Another heart-breaking atrocity, blamed falsely on law-abiding gun owners: the massacre at the country-themed bar in Thousand Oaks, California, which had recently been named one of the three safest cities in America. The perpetrator: an honorably discharged Marine combat veteran who had been taught how to shoot people by the government.
And – why should this incident be different? – perpetrated in a gun-free zone, a/k/a hunting preserve for psychopathic murderers.
We are told there were half a dozen off duty cops in the bar when the shooting went down, and that none were carrying guns. It would be unfair to blame them for that. Cops are universally told not to carry their off-duty guns when they might be under the influence of alcohol, and consuming alcohol is what most folks go to bars for.
The murderer shot down the unarmed security man first. He was easy to spot, and “unarmed security” is really an oxymoron in a case like this. The first armed good guy through the door, SWAT-trained hero Sergeant Ron Helus, was murdered before he could engage: the coward apparently anticipated where responding officers would enter and was probably waiting for him in ambush.
By contrast, one or more unidentifiable patrons in the crowd, had they been competently armed, would have had the advantage of surprise and would almost certainly been able to neutralize the gunman before he could rack up anything like the death toll he did.
What’s the solution? I’m told that in California it’s illegal to carry a gun in a bar, period. In the more enlightened jurisdictions, it is legal to do so if the licensed carrier is not consuming alcohol himself. Which would naturally lend itself to a life-saving adaptation of the Designated Driver concept.
When I was a young patrolman in the early 1970s, I quickly learned that if I wasn’t answering calls for service, it was no trick to arrest at least one drunk driver a night, sometimes more. A decade later, as a training sergeant for another police department, I found it harder to find drunk drivers on the road, even during “prime time” right after the bars had closed. Twenty years after that, as a captain with a third agency and recently divorced, I would take Thanksgiving and Christmas shifts so another cop could have the holiday off with his family. In the old days, festive holidays were the most likely times to find drunk drivers on the road, but by then I could look all day or evening for one and come up dry.
Why? Society had wisely condemned drunk driving. “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” had become the mantra, and Designated Drivers had come into vogue. It has undoubtedly saved a great many lives.
I submit that the time has come for the Designated Driver to be supplemented with the Designated Defender in bars, very likely the same person. That is, one sober member of the happy group, legal to carry and alert, armed and ready to interdict a monster like the one who carried out the cowardly massacre in Thousand Oaks.
“Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” Designated Driver!
“Friends don’t let friends die helpless.” Designated Defender!
Makes sense to me but the snowflake legislators wont allow it.
So, then, let’s give them a bill that they can really get behind.
My proposal is a bill that allows any house of worship or business place of public accommodation the right to erect a special Gun-Free Zone sign. If prominently posted no state or municipal police officer may enter that premises armed; and, especially not enter in response to a call of shots-fired. The penalty for violation is a loss of pension.
Now, if a religious community or business really believes that guns are never the answer then it should put it’s money where it’s heart is. No police officer should put his life at risk to try to save members of such a congregation or the patrons of such a business while at the same time violating that community’s/business’s heart-felt religious commitment to pacifism.
Legislators representing such constituents should be responsive to their sentiments. If the proposed bill does not pass that will tell us about the depth (shallowness?) of this sentiment. If it were to pass then some people would have what they ask for and are entitled to.
Thereupon, a similar bill could be passed covering the proprietors of other places; homes, businesses that are not places of public accommodation. We should soon see pacifist proprietors erecting such signs at their homes and businesses.
I think we can anticipate the end result. In a couple of decades the crazies and criminals will see to it that Darwin’s survival of the fittest law prevails.
I very much doubt that my proposed bills would gain any traction. Nevertheless, it would spark an interesting soul-searching through debate in the town square.
Good post, Maas!
I am 71 so an old guy not in enforcement however served two tours on the ground including TET of 68. My uneducated opinion if someone is willing to die for their perceived cause there is no fool proof defense. Life has its dangers.The SGT who ran to the fire is a true warrior.
