and the run on guns is no surprise to me.”

As a side note, to get its numbers, the Free Beacon takes the total background checks performed, as reported by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and subtracts checks from the count that were coded for non-gun sales.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Gaige grosskreutz guns Intelwars Jacob marshall Kenosha shooter Kyle rittenhouse Self-Defense

Armed leftist badly wounded in Kenosha shooting allegedly regrets ‘not killing the kid’ accused of firing at him and ’emptying the entire mag’

An armed leftist who was part of a mob that chased down a rifle-toting male on a Kenosha street — and was badly wounded by close-range gunfire — allegedly told a friend he regrets “not killing the kid” accused of shooting him and “emptying the entire mag.”

What are the details?

Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, was one of three people shot Tuesday night allegedly by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, an Illinois resident who arrived in Wisconsin armed with what police said was a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle. Rittenhouse said in video interviews prior to the incident that he was in Kenosha to help protect property, keep the peace, and administer medical aid.

Tensions were high as rioters squared off with others who, like Rittenhouse, gathered in the city with rifles.

According to a probable cause narrative in the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse, at one point 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum confronted Rittenhouse — and the teen apparently didn’t want anything to do with him and tried getting away. But Rosenbaum chased the 17-year-old and appeared to try to take Rittenhouse’s gun away — after which the teen fatally shot his pursuer.

It should be noted that video recorded earlier allegedly caught Rosenbaum antagonizing the gun-carrying group, glaring at them, and daring them to “shoot me!”

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @Julio_Rosas11

He even uttered the N-word while black people stood feet away. (Content warning: Language, racial slurs):

After Rosenbaum was shot, a mob chased Rittenhouse down a street. One of the pursuers was Anthony Huber, who hit Rittenhouse with his skateboard and, police say, tried taking Rittenhouse’s rifle away — at which point Rittenhouse fired a fatal shot at Huber’s chest.

Also in the thick of the chase was Grosskreutz who was seen in video screenshots and photographs seeming to point a handgun at Rittenhouse:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @bgonthescene

According the criminal complaint: “When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot. Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm. Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot.”

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Here’s video of second and third shootings. (Content warning: Language):

Grosskreutz even was holding his handgun after a bullet took out a large chunk of his right arm:

Image source: Twitter

What allegedly happened afterward?

Grosskreutz survived the shooting but reportedly will require multiple surgeries on his arm.

Journalist Andy Ngo then happened upon a Facebook comment allegedly from Jacob Marshall, a friend of Grosskreutz. According to Marshall’s alleged comment, Grosskreutz told him he wished he’d killed his shooter.

Image source: Twitter

The screenshot of the comment reads, “I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too” and “his only regret is not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.” The alleged comment also reads that “the kid shot Gaige as he drew his weapon and Gaige retreated with his gun in hand.”

Neither Grosskreutz nor Marshall on Friday immediately responded to TheBlaze’s request for comment on what Grosskreutz allegedly said to Marshall.

But an Internet archive screenshot from Wednesday shows a Facebook post from Marshall taking issue with conclusions being drawn about Grosskreutz: “There’s a narrative saying Gaige was chasing this kid with a gun…no. Gaige did try pulling his gun right after this, because clearly his life was in danger and then the kid shot him…but after being shot wasn’t able to release his gun because of the muscle damage. So all these pictures and post[s] of how the kid did it in ‘self defense’ is bulls**t. If you don’t agree we can personally meet up and talk ‘self defense’ policies cuz I’m over this bulls**t narrative that’s being passed around that Gaige was attacking the shooter.”

Grosskreutz is a member of a social justice group, the People’s Revolution Movement of Milwaukee, and a friend of his told the Chicago Sun-Times that his “whole reason for being out here was to provide medical services to protesters in Kenosha, and when Gaige tried to detain [the active shooter], he got shot in the arm.”

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Criminal complaint Intelwars Joseph rosenbaum Kenosha rioting Kenosha shooter Kyle rittenhouse Self-Defense watch

Criminal complaint outlining homicide charges against Kyle Rittenhouse appears to read like he acted in self-defense

The
criminal complaint against 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse alleging he fatally shot two people and wounded a third on the heels of rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, earlier this week appears to read as though he acted in self-defense.

What are the details?

Rittenhouse was charged with one count of first-degree reckless homicide for allegedly shooting dead Joseph Rosenbaum, which carries a 60-year maximum prison term; one count of first-degree intentional homicide for allegedly shooting dead Anthony Huber, which carries a life sentence; and one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide for shooting and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, which carries a 60-year maximum prison term.

He’s also charged with two counts of recklessly endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

The probable cause portion of the complaint outlines what investigators learned from viewing multiple videos of Tuesday night’s events as well as from interviewing witness Richard McGinnis of the Daily Caller:

In the first video, a male who was later identified to be Kyle H. Rittenhouse … (hereinafter “the defendant”), is running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot. … The defendant can clearly be seen holding a long gun, which was later recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle. The recovered magazine for this rifle holds 30 rounds of ammunition. Following the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis, a reporter.

