Barrett Reloaded? A New Third Circuit Decision Could Prove The Perfect Base For A Second Amendment Blowout

The Third Circuit has issued an opinion that has received little attention over the right to bear arms, but it should. The decision in Folajtar v. The Attorney General of the United States may be one of the most perfectly tailored case for major Supreme Court decision. Indeed, the only thing lacking from the 2-1 decision is a mailing label directly to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In ruling that a non-violent tax conviction can result in the denial of gun ownership, the panel presents a clean case to further define the contours of the individual rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It is also an opportunity that any new justice would relish: after being the lone dissenter on a similar case, Barrett could be the critical vote (and even the author) on the opinion changing the area in line with her prior position.

The Third Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm. The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns. The plea led to a sentence of three-years’ probation, including three months of home confinement, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 assessment. She also paid the IRS over $250,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest.

The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008. The Supreme Court  recognized that this is not an “unlimited” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id. at 635. Moreover, the Court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27).

The question is whether this means any and all felons, even those never accused of violent acts.  The law at issue is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Originally, in 1938, the Congress prohibited only gun ownership to those who were convicted of “crimes of violence.” See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, tit. IV, § 925, 82 Stat. 197, 233–34; id. at tit. VII § 1202, 82 Stat. at 236 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). That limited the denial of gun ownership to those convicted of murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, burglary, housebreaking and various types of aggravated assault. See Federal Firearms Act, ch. 850, § 1(6), 52 Stat. 1250, 1250 (1938).

That changed in the 1960s when Congress expanded the bar on gun ownership. That however was long before the Heller decision recognized gun ownership as an individual constitutional right.

Judge Thomas Ambro wrote the majority opinion with the support of Judge Cheryl Ann Krause.  Judge Stephanos Bibas dissented. Ambro was appointed by President Bill Clinton and Krause by President Barack Obama.  Bibas was appointed by President Donald Trump.

The majority viewed this determination as appropriately within the discretion of Congress and notes that other core rights can be lost by a felony conviction:

“Indeed, we defer to the legislature’s determination that individuals convicted of felonies may forfeit other fundamental rights, such as the right to vote and to sit on a jury, the former being the essence of our democracy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5); Richardson, 418 U.S. at 56; see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) (“The right to vote . . . is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.”). As felons are rarely protected by the Second Amendment, Congress is also normally entitled to require disarmament as a result of a felony conviction without engaging in an evaluation of each felon’s rehabilitation and likelihood to engage in further criminal activity of any kind. See Medina, 913 F.3d at 160–61. Accordingly, Congress has the flexibility to decide which crimes are captured by § 922.”

Judge Bibas however rejected the “near categorial” rule as a misapplication of prior rulings like Heller. He also faulted the sweeping analysis that brushed over the fact that this is a nonviolent offense and that there is no evidence of dangerousness.

“The majority’s extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label. “Unvirtuousness” based on the felony label is a mushy standard that sets no limit. We must not reflexively defer to that label when a fundamental right is at stake, but rather require narrow tailoring to public safety. Felons are more than the wrongs they have done. They are people and citizens who are part of “We the People of the United States.” U.S. Const. pmbl. So they too share in the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” subject only to the historical limits on that right. Although Lisa Folajtar was convicted of tax fraud nine years ago, she is not dangerous. Neither the majority nor the Government suggests otherwise. Because she poses no danger to anyone, I respectfully dissent.”

So what now? It is hard to ignore the analogy to one of now Justice Barrett’s prior decisions as an appellate judge in Kanter v. Barr. Rickey Kanter was convicted of one count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. The Seventh Circuit panel split 2-1 with Barrett in dissent. Focusing on the “history and tradition” of such restrictions, Barrett also took on the voting rights and jury service point with a key distinction:

“The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[ ] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” See Saul Cornell, A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment , 22 LAW & HIST. REV. 161, 165 (2004). For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice…

Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.”

That is why the Third Circuit case could be so important. It is Kanter revisited but Barrett is now a justice, not just a judge.  Her view is also shared by new colleagues like Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his own dissent as a judge on the D.C. Circuit when a panel upheld the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition (as well as certain registration requirements).

If Barrett and Kavanaugh can get two other justices to accept certiorari, this could be a decision that approaches Heller itself in constitutional importance.

Assuming that you accept that this is an individual right, I have serious reservations with the sweeping analysis of the Third Circuit.  The panel imposed little burden on Congress to extinguish an individual right other than its own categorical declaration. While no right is absolute, most of us would be outraged if such a low burden was imposed on other individual rights under Constitution.  There is a good-faith debate over whether this is an individual right, but the question raised by this case is whether, as an individual right, it can so easily be set aside — particularly under a law that preceded the Heller decision.  Two justices are likely clearing their desks in anticipation of the arrival of this case from the Third Circuit.