Thank you for your service Mr. Winegar. I was a little too young to serve in Vietnam but a friend of mine in fifth grade had an older brother in the Infantry over there. Though the media had a lot of coverage of protestors back then, that wasn’t my experience. Everyone I knew was rooting for you all. But we who supported and cared about you all did not fit the narrative of the media of the time. Again, thank you.
As a frequent Designated Driver (due to being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), I have no idea how many folks I have kept from meeting an LEO while in an impaired condition. And, BTW for designated drivers – insist of driving one of the intoxicated persons cars, *NOT* your own – ask me how I know this?
It makes total sense to have an unimpaired armed person protect the same persons from the risk of a critical “oopsy” with a firearm due to their impaired status yet still afford them some protection against a violent criminal.
I fully agree, Mas!
YES! This is long overdue. I’ve patronized The Borderline in my younger days before carrying was an issue for me. Today, I struggle attending meetings for a watersport club which are held at a similar and slightly grittier bar and grill. I have no problem not drinking and have no illusion of being the defender of all that is good in the world but YES, I would like to believe I would have the state of mind and guts to draw on a similar threat if given the legal standing to be there.
sidenote- We have great expectations for our newly elected Sheriff Ayub here in Ventura.
Massad has widely stated the case.K
And, as usual, the anti-gunners blame everyone and everything except the real causes for these shootings.
I sometimes wonder if they avoid the real reasons in hope that if enough are killed, we will all get fed up and change, and become anti’s like they are.
Firearms Prohibition, as a policy, is a subset of Left-Wing ideology. Therefore, anti-gunners are just one ‘sub-species’ of Leftists.
Like all Leftists, their worldview is based upon the false conviction that the human race, at it’s core, is Good/Pure/Naturally innocent. This gives Leftists a tabula rasa (Blank Slate) philosophy of humanity. They tend to believe that humans are born as ‘unformed clay’ (so to speak) and that human personality is shaped totally by their environment and life-experiences.
Therefore, it is one characteristic of leftists that they can never place the blame for evil on the individual. They, literally, cannot bring themselves to believe that any man or woman is inherently evil. Rather, when evil occurs, they automatically seek to place the blame on external or environmental sources.
So, to take this California mass-murder for example, leftists literally do not see it as the actions of an evil man. Instead, they would place the blame upon this man’s history and environmental exposure. They would see a man twisted by his wartime and military experiences. They also see the availability of firearms as a factor. While Leftists do not believe in the concept of an ‘Evil Man’, they readily believe in the concept of the ‘Evil Gun’.
So, since you are not a leftist, you look at the actions of the anti-gunners and think that they “blame everyone and everything except the real causes for these shootings”.
However, from the left-wing perspective and worldview of the anti-gunners, they are placing the blame EXACTLY where it belongs. At the feet of the ‘Evil Gun’. As hard as it is for you or I to see it, Left-Wing anti-gunners really do believe that the availability of firearms causes violence. Hence, their love of the term ‘Gun Violence’. They really do believe that, if you get rid of the guns, you will get rid of the violence.
This EXACT type of thinking was behind the Prohibition of Alcohol a century ago. The old time Prohibitionists also believed that, if you just get rid of the alcohol, you get rid of all alcohol-related problems. This brand of thinking failed a century ago and it will fail just the same way when applied to firearms. However, Leftists love their ideology so much that they ignore the lessons of history whenever those lessons tell them something that is contrary to their beloved left-wing worldview.
The conclusion is that Firearm Prohibition is driven not by a rational consideration of effective public policy and other practical or historical considerations. Rather, it is an irrational policy driven by emotion and a distorted view of the true nature of humanity.
If the rest of our community, especially the big guns, would pick up this theme and run with it publicly it could be come another win for the good guys.
I think that having a Designated Defender is a great idea, as long as that person is psychologically suited and has proficiency with firearms. Unfortunately, I believe that many jurisdictions and LEO brass could not get their heads around this. It seems like when it comes to firearms, it’s just all about emotions and politics. The sheep are more afraid of the sheep dog than the wolf. Of course, sheep are not particularly intelligent creatures.
