by David Risselada, America Outloud:
When writing for a new publication, many thoughts come to mind. Who are the audience? What are their primary beliefs and attitudes toward current events, and what do they want to read? I have been writing for many years and have contributed to other forums, allowing me to grow as a writer. In the beginning, I was writing to educate myself. Writing is an excellent way to learn about any topic. As time goes on, one’s writing will transform from a self-educating text to one written for a specific audience in mind. This is a process that, according to an article in The Journal of Writing Research, takes a decade or more to develop. Keeping this in mind, I am jumping into this new column with many years of research experience, opinions, speculations, and an uncanny ability to go against mainstream conservative thought, while providing legitimate sources showing why my positions are what they are. With this being said, let’s jump into this, shall we?
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
If you are an avid Second Amendment supporter, then you know in the summer of 2022, The Supreme Court heard a case called NYSRPA V. BRUEN. This case revolved around whether a state could limit the rights of its citizens to carry a concealed weapon in public. Shall-issue versus may-issue, if you will. What is the difference? A shall-issue state issues a concealed carry permit based on no other criteria than the individual in question not being a prohibited person. A may-issue state requires a justifiable reason the individual is applying for a permit. Self-defense is not a legitimate reason. SCOTUS not only shocked the gun-owning community with its ruling, but they also made the gun-grabbing left very irate as their gun control schemes would allegedly, be more difficult to implement. They ruled that any gun ban case would have to be decided on criteria supported by the plain text meaning, historical legal analogs, and traditions of the Second Amendment going back to the time of the founding. If a person’s conduct falls within the scope of the plain text, the burden falls on the government to justify their law. Until this ruling was published, gun ban cases were decided on an interest-balancing test. Individual rights versus community interests, with many judges always opting on the side of the latter. This is great news, right? There are no laws that justify the disarming of law-abiding citizens dating back to the time of our founders, right? More on that later.
What has happened since SCOTUS’ ruling is the exact opposite of what many expected. It started with New York when it passed its CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT, which defied the court’s opinion and attempted to turn the entire state into a gun-free zone. Gun Owners of America appealed to SCOTUS for review, but they rejected this appeal on what Justice Alito called procedural grounds, as opposed to any ideological beliefs. This means that the court is allowing the lower courts to get it right before they intervene. In the meantime, New York residents are stuck with restrictions that were shot down over a year ago. This has happened repeatedly since last year, with Illinois being the latest and most disturbing example. Illinois not only passed an assault weapon ban, but they also implemented a registration scheme giving residents until the last day of 2023 to register their rifles, magazines, and any other device that makes their guns look super scary. This law was also appealed to Amy Barrett for review and was denied on what is also believed to be procedural grounds as well. Until the Supreme Court hears an assault weapon ban case, these laws, and many others around the country, will stand. This means starting today, Illinois residents will either register their guns with the state or face possible confiscation. Many people believe that gun registration is illegal. Under the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, it is, however, these are very muddy waters. The very act of issuing permits could be considered registration, and an infringement, as asking the government for a permit is asking for permission.
Many commentators in the gun community believe that the SCOTUS is waiting in the winds for the right case to present itself, so they can once and for all shoot down gun control and restore the Second Amendment. Maybe they will, but in a world where the United Nations, Klaus Schwab, The World Health Organization, and many in our own government are pushing for global governance, this is unlikely.
This coming spring, for example, the W.H.O. is voting on the Global Pandemic Treaty, which would give them the power to usurp a nation’s sovereignty on anything they declare to be a public health emergency. This is one of the many reasons they are attempting to label gun violence as a public health threat. It is more likely, in this writer’s opinion, that there is a process of compromise going on, and in the end, the Second Amendment will change, but not in the way many of us are hoping for.
The biggest gun rights case to hit SCOTUS since NYSRPA was The UNITED STATES V. RHAMI. This case brought the question of dangerous persons to the forefront. It was a kind of gotcha moment for the Department of Justice as they brought the case to put the Supreme Court on the spot. In February 2023, following the Bruen guidelines, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws prohibiting people from owning firearms because of a restraining order were unconstitutional under the Bruen standards. The case revolved around an individual named Zackey Rahimi, who was not a model citizen. He was accused of committing several acts of violence, some of which were with a firearm. The problem is that they never convicted him of a crime, aside from possessing a firearm while under a restraining order. If you have purchased a firearm through an FFL, you know this is a question on the ATF form 4473. Here is where it gets interesting. The United States indeed has a historical tradition of disarming citizens it has deemed dangerous. Freed slaves, Catholics, and anyone else considered a threat to the social order were denied the right to own firearms. So what? These laws were rectified and done away with.
If you haven’t noticed, there has been a concerted effort to create the perception that conservatives are a threat to national security. Could this be an agenda to lay the groundwork for justified gun confiscation? Many people were concerned when the Obama administration published their report, Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, in 2009. Gun owners, or rather, die-hard Second Amendment supporters (there is a difference), have been labeled as potential terrorists because they were worried about laws restricting gun rights. This report caught the ire of the public because it attacked war veterans as well. It stated that veterans were ripe for recruitment into right-wing radical groups because of the country’s economic downturn and a lack of gainful employment. Unfortunately, this agenda goes back further than 2009. The militia movement was at its height in the 1980s, and to get it under control, in an operation now known as PATCON, the FBI created its own group and labeled itself as a white supremacist movement. The aim was to coerce other groups into committing acts of violence. This is important because, as we now know, there were FBI agents on the ground on January 6, 2021, instigating events. This protest is being referred to as a violent insurrection, and many people are serving time under the country’s anti-terrorism laws.
The Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose name should raise some eyebrows, published an interesting piece called Preventing Armed Insurrection: Firearms in Political Spaces Threaten Public Health, Safety, and Democracy. This article asserts that the very belief in the Second Amendment and that we have a right to firearm ownership to prevent government tyranny is a danger to the social order. A danger to “Democracy.”
First, it is important to understand that we are a Republic, and the Constitution promises us a Republican form of government. Second, the Declaration of Independence states the right of the people is to cast aside any government that becomes destructive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It could be theoretically argued that the left has been doing this on the subversive level for decades through their “social change” agenda. They have been changing how our government functions through the infiltration of institutions and the conditioning of the mind through public education since the start of the twentieth century. Therefore, they have created a generation of nincompoops who don’t know what a woman is, and glue their hands to concrete to get rid of oil while begging for communism.
The Rahimi decision is expected to be out in June. If SCOTUS rules with the government and finds that they can disarm dangerous people, which is almost certain they will on some level, what will the stipulations be? What type of due process provisions will be put in place? Will this justify national red flag laws? The attempts to get rid of the Second Amendment are coming from powerful global entities, and not just our government. What influence will these entities have? There is an undeniable attempt to paint conservatives as dangerous as the term “white supremacist” has been used to label the movement. The article referenced in the previous paragraph attempts to portray the Second Amendment movement as being motivated by a desire for violent revolution, even though it has been the left that takes to the streets and burns down entire neighborhoods in the name of social justice. If they should rule on the side of gun rights, and allow the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to stand, will it make a difference? Has NYSRPA V. BRUEN? Not in the way we thought it would, that’s for sure.
Read More @ AmericaOutloud.news
