Tag: Donald Trump

Following through on a campaign promise, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch. Trump promised a strict Constitutionalist would fill the seat left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch interprets the Constitution and its language as that language was understood at the time of a passage’s adoption. For our proposes here on these pages, that means that “militia” means, as it did in c. 1788, “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, and not the National Guard; a 20th Century invention.

Predictably, the wingnut left has retired to their fainting couches. Gorsuch, who was approved by the Senate in 2006 on a voice vote, is suddenly an outrageous, “extremist” pick for the Supreme Court. (And keep in mind who was part of that Senate which approved Judge Gorsuch that day!)

Leading the howls of outrage is the Old Grey Lady. The NY Times editorial board refers to Judge Gorsuch as the “Nominee for a Stolen Seat“. Let me say from the start that I didn’t read the entire OP-ED piece. There quickly came a point where I just couldn’t stop laughing. It was probably this part…

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.

Those, by the way, were the 1st two paragraphs.

Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? The “constitutional duty” the Times refers to is to provide “advice and consent” to a President’s picks for positions such as Supreme Court justice. This would be Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. This is not, however, an obligation to rubber-stamp whatever picks the President may make. Indeed, the last Senate opted to abide by the Biden Rule and abstained from a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination.

Some of the “damage” the Times mentions is spelled out later; namely the toxic political environment that the Times and others like them created following President Trump’s election! Apparently, Trump should have nominated a “moderate” (i.e. a barking mad liberal) because Muslims or some such. Maybe it has something to do with vagina hats. I don’t know. It’s hard to read while I’m laughing.

That last line, however, is a ringing endorsement of Judge Gorsuch. Anyone who compares to the late Justice Scalia is a fine pick for the high court.

Legal News

The anti-gun, liberal, wingnut butthurt continues. This time it’s this lament from Slate editor Jeremy Stahl that Merrick Garland wasn’t able to attend the inauguration as a Supreme Court Justice. Worse yet, “Now Trump will get to nominate whomever he wants to fill this seat.” The horror!

News

Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump! Gun owners look forward, eagerly so, to having a President who understands that the 2nd Amendment protects a pre-existing individual liberty; and not some weird “right” of the National Guard to have weapons. Thank you for protecting us from that pantsuited nightmare!

News

…they aren’t wrong to be crazy about what they’re getting crazy about.

Perhaps I should explain the cray-cray.

The anti-gun left are losing their minds now that the only way they’ll keep President Trump from getting sworn in would be to steal every Bible within 200 miles of Washington D.C.. But let’s be honest, they have some very good reasons to be blowing a collective gasket. Let’s start with reason number 1:

DONALD TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT!

This brings us to reason number 2: Hillary Clinton will not be picking the next three or four Supreme Court justices. Why not? See reason number 1. This is a solid justification for them to be having a Chernobyl-sized meltdown. Why? Reasons 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3:

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83
  • Stephen Breyer, age 78
  • Anthony Kennedy, age 80

So not only will President Trump be appointing Justice Scalia’s replacement, he may be in a position to turn the 5-4 court into a 7-2 court; and, to do so for a generation.

Our 2nd Amendment freedoms have been hanging by a thread ever since the landmark Heller ruling. The anti-gun left has been looking forward to snipping that thread. The passing of Justice Scalia earlier this year looked like their opportunity to do so. They would finally be able to rule the 2nd Amendment out of existence.

But that didn’t happen.

Shockingly, the Senate GOP held the line against Merrick Garland‘s appointment to the Court. In fact, they will be holding pro forma sessions until Donald Trump is actually sworn in to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. President Trump has promised to appoint a strict constructionist to fill the Scalia seat. In other words, a justice who won’t assign different meanings to the phrase “the people” in different parts of the Bill Of Rights. If it means individuals in the 4th Amendment, then it means individuals in the 2nd. It also means a justice who won’t creatively redefine “arms” to mean something other than weapons. Or one who won’t mistake the “militia” with the Army Reserve. These were the routes the anti-gun left intended to use to make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant. They know they can’t amend it away, so they’d simply rule it away.

And now that won’t happen. And that’s making them crazy; sensibly crazy.

Legal News Politics

Unlike the screeching, hysterical New York Daily News, Mother Jones offers a more sober assessment of what Donald Trump’strump-rifle2000 victory means for gun rights in America. (And I’ll apologize right now: You’re gonna have the Georgia Satellites playing in your head for the rest of the day!)