Yo Mas: Amen I say, your are spot on. But until the bleeding hearts realize that taking a pro active stance on following your suggestion, as well as others who condemn “Gun Free Zones” as free for all target acquisition areas, they will continue.Start fixing the social problems in America, and reduce taxes, so blue collar folks can live too!
Lighting candles and throwing teddy bears down at these scenes won’t cut it folks. The dead are gone, before their time. How culpable and negligent are you, as so called elected leaders of the citizenry, in their deaths? Oh, that’s right, Senators,Congressmen/Congresswomen, City County State and Federal Employees, including Judges are not liable for their actions. CYA, $$, Power and Greed over Americans, is where to start!
Lead On Mas, Blessings and Stay Safe, one of your proud Students, Tom
I thought about the same idea when they mentioned there were multiple officers in the bar. Excellent idea.
Designated defender. I like it. I have been working with a small group to formulate a plan to defend our church congregation during services. “Designated defender” sums up what we want to do more than any other term I’ve heard.
I think I’m going to have to steal it. And I steal only from the best.
Mas – My heart is shattered and I’m filled with cold fury over this latest human shooting gallery incident. I have read (someone please confirm) that SIX off-duty police were in the bar, but not one was armed. One or more shielded civilians with his body, like the teachers at Sandy Hook. Designated Defender is a tremendous idea. Count me in (MAG40-Greeley CO-2017).
Mas, your proposal for a “Designated Defender” is certainly worthy of supporting. Even so, I would like your expert commentary on the practice of Drinking-while-Carrying (DwC).
I do NOT advocate any change on best-practice or laws concerning civilian DwC. Certainly, I’m opening that can of worms but I’m not trying to take-on the task of wrestling with them.
What strikes me as really ironic is that the six cops in that bar were UN-armed. Had they been armed – but not so intoxicated that it severely impaired their marksmanship – then the death toll would have been smaller. I am going to introduce a presumption here: Some of those six were going to drive home after drinking in this bar.
Under that presumption, we can’t rule-out that one of them might have been over the 0.08 level which would render them DWI. It’s highly likely that most of them – perhaps all – were <0.08 and drove home below the legal threshold of impairment. Some states – NY for example – permit DwC primarily to indulge their police in the opportunity to drop by a pub after working a shift. Indeed, in some states there are pubs dubbed "cop bars" because cops patronize these bars after shifts to hang-out with other cops.
So, we have nation-wide experience with cops driving after drinking. We have experience of some states with cops DwC off-duty. I do not recall stories of lots of cops having traffic accidents when they have been drinking. Nor stories of the very improbable case of a cop making a "bad shoot" having recently been DwC.
I do recall two incidents that might be somewhat relevant. A NYC case where a retired cop was drinking in a bar. A stick-up-man robbed the bar tender; and thereupon turned his attention to the patron to lighten him of his wallet. The retired cop disposed of the robber. A US Marshal got drunk in a NYC bar and (IIRC) brandished his gun, but did not fire it. No doubt you are better informed than I.
I have two questions for you:
1. Do you think that our nation's minimal experience with cops NOT being caught DWI nor making bad-shoots DwC can be interpreted as supporting an assumption that cops are – in the main – pretty responsible about DWI and DwC? (And, if so, that prohibiting cops from DwC is probably bad policy).
2. Do you think that alcohol impairs the decision-making processes of driving vs. gunfighting differently? If so, in what way? Would stricter or looser policies be warranted for one or the other (DWI vs DwC)?
Mark, that’s an excellent question, and would need at minimum a blog entry of its own to properly explore.
Thank you for acknowledging my questions. I respectfully ask you to think about them and consider writing a blog entry with whatever you come up with.
A novel that I don’t remember the name of explores this. A female FBI agent has low-level alcohol content in the bloodstream and does a basic clean shoot. She lands in some hot water, though.