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “F*** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.

The New York Times released an analysis of videos capturing the Rosenbaum shooting and noted that an unidentified person behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum held up a handgun and fired it. The Times’ analysis provides two angles, with one showing a gunshot flash and smoke.

(Content warning: Language:)

After the single round of gunfire from an unknown person and then the volley of four shots, presumably from Rittenhouse, another three shots are heard. Here’s more from the criminal complaint:

The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.”

Detective Cepress interviewed McGinnis and indicates the following: Before the shooting, McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained medic. McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well. McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant. McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.

McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder. McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession. McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot.

McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun. Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).

The complaint continues with an account of what occurred after Rittenhouse ran from the scene of first shooting and was pursued by numerous individuals down a street, after which he fell, was physically attacked, and fired more shots:

… A group of several people begin running northbound on Sheridan Road behind the defendant. A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Beat him up!” Another person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Hey, he shot him!” Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound. In this video a person can be heard yelling, “Get him! Get that dude!” Then a male in a light-colored top runs towards the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm. This swing makes contact with the defendant, knocking his hat off. The defendant continues to run northbound. On the video a male can be heard saying something to the effect of, “What’d he do?” Another male can be heard responding something to the effect of, “Just shot someone.” Then a male can be heard yelling, “Get his ass!” The defendant then trips and falls to the ground.

As the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light-colored pants jumps at and over the defendant. Based on the sounds of gunshots on the video and the positioning of the defendant’s gun, it appears that he fires two shots in quick succession at this person. It appears that that person was not hit as he then runs away from the defendant. A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant who is still on the ground, on his back. Huber has a skateboard in his right hand. When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant’s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant’s left shoulder. Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant. The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground. Huber subsequently died from this gunshot wound.


Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The criminal complaint adds that “after shooting Huber, the defendant moves to a seated position and points his gun at a third male, later identified as Gaige Grosskreutz, who had begun to approach the defendant. When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot. Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm. Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot.”


Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @bgonthescene


Image source: Twitter

The criminal complaint adds that “Grosskreutz then runs southbound away from the defendant screaming for a medic and the defendant gets up and starts walking northbound. The defendant turns around facing southbound while walking backwards northbound with his firearm in a ready position, pointed towards the people in the roadway.”

Rittenhouse was then seen on video walking down the street and approaching police vehicles with his hands raised. Police did not pick up Rittenhouse at this time.

Here’s video of second and third shootings. (Content warning: Language):

Autopsy results

The criminal complaint also revealed autopsy results, noting that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to his back which perforated his liver and right lung, a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to his left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead. The complaint added that Huber’s autopsy revealed that he had a gunshot wound to this chest that perforated his heart, aorta, pulmonary artery, and right lung.

Anything else?

Here’s an interview BlazeTV’s Elijah Schaffer conducted with the alleged shooter before the incidents occurred:

(H/T: The Daily Wire)

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment guns Intelwars Kenosha shooting Left-wing media leftist violence Physical attack Self-Defense watch

Leftists fatally shot, wounded in Kenosha are canonized as peaceful, loving — but videos, photos seem to tell different stories

Like clockwork, the media has canonized the trio of men fatally shot and wounded in Kenosha, Wisconsin, earlier this week as peaceful, loving guys. Wouldn’t hurt a fly. Patriotic. Compassionate.

But numerous videos and photographs taken Tuesday night would appear to tell a much different story about these three leftists who ended up experiencing pushback in a way that doesn’t get a do-over.

Joseph Rosenbaum — goofy prankster, compassionate dad

Joseph “Jojo” Rosenbaum, 36, was one of the fatally shot individuals, the Chicago Sun-Times said.

His sister told the paper that despite being from Waco, Texas, Rosenbaum — a compassionate father — stayed in Wisconsin to be close to his 2-year-old daughter.

“He loved his daughter very much,” his sister added to the Sun-Times.

The paper also said Rosenbaum’s sister wants him “to be remembered as the man he was. He loved to draw, she said; he was goofy and crazy; he loved playing jokes on everybody.”

But what Rosenbaum allegedly was up to Tuesday night was anything but fun loving.

Video allegedly caught Rosenbaum antagonizing the gun-carrying group who showed up to protect property in Kenosha after two previous nights of vicious rioting, glaring at them and daring them to “shoot me!”


Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @Julio_Rosas11

He even uttered the N-word as black people were feet away. One guesses that being a leftist apparently buys some racial slur passes. (Content warning: Language, racial slurs):

What’s more, video allegedly shows Rosenbaum — who by this point apparently had removed his red T-shirt to use as a head covering — chasing after a male armed with a rifle. Rosenbaum then allegedly throws a bag of tools at the guy with the gun and then lunges at him. The guy carrying the gun not surprisingly opens fire.