137 thoughts on “Barrett Reloaded? A New Third Circuit Decision Could Prove The Perfect Base For A Second Amendment Blowout”

  1. In reaction to comments below I post this. There is not a lot of difference between an automatic AR-15 and a non-automatic AR-15. If you fire an AR-15 on automatic you are lucky to get 4 to 5 shots off before the rounds down range are useless. Whereas non-automatic or automatic in select mode fires each time the trigger is pulled, making accuracy closer to exact. If the purpose is to flood the fire zone with projectiles without care of accuracy then auto works, but if the intent is end life then the auto setting should be avoided. There is only one purpose for a Gun that is to end life. There are those that enjoy guns and firing them at innocuous targets. There are gun owners who have them as a deterrent or self defense if the need arises, but again the purpose is to end life. I have no issue with anyone wanting to own a gun or guns, that is their individual choice and as I read the Second Amendment a guarantee: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Additionally as I read it, the meaning of Militia is a defense against those in authority from despotic intentions. As to those that abuse Guns to end innocent lives or to intimidate, the Criminal Judicial system should be harsh. But as usual the liberals among us want to give clemency to the pitilessness of the offender and then blame the weapon for the crime. As a final statement I have used weapons to fire at others in Viet Nam, it is not fun or fashionable to experience them firing with the same intent.

    1. This sham and prevaricator imagines the power to modify the Constitution; his feigned, ostensible altruism the rationale. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute. All Americans can read and understand the English language employed and no form of interpretation is necessary. Most assuredly, the American Framers understood law and the English language. They wrote precisely what they intended. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate the overthrow of a tyrannical and oppressive government with arms sufficient to the task (weapons of mass destruction are not arms and cannot be borne). Free Americans who keep and bear arms may join the militia of their choice. The only constitutional method of modifying even one word of the 2nd Amendment is national ratification of an entirely new and separate amendment.
      _____________________________________________________

      2nd Amendment

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  2. Turley quotes Brrett:

    “Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.””

    The Constitution says no such thing – not even close. Heller is an outlier opinion and rewriting of the law to fit the political opinions of the right wing judges. Thanks to the theft of a SC seat by GOP senators from the majority of American voters who elected Obama , we were denied the rightful liberal court majority we should have had since 2016. That court may have already thrown Heller into the trash bin, where it belongs.

    1. PS The weapons which should be banned are semi-automatic high velocity weapons, like AR15s. The reason they should be banned is their very successful design as killing and maiming machines for use against humans. Physical damage from a bullet is exponentially increased by velocity, but only directly by it’s size. This is due to physics. These weapons are designed to fire small, high velocity rounds, which also have the benefit to killers of having low recoil due to their small size. This allows the shooter greater control.

      One can Google the statements of doctors of all types with experience in treating wound patients and find that these type rounds create damage they can not treat and essentially explode organs and tissue even in proximity to the wound. Call them assault rifles, call them pop guns, but the law can be written with specific definitions for allowable rounds. Get these things out of the hands of killers and there will be many more survivors of the next Parkland shooting.

      1. lol with definitions like that you could ban 22 long rifle and not just the 55 grain 223 round

        That’s your plan of course, ban all semi autos across the board. because you stink

      2. If it was purely about ballistic velocity, notice how a Ruger Mini-14 remains on the exempt weapons list on the current proposed “assault weapons” ban. It just goes to show the reasoning behind such bans are flawed and the criterion for said qualifications are extremely flawed. Your point also equivocates between lethality potential of the tool with the question of homicide that may or may not be justified.

        It is well documented that handguns are more difficult to shoot accurately and reliably shoot to stop the threat and especially so in a high adrenaline scenario like violent crime, so your proposal would be to only permit these weapons in situations where individuals have the right standing (home invasion, etc) to defense and an acute need for accurate, reliable weapons with stopping power?

        If the rounds are so evil, why leave them in the hands of government which is routinely accused of systemic racism with lethal consequences?

        1. Publius, your comment could have been written by a Proud Boy, or ‘any’ militiaman. Is that who you are, ‘some loser militiaman’??

          You presume ‘everyone agrees’ the government is ‘systemically racist’. Which is totally cynical crap intended for radicals on both the right and left.

          1. What a liar. You quote ‘everyone agrees’ for a post containing no such quote.

            Progressives invented the term “systemic racism.” If you deny that you are either dumb, lying again, or both.