A reminder: ingesting poppy seeds in bagels or other foods will most likely result in a positive test for opioids.
Know your sate’s laws, but be careful when getting your expertise from the Internet. Some YouTube is golden, some is even deliberately misleading.
Just FYI the term has been legally registered and the URL is taken. We’ve been too busy to move forward with our ideas, and using the term in a generic sense won’t be an issue at this time. It was definitely being looked at as a defensive firearms community issue along the same lines that Mas outlined above and getting individuals like Mas and other trainers involved to hash out the details is definitely part of the projected process.
Good to hear, Gregory. Let us know when you get rolling with it.
Excellent concept, and ripe to be imlemented.
I know for certain Oregon allows carry in liquor establishments, with Mother May I Card, and I like that. In Portlend there are some fine establishments that hold live music events in their venues. Since I love certain types, when I can I attend.. sometimes free sometimes cover charge. I’m fine I’d buy a ticket to see some of these performances, and happily. I never do go into bars to drink. I refuse to pay the outrageous fees for a pint or shot. So I legally carry in bars in Oregon.
In my home state, my mere presence within the four walls of an “establishment” can net me a felony bust…. no more guns, ever, and they’d happily seize all I own that they can find. Too high a price to pay for a darkening their doors.
In this state they, for some incomprehensible reason, seem to have a rather high rate of “vehicle prowls” at night… you guessed it, in BAR parking lots. Folks come to drink, know they can’t carry inside, so remove it and leave it in the car. State law mandates that if a gun is in the car unattended, the car MUST be locked. Small deterrent to the thieves who go for the cars with Browning Buck, NRA, Insured by Smith and Wesson, the Colt logo, or the square G….. Molon Labe, Gadsden flag, join the list of fair targets. Meanwhile, everyone inside the establishment is as vulnerable as were the folks at that bar in Thousand Oaks. Which is more reason NOT to enter any establishment in my state.
There IS one exception.. a friend has a connexion with a golf course where he teaches, caddies, etc, and is also a regular at the Clubhouse (bar, the 19th Hole). It is a low key out of the way place, inhabited by regulars, who all know each other. Half the people in there are carrying, and no one cares. Now THAT”s the way it totta be…..
With our gov re-elected she has set her sights on removing all 2nd rights. We need to pray and keep vigilant about our laws, though the ones she is looking at is a non-voted bill, and could make those who don’t turn in any of their guns into a class b felon.
It’s Jim in Wichita. Been practicing this for a few years now. I think “Designated Defender” sounds much better than the “designated shooter” we call it.
Thanks and take care,
The gun community is losing the culture war, no matter how you cut. Folks thought they could hold off baby killing. They thought they could hold off universal gay lifestyle. The think they can hold of the trans movement. All your words mean nothing Mas against 38 seconds of this woman….
At last count one of five Texas school districts have armed teachers. Every school around where I live has taken down the “gun-free” signs and put up “Our teachers are armed and will protect our students” notifications. Police departments are holding ALICE and similar training, and can’t keep up with demand. Churches are forming security teams and hiring off-duty officers. For the first time the gay and Jewish communities are seriously dialoguing about carrying. There are even progressive gun clubs springing up. 18,000,000 licenses to carry, and counting. NICS background checks are slacking off, but they’re still at levels that set records a couple of years ago. The Washington initiative got passed by city folks, but the police organizations opposed it. Across the rest of the country, where there was a choice, anti-gun candidates lost.
If that’s “losing the culture war,” I’ll take it.
Hey, why not double down and make the Designated Defender also the Designated Driver! 2 birds…
Great Idea Mass, but no way to get a Bill for it through the Democratic Majority in the House, unless someone can find a way to prove several of the “Close” races were actually “Stolen”, by Democratic “Voter FRAUD”, then get the “Winner” BE THROWN OUT, & try again?