And that spells the end for Rosenbaum, who is seen in a graphic clip of the shooting aftermath dying in the street and wearing the same capri-length jeans, white sneakers with white socks, and tan belt as he’s wearing in the video of him confronting militia members.

Anthony Huber — peaceful American patriot

Anthony Huber, 26, also was fatally shot Tuesday night, the Sun-Times said.

“Anthony is an American patriot, and we should all be so lucky to have folks like him to defend this country from White Supremacists,” according to a comment on the GoFundMe page set up for Huber’s girlfriend and stepdaughter, the paper said. The crowdfunding has raised nearly $100,000 in just a couple of days.

“You’re a Hero Huber,” read a chalked message at a Kenosha skatepark, the Sun-Times reported.

“He is a peaceful person,” a friend of Huber’s told WDJT-TV. “He didn’t go out looking to beat people up. He’s more of a defender. And he put his life on the line for others. That’s what he did.”

Calling him “one of the most amazing people,” Huber’s girlfriend Hannah Gittings told protesters Wednesday near the spot where he died that Huber “took down an armed gunman with nothing but his f***ing skateboard, and he took that f***ing bullet,” the paper said.

Indeed, Huber was in the mob that chased after the male who allegedly shot Rosenbaum. Without using his name, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Huber bashed his skateboard over the apparent shooter’s head.

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

The paper added that he also tried to take away his gun — and at that moment, the attacked male pulled the trigger. Huber — who appeared to be hit in the chest — crumpled to the street.

Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Gaige Grosskreutz — just wanted to provide medical services to protesters

The Sun-Times identified the third shooting victim as 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz. He sustained a badly shot right arm but is expected to survive.

A member of social justice group the People’s Revolution Movement of Milwaukee, Grosskreutz’s “whole reason for being out here was to provide medical services to protesters in Kenosha, and when Gaige tried to detain [the active shooter], he got shot in the arm,” a friend of his told the paper.

True enough. But Grosskreutz — who was also in the mob giving chase down the street — also pointed a handgun at the shooter:

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @bgonthescene

And after part of his right arm was blown off, video demonstrated that the handgun was indeed loaded.

Here’s the clip showing the second and third shootings. (Content warning: Language):

Now what?

In the end, suspected shooter 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse faces a homicide charge. As you might already know, he’s already been prejudged as a murderer and white supremacist.

But as TheBlaze Managing Editor Leon Wolf points out in his Thursday op-ed, besides the lack of existence of any fact that would rightly brand the teenager as a racist, “there appears to be no evidence at all that Rittenhouse is guilty of murder, much less first-degree murder,” and charging him with such a crime is “absurd.”

Not that leftists were ever interested in facts that poke holes in their proclamations — including lauding the leftists shot up in Kenosha as peaceful and loving when all visual evidence paints them as the aggressors and acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment chicago concealed carry gun rights guns Intelwars Self-Defense

Armed jewelry store owner, concealed carrying motorist refuse to take Chicago lawlessness lying down

The city of Chicago — with its strict gun restrictions — has consistently suffered terrifying gun violence. And now with the added elements of rioting and looting this summer, the Windy City’s lawlessness has turned it into a war zone.

Just this past weekend,
rioters injured 17 police officers — and one of them was “beaten in the head several times with a skateboard,” according to Police Superintendent David Brown.

And at least 63 people were shot over the weekend, with five of them killed as of 5 a.m. Monday, WBBM-TV reported, adding that seven shooting victims were under 18 years of age.

Taking up arms

With even cops finding themselves often outnumbered and overpowered, some Chicago residents have decided to meet the threat with guns of their own.

Terry Te, owner of Imperial Jewelry on Wabash Avenue, told Fox News that looters targeted his store twice in recent months.

“After the first round of looting back in May, they destroyed our building,” Te noted to host Neil Cavuto. “So this time, I just wanted to stop as much destruction as possible and decided to come down right away after I heard the alarm ring.”

To that end, Te put on a bulletproof vest and armed himself with a gun and ordered looters to stay out, the network said.

While his solo efforts were successful, Te added to Fox News that — despite the push from left-wing elements to defund and abolish police — more cops on the streets would be a welcome sight.

“With more law enforcement in the area, we feel safer, so walking around and having our customers come down, we do feel safer with just having more police presence, having more security, because it stops the looters from even thinking about it,” Te added to the network.

And on Sunday afternoon in the city’s Cragin neighborhood on the northwest side, WMAQ-TV reported a 24-year-old gunman opened fire on a motorist, striking the victim in the right shoulder.

But the problem was that the motorist, also 24, is a concealed carry cardholder, the station said. And he put his paperwork to use, firing back at the gunman and hitting him in the torso, WMAQ said.

Both men were taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center in serious condition, officials told the station, adding that five detectives are investigating the incident.

