Understanding "Gun Buybacks"

When gun prohibitionists use the term "gun buyback," gun rights advocates laugh. "Pfft, you can't buy back something you never owned." The enemy knows this, but the use of the phrase belies their world view.

Statists think the State owns everything, and no one does anything without their permission. All rights are property rights; for the State to control everyone and everything, they must own everyone and everything. Therefore, they are not being sloppy when they say "gun buyback," it just reflects a world view where our guns belong to them anyway, and they're just letting us use them.

A Terrorist By Any Other Name

     Obama has recently ordered that Muslim terrorist records be destroyed. This is consistent with his willful failure to take the Islamic threat seriously. By doing so, he is fomenting the rise of Islamic fascism and violence in this country, and sewing seeds of fear among its people.
       
     By not taking terrorism seriously,and at the same time villifying American patriots as "domestic extremists," political elites and bureaucrats can justify applying counter-terrorism measures to American citizens. Our government is actively associating ISIS with liberty activists.

     There are those in the liberty movement who see nothing wrong with giving the
government unlimited power to pursue terrorists, not realizing that same power can and will be turned against them. It is foolish to try to fight one threat by giving a more powerful and just as evil threat unlimited resources.

H562 Now Law; What's Next?

Now that Governor Pat McCrory has signed H562 into law, it's time to start on RKBA legislation for next year. Now, the only law I truly support is one that fines and imprisons anyone who attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Having said that, I realize that I should accept what is realistic. To that end, I think the next steps in reclaiming gun rights are:

1. Remove the force of law from gun free zones; refusing to leave when asked will be simple trespassing. The current "infraction" takes a property rights issue that places a value of $500 on my life and turns it into a fund raiser for the state that doesn't benefit the property owner. If I can afford "up to" $500 for the ticket (rest assured it will be no less,) what's to keep me from carrying over the objection of the property owner?

2.  Recoupment of court and attorney fees when successfully challenging a Sheriff's denial of pistol permits. This was in an earlier version of H562, but was removed.

3. Revoke authority of Commissioner of Agriculture to regulate guns at the State Fair, or at least add a "move weapon to and from concealment" provision like that of the section covering campus carry.

4. Since local government property is publicly owned, more scrutiny should be required of local government officials when seeking to ban firearms. Proposals should provide a compelling reason for a ban or restriction, and not be automatically valid "just because we can." An elected official doesn't have license to do whatever he wants with the blessing of the voters.

Cumberland County Creates Criminal Protection Zone

Cumberland County Commissioners have decided they don't trust their citizens.

In a move against the carrying of guns by law-abiding citizens, the anti-Second Amendment gun control extremists added an open carry prohibition to one that already prohibits concealed carry. More details here.

Once again, people who are not criminals are punished for the actions of those who are.

What part of keep and bear do they not understand?

Interesting Choice of Words

"Gun-control law overcomes amendments to pass legislature" read the headline on wsoctv.com after the NC Senate passed a gutted version of H562, which actually loosens some gun laws in North Carolina. They're just spinning it, I thought. If so, they may have inadvertently swerved into something here: any legislation that targets law-abiding citizens, such as pistol permit requirements, restrictions on places to carry, and special privileges for politicians is gun control, even if it is intended to "grant" more rights.

The very fact that politicians think that they're doing citizens a favor by "allowing" them to exercise a God-given right indicates that they are in office for the wrong reasons.

Lenoir Doesn't Trust You

Back in December of 2014, the City of Lenoir, NC passed an ordinance regulating firearms on city property.

It's a little wordy, and pretty much duplicates what is already State law for local governments that wish to post against concealed and/or open carry. This is their prerogative as granted by their patrons in Raleigh, as long as those who run Lenoir understand that they are guaranteeing the safety of those they strip of their inalienable rights.

But it's the very last section, Sec 13-19(f), that makes my blood boil every time I read it:

(f) Any person in violation of the prohibitions of this section 13-19 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-4. Any firearm, handgun or other weapon possession in violation of the provisions of this section is and are declared to be contraband, to be disposed of in accordance with applicable North Carolina law (italics mine.)

So not only is the "City" of Lenoir determined to deny your natural right of self-defense, they are claiming the authority to seize and "dispose of" your personal property should you be caught on publicly-owned property with your defensive weapon. Not sure where they're getting their information from, as NCGS 14-4 describes sewerage district and parking ordinances.

As usual, the worst laws are the ones that target law-abiding citizens.

Does This License Plate Make Me Look Racist?

Today I walked past a car in the parking lot. I did a doubletake when I saw the license plate, a personalized tag like this one:

How racist, I thought.

No? Why not? Where I'm from, white people have traditionally associated watermelons with African-Americans and other black people. This is racist, and it is wrong. So shouldn't the State of North Carolina end the sale of license tags with watermelons on them, based on the fact that watermelons are racist? If some have used watermelons as a symbol of racism, shouldn't they all be banned?