Or, maybe Trump can use an Executive Order to let the previous Repuplican Incumbent Continue in Office, until Trump finds a way to Bullet Proof the Election system, even if it means going back to “Paper Ballot Voting”, if that could slow down, or Stop, the present “Electronic Voter Fraud” which is too easy to manipulate, so the Candidate with the “Smartest Hacker” will win EVERY TIME!!
Your “Designated Defender”, concept is no less than a brilliant turn of the well accepted “Designated Driver.”
“What is the point that six officers were in the bar?”
This. Pick up a chair throw it. Distract him. Attack him. Take him down. As they teach in Infantry Officers School, don’t do nothing. Break his rhythm. And so forth. Action is always an option.
THIS! Current doctrine is “rush the nut”. Worked for Chris Mintz…
That’s a great idea!
X-Ring, as ususal.
Politicians will never allow this because it makes common sense to do so, and most of them don’t have any, or are overruled by their liberal superiors in higher places.
Their solution is to advise bar patrons and church goers to carry very loud whistles to summon immediate help if a maniac or terrorist begins killing folks in a gun-free zone. I personally carry a large, glossy nude photo of Hillary to frighten off any murderous attackers and it works extremely well.
Time to face facts Tucson Arizona Gabby Gifford held parking lot meeting many gunned down by individual with high viz with Democrat lead law inforcment gunman taken down by 2 ice holders. One may have shown his gun prior to taking action to tackle the gunman during reloading. For long time reinforcements looked for second shooter.Church with Cruze the same high contact with fem. Law and private citizen stopped him. Think about it Democrats want gun control not crime control follow Hitler, Stalin,Lennon,Mao,Castro,Obama,Clinton,Shumer.
When I took classes with Jacobe Group in Oregon back in 2005, I seem to be remember being discouraged from carrying in bars even though Oregon law allowed it because if a self-defense situation arose, someone in the bar would likely say they saw you drinking. I always thought there was some wisdom in that given how easily people misremember traumatic events without the influence of alcohol. Do you think the time has come where the greater concern should be put on defense against mass-shooters in club situations over personal defense against drunks?
My point of view from france. About this mass shooting, i red that he was arrested several times. The last seems to be a mental problem. So, why california let him have a glock? Why not to oppose old law application before appliying new ones? After that we can try new laws and new concepts, no?
Thanks mas, thanks backwoodshome to let me read you.
Try 1937 thru1941 Europe Hitler unarmed citizens that is the goal of the left and the Democrat party
While I agree with the concept, I am troubled with many of the problems and issues your proposal could encounter. My concern is specifically targeted to the state that I live in, commonly phrased as Murderland (Maryland), which is NOT gun friendly.
Personally I do not patronize GUN FREE ZONES, period. Others do and do so at their own peril.
DESIGNATED DEFENDERS? I am pretty certain when you wrote this blog post, your emotions were (are) high and like you, many of us who have decided to carry in public, honestly would want to be able to defend the public from a crazed mass murderer, but the facts of the reality must be considered.
From the training that I have received from you, Marty Hayes-ACLDN, and Andrew Branca-LOSD, great emphasis has been hammered into my way of thinking in terms or surviving the physical battle only to be blindsided and crippled with the legal fight. In addition to all the training that I have had from the premier instructors in the field, and also competing in the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) AND working as a safety official in the organization, I would be more than willing to defend the innocents from being slaughtered by a sick or evil individual. That said, and for the record, I would never DESIGNATE myself as a “defender” for the general public, with that mental picture, a prosecutor could have a field day with that concept to the jury–cop wanna-be.
To that end, I would suspect Mas’ concept would be for former/current/retired law enforcement and not the Armed Citizen as the legal ramifications could be devastating to that DESIGNATED DEFENDER. In the face of the imminent danger, I would FIGHT to the the best of my abilities, but when it comes to the lopsided “criminal justice system” I admit I am a coward.
Hey Massad: Chad Hendrix from the Fort Myers Chapter of the Pink Pistols. If you remember I spoke on this at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Tampa a couple of years back.?
