Tag: Mark W. Smith

Blue-Skying

If … we trust you enough to drive a motor vehicle and register your driver’s license right and we’re going to opt you in to be a voter why not also opt these people in to carry guns under ccw permitting system so they get their own card that they can use across the country in relevant states that recognize through the reciprocity system those Concealed Carry Permits that are in your wallet…? [Watch]

It’s an interesting and creative thought but it’s dependent on reversing Democrat majorities and even then would be tied up in the courts for years waiting for a Supreme Court of as yet unknown composition to first agree to hear a case and then rule favorably on it.

Besides, reciprocity becomes a moot point as citizens, per SCOTUS in Dred Scott, have “the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

That and it’s hard to see how having more people voting favors anyone but ignorance-dependent Democrats. Me, I think Gov. Shapiro just signed the death warrant for PA Republican representation.

And based on his subversive gun betrayals, I think it’s deliberate sabotage by an embedded enemy.

[Via Jess]

To Tell the Truth

Always take people at their word when they say what they want to disarm you. They want to kill you. They want to do bad things to you. So when you see before the United States Supreme Court in the United States v Rahimi case, statements that say we have no right to keep in bear arms, we have no right to possess firearms, we have no right to carry firearms, we have no right to use firearms to protect ourselves, you must take these words at face value. You must take them as truth that this is what the other side truly believes. We don’t have a right to self-defense we don’t have a right to guns. We have to be disarmed. Take them at their word. [Watch]

Conversely, don’t believe a word they say when they claim no one is talking about taking your guns.

[Via Jess]

Tangentially-Related:

…the reality is they’re all basically for more gun control what’s interesting is some of the briefs are actually embracing laws at the time of our founding that had racist and odious and bigoted foundations upon which they rest, and nevertheless some of the anti-gunners are embracing these… [Watch]

Disingenuously tryin g to separate the racist motivations from the act of disarmament simply means they want us all to be slaves.

[Via 1Gat]

Consistent with Inconsistency

Illinois’s legal brief seeks to defend their recently-enacted “assault weapons” ban by arguing that the lethality of these semi-automatic firearms means that they may be banned consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith discusses this lethality argument here. [Watch]

Because the last thing you want to do when fighting armed attackers is kill them!

Be sure to also open up Illinois’ brief and Smith’s review on Beccaria, linked under the video.

[Via Jess]

How Do You Get From Here to There?

“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]

Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:

What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.

Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.

That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.

As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.

[Via Stephen I]

Verified by MonsterInsights