If not, then the Confederate flag should be left alone as well. (NC sells a Sons of Confederate Veterans tag as well; don't tell anybody.)

Sharing

Sharing only works between equals. Otherwise it is either taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, or vice versa. “Sharing” at the point of a gun is Socialism; if you don’t share, men with guns will come and take you away.

If government can make us buy health insurance to make socialized healthcare “work,” then not only can they make us buy anything, but they can require us to do anything to support socialized healthcare.

Capitalism is what happens when you leave people alone; socialism is what happens when you leave liberals alone.

Bend Over

SCOTUS has inexplicably upheld Obamacare. The mandate that all Americans purchase a product in the form of insurance is deemed constitutional “in the form of a tax.”

This means that there is now nothing that the government can’t do to you or require that you participate in.

The government can now determine what you eat, what you drink, the temperature in your home, and how you care for your children.

The government can make you buy a safer (and “greener”) car. The government can make you stay indoors because you’re getting too much sun. They can tell you to stop eating ice cream after 6:00PM because you’re getting too fat.

They can probe your gun collection, treating it as a health risk.

If you need that operation, you may have to wait until the government says you can have it.

The government will now have access to your medical records.

The government will be able to take your children away because you’re not taking care of them in an approved manner.

And you’re going to pay for it, with your money and your health.

Sawmills Town Council "Gets It"

In a 4-1 vote at the May 15 meeting, the Sawmills, NC town council voted to allow concealed carry in Town of Sawmills parks.

According to the News Topic of Lenoir, Councilman Joe Wesson said "It puts it on a more level playing field if we have a law-abiding citizen who can take care of it if something happens...We can't afford not to do this, is how I feel."

That's concealed carry in a nutshell.

State law allows local governments to restrict carrying of weapons in specific areas of parks, including playgrounds and athletic facilities. Sawmills now allows concealed carry in all areas of its parks.

Councilman Donnie Potter cast the dissenting vote. In a previous meeting, he strongly opposed the measure, saying "if you guys vote on this, and someone gets shot, it's on your conscience."

Not to be deterred, the majority of the council let logic prevail.

Now this is a common sense gun law.

Feet to No Fire

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a news conference today in which he announced his suspicions that Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate is forged, something many of us suspected as soon as we saw it. He says this has implications for his county by defrauding its voters.

Okay, what if the LFBC is a forgery? What’s anyone going to do? Confronting BHO will do no good; he’ll simply refuse to acknowledge a challenge, and the willing mainstream media will take his side. An appeal to congress will do no good, since they will simply be incredulous that anyone would make such an accusation, or they will cite a “constitutional crisis” if the matter is pursued. Tell the Attorney General? He works for the President. The Supreme Court? Maybe that’s the goal, but if they rule against the President, who will remove him if he refuses to leave?

When government abuses its power, who will hold them accountable? If the government won’t police themselves, to whom do we turn? When a majority of citizens doesn’t care, who will hold the feet of the offenders to the fire?

We may ostensibly be a nation of laws, but the enforcement of those laws depend on the integrity of a nation of men.

Protected by the Law?

I’m no lawyer, but I do know that laws don’t protect people from what may happen to them; rather, laws describe the consequences for transgressors of the law if they get caught breaking that law. Therefore, one should never trust The Law to keep them safe. For example, the fact that pedestrians are to be given the right-of-way at intersections should give no one the confidence to walk out in front of a moving vehicle, especially in areas frequented by drivers who do not recognize pedestrians (or bicycles, dogs, etc.) to be legitimate occupants of the roadway. Yes, if the vehicle hits you, you can make the case that the driver was in the wrong (or your family can, if you are killed;) but the law will not keep you from being injured. You should take preemptive action to protect yourself by not walking in traffic.

Since laws do not protect us from harm, we should, and indeed should be required, to take preemptive action to keep ourselves and our families safe. This means, among other things, the carrying of a means of defense of ourselves and of others, if need be. This means carrying it everywhere. Yes, I’m talking about a handgun. A concealed handgun “permit” holder should be allowed to carry anywhere, especially public places like schools and businesses. (The holder should not need a permit, but that’s the subject of another discussion.) If denied that right to defend himself, the CHP holder should stay away from those places and businesses. If a government facility or business denies your right to carry on its property, then the operator of that facility assumes responsibility for your safety. But just like the pedestrian, don’t assume that promise will keep you safe. Sadly, the truth is that those government officials and business owners don’t trust law abiding citizens to do the right thing.

This flies in the face of the US Constitution, not to mention the North Carolina Constitution Bill of Rights of 1776, which states: “[T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence (sic) of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” - North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Declaration of Rights and Other Amendments, § XVII (1776) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss10.html.

“Oh, it’s not the lawful ones we’re worried about! It’s the criminals!” Is your mind so clouded by your belief in the basic goodness of people that you really think a sticker on a door is going to be obeyed by someone up to no good, who knows that there is no one standing between him and his criminal intent? You’re placing a huge bet on that chance. I’d sooner buy a lottery ticket.