(H/T:
Bearing Arms)

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Alabama gun rights guns home invasion Intelwars Self-Defense

Another sheriff gives kudos to homeowners for exercising their Second Amendment rights, defending their home against intruders

Yet another sheriff had high praise for homeowners who exercised their Second Amendment rights and successfully defended themselves against intruders.

What are the details?

Homeowners in Garden City, Alabama, were awakened early Monday morning by four suspects breaking into their residence, the Cullman County Sheriff’s Office said.

But the quartet were promptly met by the homeowners who had armed themselves for the occasion, the sheriff’s office added. Suddenly, the uninvited guests decided they couldn’t stay a second longer and took off, authorities said.

One of the homeowners followed the foursome, and the sheriff’s office said there was an exchange of gunfire — with one of the suspects getting shot and later being transported to a regional hospital.

Sheriff’s deputies and officers from the Hanceville Police Department managed to detain three of the suspects — including the shot intruder. The fourth suspect fled in a vehicle but was shortly after located and arrested, authorities said.

Kudos from the sheriff

The sheriff’s office indicated there’s no further danger to the community — and gave kudos to the homeowners for arming themselves.

“This is a great example of citizens utilizing their Second Amendment rights and protecting themselves and their family,” Sheriff Matt Gentry said. “I have often stated that law enforcement can be minutes away when you only have seconds to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we at the sheriff’s office are proponents of not only having a weapon for self defense but also being proficient in how to use it.”

Anything else?

It’s a sentiment that’s common among sheriffs — and it was just echoed by the sheriff of Pasco County, Florida, who sang the praises of a homeowner who protected his family against a gunman who’d broken into their Land O’ Lakes home Aug. 8.

“He was defending himself and his family,” Sheriff Chris Nocco said of the homeowner, who ended up fatally shooting the intruder. “Any loss of life is tragic, but the victim was utilizing his Second Amendment rights to protect himself and his family … I can’t imagine the fear that they were going through, but I’m very happy [about] the fact that he was able to defend himself …”

Nocco added that “when their lives were on the line, when that door was being kicked in, they utilized their Second Amendment rights, and they’re safe because of it.”

Share
Categories
2a 2nd Amendment 9th circuit gun rights High capacity magazine Intelwars

California’s high-capacity magazine ban violates the 2nd Amendment, federal appeals court rules

California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets was struck down by a federal appeals court as unconstitutional, with the majority ruling that the law “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment,” according to the Associated Press.

Judge Kenneth Lee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that there may be good intentions behind the law, which was a response to mass shootings, but that doesn’t have any impact on whether it is constitutional.

“In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called ‘large capacity magazines’ (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition,” Lee wrote for the majority. “But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.

“Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment,” Lee continued. “Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today’s post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra must now decide whether to appeal the decision to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether to seek a delay in the ruling to prevent an immediate buying surge.

The majority found the ban to be too broad, even when considering its stated goal of limiting mass shootings.

“California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense,” Lee wrote, according to the Washington Times. “Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.”

The ban on high-capacity magazines was passed in 2016 by 63% of voters in California, and challenged in 2017 by gun owner Virginia Duncan and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

Deputy Attorney General John Echeverria argued earlier this year that the ban still allowed people to protect themselves and their homes because an average of 2.2 shots are fired during a home invasion.

U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan previously called the ban a “slippery slope” and criticized the limit of 10 rounds as seemingly arbitrary.

“There seems to be some evidence that people need more than a few bullets to defend themselves in the home,” Callahan said.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment guns home invasion Intelwars Kansas Self-Defense

Convicted felon allegedly breaks into home, attacks residents. But homeowner has a gun — and intruder takes a bullet to the face.

Police said a convicted felon allegedly broke into a home in Great Bend, Kansas, on Saturday evening and then proceeded to physically assault the residents, the Great Bend Tribune reported.

But the incident would be short lived, as the homeowner had a gun — and shot the intruder in the face, KAKE-TV reported.

What are the details?

After a preliminary investigation, officers believe 27-year-old Zachary Horyna entered the residence in the 1300 block of Jefferson Street, and then began to physically attack the residents after they confronted him, the station said.

It was at this point that the homeowner shot Horyna, KAKE said.

Officers had been dispatched to the scene for a burglary in progress, and after arriving they located and identified the suspect as Horyna with a gunshot wound to the face, the station said.

The homeowners were treated for their injuries on the scene, KAKE said, adding that Horyna was restrained and treated for his injures by emergency medical services and taken to a Great Bend hospital before he was flown to a Wichita hospital. The paper said Horyna was in stable condition Monday morning.

Police said the pending charge against him is aggravated burglary.

The Tribune, citing the Kansas Department of Corrections website, reported that Zachary Cole Horyna had been discharged from the KDOC when his sentence for previous convictions expired July 26.