In my speech, I talked about when I lived in Tennessee and carried guns in bars legally. I was the designated driver and concealed carrier. My friends and I took turns doing this and we always got home safely. We knew people who were robbed and carjacked, including our bartender!
After the massacre at Pulse, I have been working to get this changed in Florida, where it’s illegal to carry if an establishment gets 51% of revenue from alcohol sales.
A killer looking to pile up body counts don’t care about legal percentages! Thanks to Bloomberg pouring millions of dollars for Gun Control here in Florida, his Mom’s Demand show up at every hearing or gathering! So far they have been successful in stopping Gun Rights advancements in the gunshine state!
Chad, I applaud the idea of a designated driver and defender. You have shown that, when allowed by state laws (Colorado, for instance), it does work.
However, it is not possible to determine if “an establishment gets 51% of revenue from alcohol sales” Is there a sign outside the door? Does the bouncer or bartender know the answer?
We have the same statute in Nebraska, inserted into the concealed carry law by a determined anti-Second Amendment State Senator who also proposed restricting gun ownership using a complex formula that included the circumference of the citizen’s waist.
While I applaud the idea, I lament the thought. How sad is it, that we need to have a designated defender. What kind of world has it turned into where we have to anticipate a nutjob opening fire in a bar.
Try 1937 thru1941 Europe Hitler unarmed citizens that is the goal of the left and the Democrat party
I didn’t read all the commits, but, it’s darn sad though politicians are trying to wean Americans away from firearm ownership. That’s why politicians want unarmed guards in our schools, and so forth.
There’s a real need for all Americans to learn how to use there weapons. Then maybe, so many wouldn’t be so easily fooled by our media. I was once told, while in school. Only the military, and cops should have guns, That’s was my manager
You say “designated defender,” I say “armed citizen.”
Every citizen is a ‘designated defender’.
While with good intentions, what Mas proposes here is to work within the framework of bad laws. Therein is the problem.
Too, wasn’t the idea that the various law enforcement were designated as defenders? That hasn’t worked out well at all. In fact, how many LEOs suggest that people provide for their own defense?
God forbid this idea of ‘designated defenders’ should ever take hold.
I have the impression (maybe I am wrong) that many people are still puzzled / confused about the ideology behind firearms prohibition and the reason it is so persistent. I have explained that firearms prohibition arises out of a warped view of human nature which is held by (sadly) a significant segment of humanity. I have explained that firearms prohibition is a subset of left-wing ideology. Let me also try to explain why it is so persistent.
Leftists (as I noted many times previously) view humanity as basically good and (since man is not evil himself) shift the blame for social evils to external social and environmental conditions. This gives leftists certain mental characteristics. Any ideological movement that ‘plays’ to all parts of the leftist mindset will have ‘staying power’. In order to be persistent, a leftist movement needs to do the following:
1) It must identify a specific social or environmental condition as the ‘root cause’ of a social problem. It must incorporate a ‘plan of action’ to attack the identified social or environmental condition.
2) It must promise a Utopian outcome. Leftists, because they believe that all evils arise from social conditions and because, with unified government action, these social conditions can be changed, are particularly susceptible to believing in Utopian Dreams and Promises.
3) It must enhance the power of the leftists in leadership government positions. While most ‘rank and file’ leftists are driven by motives 1) and 2) above, leftist leaders are strongly infected with a lust for government power and authority. Anything that enhances their power is attractive to them.
Any persistent left-wing movement must incorporate all three of the above motivations. Take Communism / Socialism for example. It persists despite numerous failures in numerous countries. Why isn’t it in the dustbin of history? It is not because it hits all of the points above. For item 1), it identifies Capitalism as the root cause of class differences and poverty. It proposes State control of the means of production as a solution. For item 2), it promises the Utopian outcome of a ‘Worker’s Paradise’ with a fair society that eliminates the evils of poverty. This promise has proven false time and again, but the Utopian promise persists. For item 3) it allows Communist / Socialist leaders to seize absolute economic power and control of various governments. The very thing every leftist leader craves with all of his or her soul.