            1. Anonymous, you’re more than likely Publius too. And your reply confirms exactly what I said: “This ‘systemic racism’ comment is intended for radicals on both the right and left”.

              You don’t really care about racism one way or another. Your comment is merely a very disingenuous use of the term. And the fact that you come back with: ‘Progressives invented the term “systemic racism’ is just a stupid What About.

              Like liberals have no choice but to support whatever gun rights nonsense you’re promoting based on their own references to ‘systemic racism’. Like, “Oh my God he’s right, the government is ‘systemically racist’. So I guess we need military weapons on the shelves of Walmart”.

              In short, these comments reflect how obsessively dependent Trumpers have become on the use of What Abouts.

      3. Yet another. Gun Banner’s warped view of firearms and the Constitution and reality.

        Get the violence out of the Killers….and there would be NO Parklands.

        As this is an NPR article….you should accept it as being Gospel…..coming from a Liberal source and all…..it clearly lays out just some of the failures of Law Enforcement, the School System, and the Progressive Agenda that facilitated Cruz becoming a mass murderer.

        https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/589502906/a-clearer-picture-of-parkland-shooting-suspect-comes-into-focus

        Remember two different Security Guards….and a Teacher all knew the Kid was bad news and despite sighting him trespassing on school propoerty…..did not call for a Lockdown or sound the Alert re his presence.

        Then afterwards numerous manifest security failures in both hardware and procedures were discovered.

        Those were compounded by policy and legal failures.

        Fix the problems…..that is the disaster our Mental Health system has become where too many dangerous people are not being correctly identified and dealt with in the right manner.

        Blaming the rifle for the Parkland killings is asinine when it is the mentally ill Human pulling the trigger that is the problem.

        Check the FBI Statistics and see how few of these so-called “Assault Weapons” wind up being used in shootings…..analyze the data and eliminate all the Drug Gang murders….drive by shootings….and illegally possessed/owned weapons and determine how many legally. owned and possessed rifles are used……and you shall see the control measures. have to focus upon those who illegally own and possess the firearms and who have mental issues that are already known to their family, schools, and law enforcement.

        1. Ralph, we seem to agree that we should focus more on illegally owned guns, and a national database and stricter national laws would help in that. You may or may not know that there is no border check when entering Chicago from localities with more lax gun laws and that guns are brought into NE cities from as far away as Georgia.

          As to “assault weapons”, or whatever you wish to call them – I favor a specific and clear definition as outlined above and others more knowledgeable than me could refine that definition to better target these lethal killing machines – we can’t rely on no mistakes by an inexact science like mental health, which also raise issues of civil rights which were set pretty high by courts during the 1980s. That is part of the reason we have so many more homeless now than previously, as mental patients are on our streets in greater numbers.

          The law already accepts the principle that some weapons are too lethal to be owned by the general population and these fall into that category. The law would mostly impact mass killings, which are indeed more rare than domestic and gang killings, but they are not only growing in number, but induce terror in our populations. A reasonable sense of safety should not be a luxury in a country as well off as ours and with the means to fix most problems.

          1. The same as the American Founders, free market competition which is always the definitive resolution. Competition provides the best quality products at the lowest prices.

            Congress has no power to tax for any form of individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

            Congress has ONLY the power to tax for “…general Welfare.” Please read the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

            General = ALL. Wel = Well. Fare = Proceed as exemplified by roads, water, electricity, trash collection, post office, etc., and other commodities and services which cannot be provided effectively by free enterprise.

            The American Founders had no concept of or appreciation for Marxist redistribution of wealth and public assistance/charity and they most assuredly did not intend to engage in it.

            Congress has ONLY the power to regulate money, the flow of commerce and land and naval Forces.

            Congress cannot give money away to those it favors, cannot operate enterprises and cannot regulate anything but that which is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

            Americans may engage in any endeavor they choose, including charitable activities, in the free markets of the private sector.

      4. A 5.56 has a lower velocity the other rifles which cause the bullet to tumble at distance which causes greater damage on impact and is less lethal but more damaging.

      5. Sorry joe friday,

        The following from your post suggests you may not be very familiar with firearms: “PS The weapons which should be banned are semi-automatic high velocity weapons, like AR15s.”

  3. NON-VIOLENT CONVICTIONS..

    DON’T NECESSARILY MEAN ‘NON-VIOLENT CRIMINAL’

    A violent criminal might have ‘5 Arrests’ on his rap sheet with only ‘1’ Conviction. And that ‘1’ Conviction could be a ‘Non-Violent’ offense like ‘Tax Evasion’ or ‘Mail Fraud’. This could be especially true for the classic mafia types.

