Sebastian – Page 109 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Obama’s No-Fly No Buy Proposal for Guns Falling Flat

It’s always amazed me how often the gun control folks fail because they simply can’t help themselves from going a bridge too far. I can speak anecdotally that not many left-leaning folks have been willing to stand up and enthusiastically get behind the Terror Watch List proposal. But in this case, we can stop just speaking anecdotally, and note that the LA Times thinks the proposal is a bad one. That was followed up by Slate.

I’ve been of the opinion that the entire Bush-era “no fly” list as applied to flying is and ought to be ruled completely unconstitutional. Neither the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, nor the “Privileges or Immunities” clause of the 14th AmendmentÂ does much for us these days, but it has been recognized to protect the rights of citizens to travel the country unimpeded. It’s good to see there are still some traditional liberals out there who find the use of secret government lists to restrict the liberties of citizens distasteful.

Via Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “To be fair, the whole thing was just intended as a distraction from Obamaâ€™s many national security failures, not as a serious proposal.”

When Democrats would rather talk about gun control, an issue that they not long ago regarded as poison, how bad have things really gotten for them?

Sad But True

As much as I hate to mark Pearl Harbor day with such irreverence, sadly, this is what we’ve come to as a country:

Obama7th

Gun Stocks Rally After Obama Gun Control Speech

President Obama went on the air last night to reassure the nation he totally had this ISIS thing under control, and also to lecture us once again on gun control.

Lo and behold, gun stocks rally. Just when you wonder whether Obama’s talent for selling guns and NRA memberships can’t possibly hit new highs, it does hit new highs.

Court Denies Cert in Highland Park Gun Ban Case

We’ve been waiting with bated breath as the Supreme Court kept holding over the case of Friedman v. Highland Park. Will they take cert? Are they still arguing? Are they waiting for a dissent to denial to be finished?

We now have our answer. Cert is denied: the Supreme Court will not hear the case. That leaves the ban to stand. However, Justice Thomas penned a powerful dissent, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Scroll down to the very end to read the dissent:

â€œ[O]ur central holding inâ€ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was â€œthat the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.â€ McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec- ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appealsâ€” including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision belowâ€”have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410â€“412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Courtâ€™s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.

Noncompliance is an understatement at this point. I appreciate Justice Thomas’ and Justice Scalia’s spirited defense of a meaningful Second Amendment, but this dissent doesn’t have any legal meaning. The lower courts are still free to interpret the Second Amendment into irrelevance, which they have largely done.

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate â€œto the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.â€ 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quo- tation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since â€œstates, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade fire- arms.â€ Ibid. But that ignores Hellerâ€™s fundamental prem- ise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess.

Our only hope here is that there are changes in the Court, which means the Democrats cannot win in 2016 if we’re to have a robust Second Amendment. I get that not everyone likes the Republican candidates this year, and I’m not demanding people vote for whatever yahoo wins the nomination. It is simple a fact that if a Democrat wins in 2016, there will no longer be any Second Amendment right the courts are willing to protect.

Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia have at least left us a legacy, however. The author of the Heller opinion, and a concurring author of the McDonald opinion view the Second Amendment right broadly, believe that the people have a broad right to semi-automatic weapons, and reject categorical bans on common firearms.

Perhaps then in the future, a brave panel of justices will buck circuit precedent and kick a new Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court. But it’s going to take a willingness to do that, and that kind of bravery is unusual in federal judges (at least conservative judges. Leftist judges will just do whatever they want). It may be a long long time before we see another Second Amendment case before the Court again.

For now, we have to defeat Bloomberg and his ilk the old fashioned way. I’d also note that since the Supreme Court has abrogated its duty to us, will do still have the option of Congress taking action using its Section 5 powers under the 14th Amendment, and I do believe it is incumbent upon Congress to avail themselves of this power with the courts so unwilling to act.

And End to the Debate: Of Course They Want Your Guns

Joe Huffman, who tracks instances of people demanding prohibition and confiscation, notes about the New York Times front page editorial (the first since 1920!):

Yesterday Barb and I were at the range with a relatively new shooter and her husband. The check-in counter and gun store was packed with people. I supposedly had the training bay reserved for them but it was packed with a class.

And that will be the end result of all this. Each time the New York Times or Obama opens their mouths, it’s minting tends of thousands of new gun owners.

This New York Times op-ed is a keeper. It should forever refute the accusation that it’s NRA driven right-wing paranoia that there are powerful forces working to disarm you.