His past convictions, no longer active, include drug possession and possession of paraphernalia with five or more plants, committed Nov. 28, 2014, in Saline County, the paper said. He also was convicted of drug possession in Sedgwick County in 2017 and criminal possession of a weapon in Sedgwick County in 2018, the Tribune reported.

What did folks have to say about the incident?

Commenters on the Great Bend police department’s Facebook page were not too sympathetic toward Horyna and decidedly behind the homeowner’s actions:

“He’s lucky he only took a shot to the face….I’d probably have blown his head clean off,” one commenter said.

“I love this family; they are wonderful people; my heart goes out to the both of them to have to experience such a violent act in their own home, so I’m proud of you. I would’ve done exactly the same thing to protect my family!!” another commenter wrote. “Prayers for your recovery.”

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Florida guns home invasion Intelwars Self-Defense watch

Gunman kicks down door, charges at homeowner — who’s also armed. It doesn’t end well for gunman.

A Florida gunman kicked down a door at a Land O’ Lakes home Saturday afternoon — apparently angry at a family for supporting and protecting his estranged wife amid divorce proceedings — but the gunman was met by the homeowner, who also was armed, WTSP-TV reported.

What happened next?

Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said the gunman — 55-year-old Ronald Fleet — exchanged fire with the homeowner and then exited the home, the station said.

But Fleet then “starts charging” back into the house, Nocco told WTSP, after which the homeowner fatally shot him.

Deputies responded around 12:30 p.m. to the home in the Sunset Lakes subdivision, where Fleet was pronounced dead, the station said.

“He was defending himself and his family,” Nocco said of the homeowner. “Any loss of life is tragic, but the victim was utilizing his Second Amendment rights to protect himself and his family from the fear of Ronald who was carrying a gun, kicking in a door, trying to harm them. I can’t imagine the fear that they were going through, but I’m very happy [about] the fact that he was able to defend himself …”

The sheriff added that Fleet was carrying a .380 caliber handgun and that the state attorney’s office will review the case.

Nocco also said Fleet’s estranged wife was trying to get out of a “horrific marriage.” Records show Fleet had prior arrests for domestic battery and driving under the influence, WTSP reported.

‘I do not want to think what would have happened’

Nocco in his video statement underscored how crucial it was that the homeowner was armed and able to protect himself and his family.

“It was because of his rights, his ability to defend himself and his family, that [his] family is OK and safe,” the sheriff said. “Because I do not want to think what would have happened if they were unarmed, [Fleet] got in the house with that gun, and what he would have done to that family.”

Nocco added that “when their lives were on the line, when that door was being kicked in, they utilized their Second Amendment rights, and they’re safe because of it.”

No one else was hurt in the shooting, WTSP said.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment gun control History Intelwars james madison right to keep and bear arms Second Amendment Thomas Jefferson

Did Jefferson and Madison Believe in Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? No.

Ever since we ran our report outlining how President Trump has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control for three straight years, I’ve been inundated by excuses. They range from “he has to enforce the law” to “Hillary would have been worse.”

One of the most disheartening excuses is that “The Second Amendment isn’t absolute. It has its limits.”

This sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi’s view of the Constitution.

And it’s flat-out wrong. You won’t find an asterisk after “shall not be infringed.” No terms and conditions apply. The Second Amendment absolutely prohibits any federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

One reader tried to back up his assertion by pointing out that even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed the Second Amendment had its limits. His proof? Both men were present at a University of Virginia Board of Visitors meeting that banned firearms on the university grounds.

We’ve heard this exact argument before from people on the left supporting this or that federal gun control, and it reveals a gross misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.

It is true Madison and Jefferson were present at the board meeting in October of 1824, along with James Breckenridge, John H. Cocke, George Loyall and Joseph C. Cabell. It’s also true that the board banned students from possessing firearms on the university campus. The ban was part of a long list of rules for student conduct approved by the board.

“No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty.” [Emphasis added]

The board also banned students from making “disturbing noises” in their rooms, from making “any festive entertainment within the precincts of the University,” and prohibited “habits of expense.”

It’s important to note that the board did not pass any laws. Violaters could not be charged with a criminal offense. They were only subject to student discipline up to and including expulsion from the university. It was, in effect, nothing more than a student code of conduct. In fact, you could argue that the board didn’t completely ban weapons from campus. It simply prohibited “students” from possessing or using them.

But given that the UVA was a state-funded public university, doesn’t the Second Amendment prohibit this infringement on a student’s right to keep and bear arms?

No.

The Second Amendment was not understood to apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights restricts federal power. The preamble to the document makes this clear. Nobody arguing for the ratification of the Bill of Rights claimed it applied to state or local governments. In fact, if they had, it would never have been ratified. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court invented the “Incorporation Doctrine” out of thin air based on a dubious reading of the 14th Amendment that anybody seriously considered the Bill of Rights as a restriction on the actions of state governments.