Our Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

This is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America taken by immigrants. Should natural-born citizens swear no less?

Where You Can't Carry in North Carolina

Schools, school grounds or campus, school bus. NCGS 14-269.2; 18 USC 922.
Assemblies of people where a fee was charged for admission. NCGS 14-269.3 [Huh?]
Places where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. NCGS 14-269.3.
Courthouses. NCGS 14-269.4.
The State Capitol. NCGS 14-269.4.
The Governor’s official homes. NCGS 14-269.4. [I haven’t been invited anyway]
Parades. NCGS 14-277.2.
Funeral processions. NCGS 14-277.2.
Picket lines. NCGS 14-277.2.
Demonstrations at private health care facilities. NCGS 14-277.2.
Any public place owned by a local governmental unit [where an ordinance is effective AND a sign prohibiting is posted]. NCGS 14-277.2.
Any place (except one’s premises) where a state of emergency exists. NCGS 14-288.7.
Any place (except one’s premises) at or near where a riot is occurring. NCGS 14-288.7.
State legislative buildings and grounds. NCGS 120-32.1.
Any place prohibited by federal law. NCGS 14-415.11.
Law enforcement facilities. NCGS 14-415.11.
Correctional facilities (jails, prisons). NCGS 14-415.11.
Buildings housing only State or federal offices. NCGS 14-415.11.
State or federal government offices. NCGS 14-415.11.
Financial institutions (banks, etc.). NCGS 14-415.11.
Premises with a notice posted prohibiting concealed weapons. NCGS 14-415.11.

In other words, just about anywhere you would need to.

Where You Can Carry

Basically, Walmart and your own property. Just don’t shoot anybody.

Human Shields

There is a great deal of discussion about education spending everywhere, especially in North Carolina. Many well-meaning people on both sides have made their views known. What bothers me is how arguments are made "for the children," especially among those in education. Some mean it; some don't.

My message to them is, if you don't want to lose your job, then say you don't want to lose your job. If you don't want to lose funding for your pet project, then say so. Just don't play the "For the Children" card if you are more concerned about your longevity and don't give a rat's rear end about "the children."

If it were really about the children, those screaming loudest would shut up and just do their job. If the Educrat (someone who doesn't teach, but holds a desk job with a six-figure salary) is truly there "for the children," he can give up his job so that several teacher assistants can keep theirs. 

What Part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" Do You Not Understand?

I recently received my North Carolina concealed handgun permit. Ready and authorized to carry a concealed handgun, I am nevertheless flummoxed by those who would seek to deny me a right I am already guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There seem to be more places in North Carolina that one cannot carry than where it is permitted. Schools, banks, Federal and State buildings and offices, plus “public gatherings” are all off-limits. In other words, the places criminals would logically seek out, since there is no one to stop them.

“But, we can’t have people packing guns everywhere! There would be anarchy!” Actually, studies show more crimes are prevented by responsible gun owners than are committed by criminals.

Besides the fact that one should be allowed to arm themselves (again, a right already granted, or, more correctly, not to be infringed upon,) one must be armed to provide a measure of self-defense.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have a constitutional right to protection by law enforcement, even in the presence of a restraining order. This decision ignited a firestorm of controversy, but the facts in question miss the point.

The point is that if law enforcement (i.e. the government) has no legal obligation to protect you, then you should be allowed to protect yourself.

Please don’t misunderstand. My problem is not with law enforcement, since to require protection of the citizenry would open public safety agencies up to so much litigation as to severely restrict (or outright prevent) them from doing what they are sworn to do. They do an excellent job with the resources they have. Nevertheless, the job of the criminal justice system is justice, not defense. That is the job of the citizens.

My problem is with a government that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing (or to spend my own money either, but I digress;) yet at the same time thinks that criminals care whether a business or public building has a little sticker that tells them they can’t have a weapon on the premises. The very places that prohibit possession of firearms would benefit the most from a responsible, armed citizenry.

For the business owner who prohibits weapons, the concern is liability. My question is, in which lies the greater liability: the discharge of a firearm by a responsible, law-abiding citizen; or a firearm injury inflicted during the commission of a crime by the perpetrator?

Responsible gun owners should boycott businesses that (rightfully) refuse firearm possession. We should also remind our elected officials that, by denying us the right to defend ourselves on public property, that government agency assumes responsibility for our safety. Yes, we usually have a choice whether to enter the building or property, but no one can dispute the fact that such a policy denies the citizen his or her right to self-defense.

The position that criminals should be denied access to guns, while noble on its face, is nevertheless only half the argument. It ignores the need of potential victims to protect themselves and their families. Why are guns always the problem and not part of the solution? The need of the individual is sacrificed for some lofty social goal.

Trust is a two-way street. A government and society that doesn’t trust me to do the right thing does not earn my trust.