Firearms Prohibition (AKA Gun Control) also scores a bulls-eye on all three points. For 1) it identifies the easy availability of firearms as directly causing the social evil of violence in society. In simpleton terms, it identifies ‘Guns’ as the root source of ‘Gun Violence’.
For 2), it promises the Utopian outcome of a peaceful society, free of criminal violence and mass-murder, once those ‘evil guns’ are eliminated. This promise is every bit as false as those made for Communism, but the Utopian promise persists for those that ‘want to believe’. Like the Communist promise, leftists want to believe in it no matter how many times it fails.
Finally (for 3), by disarming the public, it paves the way for leftist leaders to seize total governmental control without any fear of armed resistance from the population. A huge benefit from the point-of-view of the top, left-wing leadership.
Hopefully, this will explain why the left-wing movement toward disarmament of the civilian population has persisted for over a century now. Why it is so common in any country in which leftists have sway, and why it is not going away anytime soon.
The left-wing gun-grabbers are never going to give up on Firearms Prohibition. For a leftist, it is as attractive as catnip is to a cat.
We need to find and treat the mentally ill!!!!!!
With respect to mental illness the pendulum needs to swing BACK TO THE MIDDLE! I know years ago many
folks that were not mentally ill(somebody wanted their money etc.) were “put in mental hospitals”, which has led to many law changes…..rightfully so….but it’s NOT WORKING. I have a cousin (who passed away years ago) who was doing very well with out patient treatment, but then the laws changed………her life went in the toilet! Fortunately, she didn’t have murder on her mind!
Mas, what is the best site to find your firearms class schedule? Thanks
I sure hope they NEVER ban firearm blogs, forums, etc.
Mary Beth, our 2019 schedule will be posted shortly at http://massadayoobgroup.com .
> designated defender
I try to follow John Farnam’s rules:
Don’t go to stupid places.
Don’t hang out with stupid people.
Don’t do stupid things.
That idea tags all three at once.
I live in the state of New Jersey. It is a de facto gun BAN state i applied for a carry permit in 2013, went to court to appeal my denial in 2017. I had to wait 3 years for an appeal to be heard. I used Heller Macdonald, districtcourt decisions and the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law, and stated i go to SYNAGOGUES in nj that have no protection, and i feared whatmight happen I was denied
Isn,t a defacto ban unconstitutional?
Yes, the effective carry bans in States like New Jersey are unconstitutional.
The problem is that we are living in a left-wing distorted culture which is systemically undermining both the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
The evidence for the above statement is abundant. We see powerful people break the law (Hillary Clinton) and get away with it. We see false charges being used to systematically attack people (Justice Kavenaugh) with media leaks and outright lies and nothing is done about it. We see outright efforts to subvert election results (Florida) with the people breaking the law secure that nothing will be done to stop or to punish them.
We see the People’s Rights of Free Speech, Rights of Privacy and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms trampled on daily and not a finger lifted to prevent it.
In short, we see people on the Left and in the media spitting on the Constitution and laughing at the Law. Obama gutted the Department of Justice (DOJ) and put supporters of his left-wing ideology in the Courts and on the Bench. We are reaping the harvest of the seeds that he sowed.
This lawlessness will only stop when the Courts and the Law grow a spine and start standing up to these people. When we go back to equal enforcement of the Law and people start going to prison for their crimes. When the Supreme Court steps up to the plate and begins to take cases and give decisions that support their previous Heller and MacDonald Decisions, when the People’s Rights of Free Speech and Privacy are defended again, then things will turn around.
Until then, things will only get worse. After all, why should the criminals breaking the law and the rules ever stop? As long as they continue to get away with it, they will continue to ‘push the envelope’ and keep going. So far, nothing is stopping them!
Some more evidence that ties it all together. See this story:
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come! Great idea for the Designated Defender!
Comments are closed.