Up until the Incorporation Doctrine began to take hold, the actions of state and local governments were only restricted by the bill of rights in the state constitutions. It would have never occurred to Madison or Jefferson that the Second Amendment might be in play when creating a code of conduct for university students. If anything, they would have looked at the Virginia State Constitution of 1776. And the state Bill of Rights did not include any restrictions on regulating firearms.

Based on Jefferson and Madison’s participation on the UVA Board of Visitors and the student weapons ban, you could reasonably conclude that they didn’t believe the right to carry a firearm was absolute. But it does not prove that they believed the Second Amendment has limits. The Second Amendment had no bearing on the UVA’s student code of conduct. Madison and Jefferson’s actions prove nothing about the Second Amendment.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Black man shot by police Colorado Springs guns Intelwars Protesters Self-Defense watch

Gun-toting protesters descend upon neighborhood of cop who fatally shot a black man — then one resident pulls out gun of his own

On the one-year anniversary of a police-involved fatal shooting of a black man, protesters descended upon the Colorado Springs neighborhood of one of the officers involved in the shooting and demanded his firing,
KRDO-TV reported.

What are the details?

While there wasn’t any violence at the Monday protest, the fact that some demonstrators were carrying guns didn’t sit well with a few residents.


Image source: Twitter video screenshot

Dion Elmore told the station in a
separate article that he believed such a show of force “was almost like an intimidation tactic.”

KRDO said there was at least one confrontation between the armed protesters and several drivers in pickup trucks who were blocked by the crowd.

Here’s more of what appears to be the same confrontation between the driver and protesters:

Afterward, the station added, the armed protesters moved out of the way and let the drivers through.

But one resident wasn’t messing around

KRDO noted that one of the drivers in question retrieved a rifle and stood guard in his driveway while he called police.

Indeed, reporter Andrew McMillan tweeted that after the now-armed driver faced down the crowd, “protesters put their hands up and walked away.”

Another resident, Bobby Cox, told KRDO that while he and his wife were warned in advance about the protest, they were still nervous not knowing what could happen.

“You hear all these things, see all these things on TV, it’s a little scary,” he said. “At our age, we don’t want to be confronting anybody or anything like that. There wasn’t anything like that going on.”

Here’s video of the protest. The portion with the resident holding a rifle begins just after the 30-minute mark.

Content warning: Language:

Anything else?

The station said the neighborhood targeted by protesters is near Pulpit Rock Park where one of the officers involved in the shooting — Sgt. Alan Van’t Land — allegedly lives. The Associated Press said Van’t Land’s residence was roped off at the time of the protest, and no one appeared to be inside the house.

The outlet added that Van’t Land and Officer Blake Evenson were cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury for the shooting. The officers said they didn’t see a gun before shooting 19-year-old De’Von Bailey last August as he ran away but believed he had one as he was holding his waistband, the Denver Post reported.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Burglaries home invasion Intelwars New York oregon Self-Defense

Crooks apparently still not getting the message: Homeowners shoot three in pair of suspected burglaries

A pair of homeowners separated by nearly the entire width of the United States but bound by their embrace of the Constitution — specifically the Second Amendment — recently fended off suspected burglars in separate incidents.

In short, neither homeowner shied away from pulling the triggers of their guns.

What are the details?

New York State Police said two men are recovering in jail after an Enfield homeowner shot them during a reported home invasion late last month,
WBNF-AM reported.

The resident told troopers that the two men broke into his home on Rumsey Hill Road just before 7:30 a.m. July 25, and the homeowner shot them after they refused to leave the property, the station said.

Investigators said they found 50-year-old Mark Ward of Covert, WBNF reported, adding that 38-year-old Jaimie Coleman drove 32-year-old Frisco Meeks of Ithaca to Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre.

Ward and Meeks were both treated for gunshot wounds, the station said, and were charged with felony burglary when they were released from the hospital. WBNF said Coleman of Trumansburg was arrested the same day and charged with felony burglary.

Ward and Meeks were sent to the Tompkins County Jail without bail while Coleman had bail set at $15,000, the station said, adding that the homeowner was not injured in the incident.

And for our second act

An Oregon homeowner shot a woman who was involved in a burglary at his northeast Portland home early Monday, police
told the Oregonian.

Portland police said the man shot the woman at the residence south of Interstate 84, the paper said, adding that the woman was taken to a hospital and is expected to survive. The incident took place just before 7 a.m. in the 1300 block of Northeast 81st Avenue, according to
KOIN-TV.

Police added that the homeowner, who they described as “elderly,” is cooperating with investigators, the Oregonian said.

Neither the man nor the woman has been publicly identified, the paper added, noting that detectives were gathering more information about the incident later on Monday morning.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment anti gun Cancel culture China Fordham university Intelwars NRA political correctness watch

Elite college bans student from campus over AR-15 photo marking Tiananmen Square anniversary, demands apology — but he isn’t backing down

Last month, on the anniversary of 1989’s Tiananmen Square massacre in communist China, Austin Tong posted an Instagram photo of him holding his AR-15 with the accompanying phrase “don’t tread on me.”

