Thank you. You point out a very important and not so subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on some of our young people today, thank you again.

Moreover, the good Professor also seems to discount the importance of the 2A with respect to a soft (but hardening tyranny) and erosion of the Constitution by our so called political leaders. Incremental steps to tyranny (boiling frog analogy) are steps nonetheless.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against terrorists, migrant hordes, petty criminals an oppressive government, or whoever, as the case may be - the right of civilians to keep and bear arms - is a vital and undeniable RIGHT not a privilege in our country.

Most people/sheeple are idiots. And they will continue to vote away their freedoms until most of them become the sheep they were born to be.

Chief Justice Thomas Speaks!
 

After 10-years of silence while sitting on the highest court, Chief Justice Clarence Thomas had a question. And it's in support of the 2A.

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Justice Thomas breaks 10-year silence in court

http://usat.ly/1oJt3Ip

Why is there a "lifetime ban" for a misdemeanor conviction? Does that happen for any other Constitutionally protected rights? Apparently not!

I met Justice Thomas at his son's graduation from a private military school in Virginia (FUMA) . Our son was a year behind his son, as he joined my wife and I as we were taking advantage of a large shade tree beside the bleachers. Very few took notice of him until after the graduation was over,and we went in search of our cadet sons. He had just finished his confirmation hearings, and we chatted about that for just a bit before moving on to other things. What he said in his latest statement matches the image I formed of him that hot summer afternoon. I am glad that he is sitting on the Supreme Court.

NICS background checks for the first two months of 2016 are particularly strong.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ni...month_year.pdf

A short decision from the Supreme Court regarding the 2A. Full text of decision at link below.

<snip>

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the conse quences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self- defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

<snip>

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...10078_aplc.pdf

Thanks for posting that. The Court takes refreshingly straight language in its slapping of the Kommissars of Massachusetts.

The Court has held that “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,”
District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008)

One would think state and local authority would read and understand the plain language of 2nd A and Supreme Court decisions.
:munchin

Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security
 

Obama Administration Moves Forward With Stripping Gun Rights Through Social Security

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...n2156896/print

"Late last week President Obama announced a new push for additional federal "smart" gun technology funding. After grabbing headlines and much attention, the move received praise from gun control groups like Michael Bloomberg's Everytown and criticism from law enforcement, the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

But an issue flying under the radar in Obama's announcement is the Administration's decision to move forward with gun control measures through the Social Security system. Late last year it became clear if an individuals needs financial help managing Social Security benefits, the agency can deem that person mentally unfit to purchase a firearm. This policy is already in place at the Veteran's Administration, where people who have been assigned a "representative payee" have been permanently placed into the NICS background check system as ineligible to purchase a firearm without due process, a hearing or a trial. As background from the LA Times, bolding is mine:..."

First VA and now SS. Just wait until PTSD gets thrown into the mix.

obama can go screw himself, as some of us will not abide by his rules
 

obama and the socialists/progressives can go screw themselves, as some of us will not abide by their rules.

MOLON LABE you spineless socialist cowards, MOLON LABE

Illegal to as Executive Orders for Obama to do. Also Not IAW 14th A due process clause. There needs to be more Sheriff's to stand up against illegal orders.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-confi..._trk=ma&ref=gs

Former AZ Sheriff Richard Mack successfully challenged the Brady Bill which would have required police chiefs and sheriffs to do the background checks for gun purchases. He said, “We went through a lawful process to show the government is out of control, to force sheriffs to comply.” He also said that U.S. District Judge John Roll, who was killed in the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, summed up every sheriff’s dilemma: “He said I was forced to choose between obeying the law or keeping my oath of office. He described my problem in one sentence.”

Pat

Here is an interesting group of Sheriffs the Second and 14th Amendments are high on their support list.



Our Mission
THE CSPOA MISSION

To Protect, Serve, Uphold, and Defend.
http://cspoa.org/our-mission/
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association seeks to Protect, Serve, Uphold, and Defend each citizen’s Natural, Unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as outlined in our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution.

To this end, the CSPOA seeks to educate, empower, encourage, and activate Citizens to elect, support, and rely upon Constitutional County Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and Constitutional Public Officials who understand the ethical application of The Oath of Office which they swore to uphold for our safety and peace, protecting individual liberty from all enemies, both foreign and domestic; in thought, word, and deed..

Our Constitutional Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and Elected Officials must provide a bulwark of protection of our Natural, Unalienable Rights; it is upon this strong foundation that we confidently build our families, our communities, our Sovereign States, and our Nation.:munchin

Gun Rights
 

I was speaking with a lawyer, he is a former Ranger. His firm and a couple others have been creating "Gun Trusts" for clients that request them. My very limited legal understanding is it works just like other trusts, the Trustee controls the guns just like he or she was the owner. Buy, sell, shoot, loan them out etc. only thing is the Trust owns the guns. Sounds like that might be a workable solution. Of course, a Trust specifically for guns is relatively new, and has not been tested in court by this DoJ and other anti 2nd Amendment groups ;) but, having one might by a little time and space.

Noslack

Hey Joe Salazar, can you hear us now?
 

In 2013, CO House Rep. advocated that all women needed was a whistle before passing some of Colorado's onerous anti-gun laws.