    I’ve seen the rap sheets of many offenders. And it’s not unusual for career criminals to have mostly ‘Non-Violent’ convictions.

      1. Tabby, I remember when you fancied yourself as the ‘intellectual leader’ of the conservative on this blog. Now you’re just a snarky little troll popping in now and then with snarky little smears. What a loser you are!! Just some bogus intellectual living in the sticks and wishing he mattered.

  4. I think the Supreme Court would have to tread lightly so as to show deference to States that have passed “red flag” laws, giving judges discretionary power to evaluate the risk of a person owning firearms (evidence having been brought forward of risk). The risk-level has nothing to do with whether a previous felony has been charged and convicted. It could be an alcoholic. It could be an abusive partner. I could be a senile old guy. Mentally ill.

    The theory of these red-flag laws is that safe & legal gun-ownership cannot be managed under a strictly statutory approach, but requires case-by-case human judgment. The Captain of a Militia in Revolutionary times was given similar discretionary powers when the 2nd Amendment was Ratified (the “well-regulated” phrase).

    The Court also will have to face up to the fact that there are many “non-violent” felonies that should interfere with 2nd Amendment rights. Being a drug dealer is one, since the most common gun murders are perpetrated by drug dealers. Another felon is the black market gun-runner, or the gun thief. What about felons who use threats of violence in their tradecraft? Should the fact that they only use threats widen their individual rights?

    Also, people who make death threats — many of us think they should have their gun rights eclipsed.

    There are many classes of felonies that don’t include violence as an element, yet these are ones that elevate the risk associated with gun ownership. It would be a huge mistake to think that the word “violence” is any better-defined than “felon” in trying to narrow the statutory reach of the law.

    And, it would be an even bigger mistake for the Court to weaken “red flag” laws, and discretionary risk-assessment through careless reinterpretation of the individual right.

  5. I was renting a farmhouse outside of Cairo, Illinois back in 1975. The Klan came out to shoot into my house. They shot a coyote in my front yard thinking it was my dog. I ad a 30 odd six rifle that came with the house, hanging over the fireplace. One shot from my circle sent them off. One of the hooded K men took his top off and I saw he was a deputy sheriff.
    Everyone needs a rifle.
    Send lawyers, guns and money. Lard get me outta this!

    1. Cairo is in Alexander County, one of the wonderful rural counties of Illinois which are not corrupt swamps of billionaire and lumpen depravity like Chicago. it is farthest south.

      Gen Grant had his hq there once and it has a beautiful public library. but it is part of the hollowed out core of America, destroyed by billionaires

      the future American peasant revolt brews in the countryside

      -Saloth Sar

        1. MIstah Kurtz, he dead.

          Lessons learned, base metals refined, a stronger and more flexible alloy resulted

          –Saloth Sar

        2. No doubt Kurtz has left for the rural territories where he can communicate with nature, farm animals, and his salt of the earth newly found friends who make fun of his tassle loafers Audi sport coupe when he’s out of earshot.

          So, is it Redman, Levi Garret, or Beechnut Kurtz? What’s your brand? I always favored Red Man.

  6. Non-violent felons that were proven to not have the intent to corrupt civil society, should not have their rights infringed.

  7. Sooo, why aren’t White Liberal gun grabbers forming posses to go into the low-income black neighborhoods and seize guns from violent ex-felons??? I mean that is a target rich environment, and just think of all the Black Lives it would save! Probably for the same reason BLM protests are just peachy while lesser numbers of people are rounded up and ticketed.

    The White Liberals know that there is a good likelihood they will get shot in both scenarios, or that they will kill some Blacks in the process. I remember that incident in California where White SJWs blocked a bridge and would not let white people cross it But Blacks were allowed to cross! Why? Because the SJWs knew that the Black kids would not put up with that sort of crap and go ape-doo doo on them, and injure them.

    So it looks like what you have is Trickle Down gun control theory which will never work.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeaky, most black felons also have non-violent drug convictions. According to Turley they also stand to gain the right to own a gun. After all the point of the case is about the distinction of non-violence.

      1. …and they should. That’s not who squeaky is obviously talking about. The point is the selective “wokeness” too many on the left have always demonstrated. Even Malcome X spoke of it way back when. It’s on full display on every NBA court today.
        .

  8. IMO, civic disabilities appended to criminal convictions should be responses to the specific crime. Jury service, voting, occupational licenses, eligibility for certain public sector jobs, and miscellaneous permits should turn on what you did do or did not do. The only blanket bans which seem appropriate would be for jury service and positions in the public sector which require a law license or which incorporate the power to arrest, the power to issue citations, tax assessment, tax collection, or audit and control. In re the private sector, one’s capacity to obtain a law license is properly extinguished.

