Even regular readers of The Shooter’s Log can’t read or respond to all of the comments, so we have started a new weekly feature that will recap a sampling of the most active, interesting, or on occasion, randomly selected comments from the previous weeks. Feel free to respond with your two cents at the bottom of this article or by clicking the story link and adding it directly to the discussion.
Reader Comments From Previous Weeks
“There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
So far the Soap box is being crushed underneath us. Those who would destroy this country are making sure of that.
The Ballot box is all but a joke and smoke and mirrors. No matter WHO you vote for it’s the same thing over and over. Why? because the same powerful people at the top pull ALL the strings. This is why even Trump is failing.
Jury box – well this article says it all.
What’s left of the four?
It’s becoming pretty obvious that the judges in the 4th Circuit need to relearn some US history — and be removed from that body.
After all, it should be pretty apparent that the US citizenry was fall better armed than the government when this country was created, given the initial Articles of Confederation didn’t really provide for properly maintaining a standing national army — and even our current Constitution has provisions for granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal …which essentially allow private citizens to independently carry out military actions on behalf of the nation (being privateers for example) — all of which would have been carried out with “military-style” weapons (actually I’d very comfortably wager that some private citizens were procuring weaponry far more advanced & capable that the government was supplying it’s forces at the time).
I particularly like the change for increasing federal funding to the States for the construction and maintenance of public recreational shooting ranges.
I have family in Arizona and plan to retire there. And though Arizona is bar-none THE most gun-friendly State in the Union (hence my move there), lately they’ve had heavy liberal pushback trying to ban shooting on public lands without alternatives. This new law should stuff those liberal turkeys quite nicely.
I’ll close by adding that – for a fact had Hillary been allowed to ascend upon her metaphoric throne we’d never see any of these great revisions to the gun laws. May God bless our real President in his efforts for true and meaningful leadership, his administration, and all those that supported him into office.
I have owned a TC Contender for 31 years. I now have 2 frames & 14 of the 14″ barrels of various caliber. I also have a TC Encore Pro Hunter, I Love hunting and just shooting these guns. All together I have 5 different TC’s, they are extremely accurate and fun to shoot.
Dear President Trump,
There is an awful smell coming from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. I know you’re busy but please drain that unconstitutional swamp ASAP !
A Loyal Patriot
I have two Walther P-99c Anti-Stress pistols. To me, those are the best pistols on the market. Walther shouldn’t give up on those guns, that “double stage” trigger the P-99 Anti-Stress models have reduce the possibility of accidental discharges IMO. And the decocker built into the top of the slide is a great idea.
These 4th Circuit’s majority decisions in each of the cases mentioned blatantly ignores and contradicts existing SCOTUS precedent.
1) Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137) dictates that: ‘No provision of the U.S. Constitution is designed to be without effect and ANYTHING that is in conflict with the people’s guarantees contained within it, is null and void of enforceable law.’ Are the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments not guaranteed to the people in the text of the Bill Of Rights? Therefore, aren’t they a contract in writing with said people?
2) Murdock v. Pennsylvania (319 US 105) makes it unconstitutional for any state to convert any right that is secured by the U.S. Constitution into a privilege and charge a fee (acquiring a license/permit and class time) in order to freely exercise that right. This precedent makes the entire United States (and its territories) a “constitutional carry” zone because nowhere in the text of the 2nd Amendment does it state that governments have the ability to regulate or restrict this “people’s right” in any manner. To the contrary, it specifically dictates the this right ‘shall not (an order to govt.) be infringed (restricted)’. 3) In addition to Murdock, there is Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, AL (373 US 262) which dictates that: ‘If the state does convert a secured constitutional right into a privilege, that the people can ignore the requirements of a license and/or fee and engage in the exercise of that right with impunity.’
4) Then there’s always U.S. v. Bishop (412 US 346) which dictates that for anyone to be convicted of a criminal violation, without actually harming anyone, that he/she must be found to have had prior “willful intent” (an evil motive). How can any prosecutor prove that of someone that is simply exercising his/her constitutionally secured right to bear arms?
The 4th Circuit’s disregard for “settled” SCOTUS precedent in order to usurp the people’s guarantees is unlawful and should any of these decisions eventually reach the SCOTUS, they will undoubtedly be found unconstitutional.
In the mean time, the people governed by this court’s opinions do however have “remedy and recourse” in these matters. It is found in Article III, Sec. 1, which states that: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…”. Could not purposefully ignoring and contradicting settled SCOTUS precedent to obtain an unconstitutional and probably a predetermined and ideologically slanted outcome be considered “bad behavior” – and shouldn’t these obviously partial judges be removed from “Office” for this breach of Article III? What’s more, it’s a federal felony under Title 18, USC, Sec 242, for ANYONE, judges included, to unlawfully (the Constitution is the law, unconstitutional statutes are not) deprive anyone of their constitutionally secured rights.
The Heller decision is not what it’s cracked up to be. The Heller decision said that “weapons that are most useful in military service—M16 rifles and the like” could be banned. Can anyone read plain English? Several courts have said AR-15 can be banned. The Heller opinion, that all gun owners are crowing about, says AR-15’s could be banned.
The new Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch has said he will uphold Heller. Gorsuch said he will explicitly uphold legal precedence. Gorsuch, when pressed by Feinstein about banning AR-15’s danced all around the question WITHOUT giving a definitive answer. I predict that Gorsuch will be an unmitigated disaster for gun rights. Get ready for your AR-15’s to be banned.
fair, The “in common use at the time” language from U.S. v. Miller that Scalia used in his Heller decision protects the AR-15 from being banned because millions of them are “in common use” in the U.S. at this time. To ban or criminalize their possession now would be a breach of Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 3, which clearly states that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” As for the states that are currently doing this, they are in breach of the U.S. Constitution in this regard. As for “fully automatic arms” (the M-16, etc.) they are not ‘in common use at this time’ because they were unconstitutionally regulated by our over-reaching federal government in 1934 with the passage of the NFA and then nearly prohibited by the GCA in 1968.
I’m going to be politely blunt here and say your comment is full of contradictions. There would never be a need for you to feel fortunate to live under the protections of Texas if everything was really just “crazy rumors”. It’s all pretty real and there is a very serious liberal faction that is hell-bent-dedicated to doing everything in their power to ultimately take your guns.
While I am sure the industry appreciates any time there is an increase in market sales, as any business should, you have just insulted every single person involved by claiming they are somehow culpable for coordinating some mass conspiracy designed to take your guns and ammo dollars.
No one forces you to buy their products. So if you feel the so-called “crazy rumors” are false, then simply don’t buy. Meanwhile the rest of us know that a Court decision which upholds a ban on ARs is quite real for those in that region. We also remember that once upon a time a nationwide “Assault Weapons Ban” actually went into effect for 10 years. It could easily happen again.
Previous Reader Comments of the Week Editions
Tags: Reader Comments
Trackback from your site.