Image source: YouTube screenshot

It seemed a more than fitting gesture. After all, Tong was born in China and moved to the United States with his family 15 years ago to experience freedom and democracy — the same freedom and democracy that students in his home country tried to attain before its totalitarian regime cracked down on them.

But we’re living in 2020 — the Year of Cancel Culture. And America is not the same country it was when Tong moved here.

And while Tong is now a college student himself, neither his fellow students nor his school — Fordham University — appreciated his exercise of free speech.

What happened?

Tong told the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action that he received big-time backlash from fellow students over his post displaying his legally purchased firearm and got calls for expulsion and even death threats.

Then Fordham Safety officers actually showed up at his house a few hours after his post hit Instagram.

“[I] received a call from the officers saying they were a few minutes away and wanted to talk,” Tong told the NRA. “I looked out my door and saw them standing outside my home. One came in and one stayed with the car. It was basically about 20 minutes of questions about the firearm, why I posted the pictures, and what I was trying to say.”

Then Fordham’s administration threw the book at Tong for his post, charging him with “Bias and/or Hate Crimes” and “threats/intimidation,” according to a disciplinary letter from the school.

His penalties? First off, disciplinary probation through remainder of his college career — which Tong is scheduled to finish next May. He’s also banned from campus and must complete his degree online. If Tong needs to venture on campus, he has to get permission beforehand.

Furthermore, by Aug. 10 he must complete activities related to learning about “implicit bias” which involve “required reading” as well as a meeting with Office for Multicultural Affairs.

Oh, and Tong also is supposed to pen an apology letter. That was due Thursday.

But Tong isn’t playing Fordham’s game.

How is Tong responding?

“I will not apologize,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “I did nothing wrong, and they did everything wrong. [Fordham is] a total disgrace. I will not apologize, whatever consequence there may be.”

Tong added to the NRA that he “was shocked, appalled, and disappointed. But I didn’t do anything wrong, and that’s why, if they carry through with their threats, we’re going to sue.”

Tong’s lawyer Brett Josphe is preparing a suit against Fordham that may be filed in the coming weeks, the paper said.

“For a mere $50,000 a year in tuition, Fordham has smeared our client’s reputation and permanently damaged his career prospects,” Josphe added to the
Free Beacon. “This behavior by the school and its officials shocks the conscience, and there should be a heavy price to pay.”

The NRA also came to Tong’s defense, releasing a video describing his plight.

Image source: YouTube screenshot

Amy Hunter, spokeswoman for the gun-rights group, told the paper that Tong is a “victim of intolerance.”

“Under no circumstances should he be attacked by gutless keyboard troopers or penalized by his university because of his support of the Second Amendment,” she added to the Free Beacon. “It’s absolutely shameful that anyone would condemn him for supporting the Bill of Rights. Fordham University owes Mr. Tong a full apology.”

More from the paper:

Tong said the university’s actions appear hypocritical in light of recent violent protests in New York City. He said Fordham has not condemned or taken any action against students who’ve harassed and harmed police officers. The university has remained silent about alum Urooj Rahman, who faces federal charges after being caught on camera torching a police vehicle.

“[Fordham] is very hypocritical, and they don’t denounce anything that [leftist] students do,” Tong added to the Free Beacon. “One [Fordham graduate] threw a molotov cocktail out of a car. You have students supporting hurting police and hurting businesses, and Fordham turned a blind eye.”

But Tong also told the paper that “thousands of people across the world … have reached out to me, and they have all sorts of backgrounds and stories about how they were silenced, how they were bullied, how their university silenced them. When I saw that, I felt something within me.”


Fordham Student Charged With Hate Crime By University for Picture of Gun Sends SAVAGE Message

youtu.be

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment drug trafficking gun rights guns Heroin home invasion Intelwars North Carolina Self-Defense

Crooks try forcing their way into home to steal money for heroin. But who knew homeowner would have a gun?

North Carolina sheriff’s deputies said a homeowner shot and wounded a home intruder Saturday night — which led to the arrests of four people, including one for drug trafficking, WLOS-TV reported.

What are the details?

The homeowner told Macon County Sheriff’s Deputies that a woman knocked on his door — and that when he answered a man tried to force his way inside his home, the station reported.

But this homeowner decided to exercise his Second Amendment rights and was armed and ready, shooting the male intruder in the arm, after which three suspects escaped in a car, WLOS reported.

Their flight from the scene apparently didn’t last too long, as the trio — Natasha Kerberg, Carmelita Pike, and Kenneth Lawrence — were later arrested, the station said.

They admitted to law enforcement that they were trying to rob the homeowner for money to buy heroin, WLOS reported.