Say what you will about Mother Jones, but their reporting on gun rights has been pretty fair. Rather than join in with the rest of the media fanning fears of “mass shootings” happening every other day, they looked at what’s really happening. They found, of course, that the Obama administration and their accomplices in the media have been lying: Mass shootings are not on the rise. Are they a pro-RKBA organization? Of course not. They’re a news organization; which is far more than can be said of companies like CNN, NBC, or the New York Daily News.

The piece cited above offers a realistic look at what gun owners (and the anti-gun Left) can expect from a Trump administration. First and foremost will be a flurry of executive orders overturning Obama’s less-than-legal EOs.

Most immediately, President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns will be gone. (Obama has signed orders requiring more gun sellers to conduct background checks, requiring dealers to report lost or stolen guns, establishing an investigation center to track online gun trafficking, and launching research into gun safety technology.) “They’re going to overturn almost everything that Obama did,” [UCLA professor Adam] Winkler says.

President-elect Trump has promised that Obama’s EOs are going out the window on day one. Next up will be the Supreme Court. This is without a doubt the single most important issue of this past election for gun owners. Congresses and presidents come and go, but a Court ruling can last multiple lifetimes.

When the NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom asked Trump whether the Second Amendment will be a consideration of his in nominating the next Supreme Court justice, he replied, “100 percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment rights.”

Of the 21 names of possible justices Trump has released, the NRA considers none of them “non-starters,” an NRA spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal. But the gun lobby has some favorites, including Judge Bill Prior of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who once called victims of violence and local and state governments that sued gun manufacturers “leftist bounty hunters.”

Finally, there’s pro-gun legislation on the table. National CCW reciprocity, which had the NY Daily News in such a tizzy, is likely the first piece of legislation that will cross President Trump’s desk.

“Gun owners are looking at an opportunity to go on the offense at the federal level. There a number of different bills that we could be pursuing,” [DC lobbyist Todd] Rathner says. Most prominently among those bills is national reciprocity, which would guarantee that people with concealed-carry permits in one state could carry their guns in any other state. “A concealed carry permit would be treated like a driver’s license. When you drive across state lines, you don’t worry that your license won’t be honored. We need that for concealed weapons permits,” Rathner says.

Winkler, however, notes some potential problems with this. Reciprocity, depending on how the bill is finalized, could require a state like California to recognize a concealed carry permit issued in a state like Utah. “In Utah, you don’t have to be a resident to get a concealed carry permit,” says Winkler. “So someone who is in Los Angeles and who cannot get a concealed carry permit can go get one in Utah, and then under national reciprocity, depending on how the bill gets shaped, California would have to recognize that.”

The anti-gun Left has long tried to use Federal law to dictate gun policy to the States. Now it looks like they’re getting their wish! (For my neighbors wanting more info on Utah non-resident CCW, you can look here. 🙂 )

Throughout the campaign, these pages have been advising gun owners that they had a binary choice in this election. We weren’t kidding. We had a choice between the most ardently anti-gun candidate in Democratic Party history and the most pro-gun GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan. (Can you imagine candidates like Mitt Romney or John McCain posting pro-RKBA position papers on their websites? How about any Bush?) And now even the Left sees that we weren’t kidding.

And even if gun advocates get everything they want in the next couple of years, there’s also a good chance that Trump will get to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. If that happens? “Well then, everything changes,” says Winkler. For years, the gun lobby’s favorite myth was that the government was coming for everyone’s guns. With the election of Trump, the inverse may be coming true. The guns are coming for the government.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go find my shades. 😎

Uncategorized

The famously anti-gun New York Daily News is suffering the mother of all meltdowns at the thought of Donald Trump re-writing America’s gun laws. The tears are flowing at 4 New York Plaza and they’re simply delicious.

liberal-tearsThe paper’s editorial board is howling with outrage at the thought that rights enjoyed by Americans in places like Florida or Utah extend across state lines. Worse, that Americans in places like New York or California ought to enjoy those same rights. In this particular case, it’s Donald Trump’s promise to treat concealed weapons permits like driver’s licenses that has their collective knickers in a twist.

The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

Odd.. I thought that they wanted to treat guns like cars. But I digress.

The meltdown, however comical we might find it, is actually justified. The anti-gun left had the same view of this past election that we did: That this was the single most important election in history with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. They knew what we knew; that electing Hillary Clinton would end private firearms ownership in America and that electing Donald Trump would have the exact opposite effect. And they were right!

 

News Self-defense

The New York Times, for all of its other faults, produced some wonderful resources for tracking election results. Of particular interest are the maps that they produced. These showed data at the county level, but not in the way most papers do. Most other news outlets showed an entire county as shades of red or blue. The Times used dots centered on each county seat to show amounts; either of votes cast, registration, or votes remaining. As a result, we could see, for example, that Pennsylvania was running out of Democrat votes in the counties around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh before the state could be delivered to Hillary; or that Michigan was also running out of safe Democrat counties.