Supposedly Barack Obama is going on TV tonight to lecture the nation once again about more gun control. Personally, I think this is all an attempt to try to draw attention away from the fact that we just got hit by ISIS, and that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t have the first clue what he’s doing.

Only Makes Us Stronger

Long time readers may know I’m a fan of Professor Brian Anse Patrick’s books. “Rise of the Anti-Media” is absolutely a must read for People of the Gun. But there is another book of his that today might be more relevant. With the media and the left in full overdrive to demonize the NRA, itÂ is a good time to take a fresh look at Prof. Patrick’s book, “The NRA and the Media”. Here’s the summary:

Were it not for negative media coverage from elite American news organizations, the National Rifle Association and American gun culture would not be in the position of strength they enjoy today. The more negative coverage the elite press have dished out, the more people have been attracted to NRA and gun culture. Brian Anse Patrick, Professor of Communication at University of Toledo, presents the evidence for this startling case. Not only are the elite media biased towards NRA, they have helped mobilize American gun culture, making it one of the most successful social movements of modern times. In this e-edition, with a new foreword from the author, Dr. Patrick makes his case. The evidence is incontrovertible and based on scientific content analysis of ten years of actual coverage.

Over at PJ Media, Roger Simon provides some anecdotal evidence for this theory, writing “How the ‘New York Times’ and Loretta Lynch Made Me Join the NRA.“Â So don’t worry too much about the trolling clickbait from the New York Media. If Prof. Patrick’s theory is right, and I think it is, all this will only make our cause stronger in the end.

Facts Worth Spreading: It Doesn’t Happen in Other Countries Edition

France has suffered more casualties from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidencyÂ (508 to 424).

Most of that is because of the Paris attacks, and the previous Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Also the death rate from public mass shootings between the US and Europe puts the US in the middle of those figures.

Remember, the United States has a population nearly the size of Europe, and because the US is a single huge media market (because we all speak the same language) it seems like it happens here more often. Once you run the numbers, it’s just not true that we’re exceptional in this regard.

Results of Senate Gun Control Fight

John Richardson did the hard work so I don’t have to. Good news? Neither gun control amendment even got a bare majority. I’m not sure a supermajority was required here because it was a reconciliation bill, but I could be wrong.

Manchin-Toomey got 6 fewer votes than it did last time in 2013 after Sandy Hook. To Toomey’s credit, he did vote against Feinstein’s amendment, which is the terror watch list prohibition.

The only Democrat to vote against both bills was Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Four Republicans voted in favor of Manchin-Toomey, the same four that voted for it last time: Toomey, McCain, Collins, and Kirk. This prompted the following tweet:

Hey, @SenatorHeitkamp, would you ever consider moving to #PA and running against @SenToomey?

â€” Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) December 4, 2015

Quote of the Day: Definition of Mass Shooting

From Tam:

Remember: New definition of “mass shooting” is “four or more people hit by bullets”. Remember that when they trot the totals out. If JJ shoots Pookie, Ice Dog, and Ray-Ray, and one of them manages to wing him back with return fire, that’s a “mass shooting”.
(They’re counting the Virginia News Crew as a mass shooting because white reporters count as two ordinary people.)

Hopefully Tam won’t mind if you borrow that argument for all your lefty friends who are posting this crap on Facebook about 355 mass shootings this year.

Things We Seem to Know About San Bernardino

The following things appear to be facts at this point. I stress appear.

There were two shooters, a man and a woman who were (once?) married. I won’t name them here in honor of my policy not to give these clowns publicity.
This attack was elaborately planned.
They employed IEDs unsuccessfully.
Whether jihad was a motivationÂ won’t matter. This will be another case of workplace violence. That will be the continuing narrative by the left and media no matter what. Count on it. There will be no interfering with the narrative about who’s really at fault for all this.
Some of their guns appear to have been purchased legally. Personally, I’m skeptical of this since I doubt their AR-15s were California Compliant. Maybe they were originally purchased legally, then illegally transferred.
The media has invented a new term “assault clothing.” No really, it’s a thing now.
Praying for the victims is now shameful.
For the left, this is only evidence that California’s gun control laws aren’t nearly strict enough. It’s like that Paris thing never happened.

I feel like I’m way too young to start talking like my grandparents about how this country is going to hell in a hand basket, but it is. We have become an unserious people. We have the left on one hand who can’t name something for what it is, and then on the right you have the clown show that’s the GOP primary.