The information they divulged also led to the drug trafficking arrest of Dean Myers, the station said.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Florida gun-owner Florida shooting Gun collector shoots intruders home invasion Intelwars Three intruders shot Wesley chapel shooting

Three armed men attempt home invasion on a gun collector, but the homeowner is ready

According to police, three armed men attempted a home invasion on a self-described gun enthusiast, and only one of the three made it out alive.

Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco related what the police believed happened in a video statement on Friday. The incident occurred at a home in Wesley Chapel, Florida, that morning.

Nocco said that a homeowner was playing video games by himself when he heard someone break the glass towards the back of his house.

The homeowner grabbed a firearm and accosted three intruders in a narrow hallway of his home. He told police that the first intruder was wearing a black mask and dark clothing, and pointing a gun in his direction.

According to Nocco, the homeowner then shot the first intruder, who fell to the ground. He then saw a second intruder wearing a mask, also with a gun. The homeowner shot the second suspect, who also fell to the ground.

One of the suspects did manage to get a round fired off, but did not hit the homeowner.

The homeowner then saw a third intruder, fired at him, and saw him fall on top of the other bodies. According to the homeowner, his gun jammed, allowing the third intruder to run away while the homeowner went to get another gun.

The third suspect was captured by a neighbor of the homeowner, who called him and said that he was holding the suspect at gunpoint.

The third suspect was identified by police as Jeremiah Tramel. Nocco said that Tramel will be charged two counts of second degree homicide of his accomplices, and also with home invasion robbery.

“He is accountable for the deaths because it was during the commission of a felony that he was involved in that those two people died,” Nocco explained.

Here’s a local news report about the incident:


Pasco homeowner kills two during home invasion, third suspect held at gunpoint for deputies

www.youtube.com

The homeowner said that he might have been targeted because he posted photographs of his gun collection on social media.

“This victim exercised their Second Amendment right. The Second Amendment allows you to protect yourself by carrying and bearing arms. In his home he protected himself,” Nocco added.

He also said that the two dead suspects had extensive “extremely violent” criminal histories.

Here’s the video of the media briefing about the incident:


Homeowner shoots and kills 2 armed intruders, wounds third

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
2a 2nd Amendment Firing line inc Gun store Intelwars looters Philadelphia Second Amendment

Looters break into a Philly gun store overnight — and are surprised to meet the owner armed with an M4 rifle

A group of would-be looters attempted to break into a gun store in Philadelphia early Tuesday morning, and one of them was killed by the owner who happened to be spending the night inside to protect his business, WCAU-TV reported.

The owner of the Firing Line Inc. gun store knew that people had tried to break into his store over the past few nights, so he decided to stay the night in the store and monitor the surveillance cameras.

Around 4:15 a.m., he saw a group of three or four men using bolt cutters on the gate to break into the property. The group of looters broke through the back door of the store and headed upstairs.

When they got upstairs, they were greeted by the store’s 67-year-old owner armed with an M4 rifle. The owner fired at the intruders, killing one of them with a shot to the head. The other men escaped, leaving behind a handgun. Police believe a man who turned up in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder could be one of the suspects.

The police believe the man who was killed was pointing the handgun at the store owner.

“One of the individuals that broke into the property, pointed a handgun at him,” Chief Inspector Scott Smalls said, according to WTXF-TV. “And that’s when the store owner fired his own weapon, striking the one perpetrator at least one time in the head and he collapsed, dropping his gun between his legs.”

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said he was troubled by occurrences of deadly violence that have resulted from looting, but he also sent a clear message, saying “looting has consequences.”

The other men are expected to be charged with burglary, police said. The store owner was not injured in the incident.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Coronavirus gun rights guns Intelwars Massachusetts

Federal judge shoots down Massachusetts gun store closure

A federal judge has ordered Massachusetts state and local officials to allow gun stores to reopen by noon Saturday, handing a win to Second Amendment supporters in the state.

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock in Boston ruled that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s order forcing gun stores to close during the coronavirus pandemic placed an “improper burden” on the constitutional rights of citizens in the state, Reuters reported.

The decision came after gun-rights advocates filed a lawsuit against the Baker administration early last month after the governor ordered the closure of all nonessential businesses in the state without an exemption of gun stores.

An updated executive order issued April 10 exempted gun retailers and shooting ranges from the list of nonessential businesses, but after the move was criticized by gun control advocates, their exemption was removed hours later, according to MassLive.

Woodlock, during the video-conference hearing, said that the matter was likely “a small corner of a large issue that the governor is grappling with and undoubtedly has not been at focus of his attention.”

But he added that “individuals who have rights under the Constitution find those rights burdened and without explanation means that they have a day in court.”

A lawyer for the state indicated that the Baker administration may seek an appeal, Reuters noted. The state’s lawyers argued the crisis justified temporarily closing gun retailers and that residents could still buy guns through other means, like private sales.

Share