For the final results, their mapping convention produced this map showing where each candidate won and by what margin. The dots make large, but mostly empty western counties less prominent and cities moreso…

 Now some of you might think that this looks familiar. Take a look at it with a few additions…

Better? You’ve probably seen maps like this all of your life; at airline ticket counters.

The cause of Hillary Clinton’s loss should be obvious: She only won at the nation’s airports. Donald Trump, on the other hand, won “flyover country”. The places that she only wanted to see from 35,000′ chose not to vote for her. Go figure! Sure, she won big in Los Angeles County and Cook County, but that does make up for the way she alienated voters in lots of little places like Atascosa County, TX or Daniels County, MT. Those deplorable, little, red counties add up.

Let’s face it, LAX, JFK, and ORD are not a sound foundation for an electoral college win.

News Politics

It ain’t fun hearing a bullet whiz past your ear. It means that you almost got your head taken off. On the upside, it does mean that you dodged one that could have taken your head off.

We dodged one of those last night.

Hillary Clinton, possibly the most anti-gun candidate in American political history, came within a hairsbreadth of winning the White House last night. While Donald Trump will come away with a commanding electoral college win (306-ish to 228-ish as I write this), Hillary won a slight majority in the popular vote. 59,408,297 people (as of 8:31 PST), damn near sent that harridan to the Oval Office. Had she gotten to that desk, your freedom to own and use whatever firearms you deem fit for your needs would have flushed down the nearest toilet.

However, this isn’t the time for gun owners to pack up and head home. The battle was won and the end of the war is in sight, but this is the GOP we’re talking about here. If anyone can rescue defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s that pack of creepy clowns. Trump has put forward a list of names for possible Supreme Court justices. Our job now is to vet these and others before they receive the consent of the Senate. (Remember that Souter and O’Connor were appointed by Republicans!) Don’t start thinking that having a little “R” behind someone’s name makes them a friend to your gun rights. We have the opportunity to reshape the Court for at least the next generation.

It’s time for the mopping up to begin.

News Politics

Virtually all Americans are of the opinion that this is the single worst presidential election in our nation’s history. I submit that the opposite is true.

The candidates of the two major parties are a weasel and a toad. I’ll let you decide which is which! There have never been two more unlikeable characters running for elective office. For every negative thing you can say about Hillary Clinton, there’s something just as bad to say about Donald Trump. Neither can be held up as shining example of virtuous living. But, as TownHall.com columnist Wayne Grudem points out, this makes the election about policies instead of personalities.

Voting for Clinton and her ultraliberal policies is not an option for me as an evangelical Christian. Therefore I am left with two options: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) vote for a third-party candidate whose hopes of winning belong to fantasy, not reality.

And if these are my only two options, then voting for a third-party candidate has the clear effect of helping to elect Clinton, because it is taking my vote away from Trump. That is why the liberal media loved it when I said I was finding it hard to decide.

It also means that my two options are actually this: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) help Hillary Clinton get elected.

Once I put the choice in those stark terms, there is a good way to make a decision. Since I find both candidates morally objectionable, I am back to the old-fashioned basis on which I have usually decided how to vote for my entire life: Whose policies are better? Do I agree more with Trump’s policies or with Clinton’s?

And that is how elections are supposed to be!

Elections in the US (Well… everywhere.) devolve into beauty contests. Who said or did what to whom becomes far too important. What a candidate did in the past is important, but not nearly as important as what they will do once elected. We should, but never really do, look at their policies rather than their wardrobes. But since neither Clinton nor Trump are viewed by the American People in a favorable light, we’re forced to decide based on their policies.

For gun owners, this is a no-brainer. The stated policies of each viable candidate are known. Yes, Trump could be lying about his support for gun rights; but what are the odds that Hillary is lying about her hostility toward your liberties? So unless you agree with Hillary that the 2nd Amendment only protects the National Guard, then you’re left with one and only one option: Donald Trump.

News Politics

As a gun owner, someone who respects the 2nd Amendment, or someone who wants to see the rule of law defended in this country, Donald Trump is your only choice for president. Fail to make that choice, and Hillary has some definite plans for you

In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Clinton’s plan would prohibit Americans from selling a “significant” number of privately owned guns without a license, prevent gun purchases by indefinitely delaying purchasers’ background checks, repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors.

Are you really going to let the MSM and the Democrat Party fool you with idiotic stories about what Trump allegedly did decades ago? (Stories that were debunked, by the way.) You really need to pay more attention to what Hillary will do come January if you allow her into the White House.

News Politics