  9. Just what we need more guns on the streets! Let’s face it this isn’t about “rights”. It’s about guns.

    1. Holmes apparently think that guns have the ability to self-animate, and go shoot people.

      This is real life, not a Tom Robbins novel. I own a shotgun and a pistol. Not once have either one of them ever moved on their own.

      As to the “streets”, you referenced. You obviously have no street sense. The SCOTUS could agree unanimously that private gun ownership is illegal, and there would be even more guns on the streets, thanks to the huge increase in the black market for guns.

      How’d that “War on Drugs” work out?

      1. “War on drugs:” when the medicine kills and corrupts more than the condition it is supposed to cure.

    2. Again, New York City over a period of 20 years had fantastic success in improving security in public places with no changes whatsoever in gun laws. Liberals have no interest in following New York City’s lead and have been attempting to trash what progress has been made. They don’t care about security. They care about sticking the blame for urban disorder with hobbyists who commonly live out in the country. Liberals are bad people.

    3. Have you observed the killings in Gun-Free-Zone Chicago? You are about off the wall as Maddog with your thought process.

      1. The Chicago problem could be dealt with without any action on gun laws. There is no political will in Chicago to solve that problem.

    4. Of course it is about legally owned and used guns. The founding fathers understood tyranny and its most assured prevention of such. Be thankful they were smarter than any progressive liberal whiner ever.

    5. “Just what we need more guns on the streets!”

      Given the BLM/Antifa riots and assaults in countless cities, you’d be a fool to *not* have a gun while on those streets.

    6. strapped and ready for action 24/7, never been arrested or convicted of a single thing, and chickens like Holmes fear me and want to take my guns away.
      go ahead, get to banning, let’s have at it and see where it goes!

  10. It’s an interesting case. I have no love for unconfined, convicted felons and would disqualify them from constitutional rights which rely on proper judgment for their exercise like voting and associating with other known felons. I would not however deny them the right to defend themselves with firearms especially in low grade felonies where dangerousness is not present. Typically, they exist in a Hobbesian environment and self-protection is essential. It’s a tough call especially given their history but even snakes aren’t defanged simply for being snakes.

    1. “felon in possession” cases are often disregarded by police as against blacks, but when they catch a white cracker felon with a gun, they shoot for ten years

      in fact, it’s almost a specialty of ATF to round up white felons with guns. and they fall for it very easily because they cant keep their mouths shut

      –Saloth Sar

  11. You point to a fascinating area of reasoning in these micro focused, polarized times:

    “There is a good-faith debate over whether this is an individual right, but the question raised by this case is whether, as an individual right, it can so easily be set aside.”

    Can people separate the 2 topics?

  12. You often hear the mindless slogan that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Guns, you see, are harmless inanimate objects until picked up by an evildoer who uses the weapon to kill innocents. Of course, if that were a sound argument, it would logically follow that “ fully automatic machine guns don’t kill people, people do.” Thus, the government ought not to ban Tommy guns. In fact, you cannot ban ANY weapons according to that logic. But I dare say that most gun owners believe that fully automatic guns should be banned. Consequently, that argument is bogus. Certain weapons need to banned because they are too lethal for self-defense, but the gun lobby will never acknowledge that point because they not will concede that guns should be restricted on account of their lethality which is a matter of opinion.

          1. I knew that you needed a special permit of course, but banned generally, or do you think that they ought to be as easily available as any other gun?

            1. JS:

              I like the current system with strict controls on true “assault weapons” (not AR-15s). Basically, you agree to store it in one location, maintain possession (actual or constructive) and the government via ATF can inspect it at their whim. That seems a reasonable compromise to me between freedom and security.

              1. Mespo,

                In regards to your post, maybe we should both bone up on what constitutes the different types of recognized state militias aka State’s National Guard. As I understand it here in Oklahoma the state constitutions places all authority of the states organized militia under the authority of 1st the governor & then somehow the prescribed un-organized militia under the local sheriffs jurisdiction?

                Not including the ongoing standard frame up of idiots that repeat the word’s militia… said by the FBI/etc.

                1. never call your “mutual protection and aid assistance group” a militia. then you will immediately be targeted by FBI for infiltration and agent provocateur activity

                  I prefer calling it a charity. Kind of like BLM. Maybe get a 501c3 charter like them, too

                  –Saloth Sar

      1. Nor Cannons or even Tanks, but some sharp people saw Virginia turning Commie Pink & moved to W Virginia.

        As I see it this morning, because of the obvious, in our face, election fraud the social contract has completely been broken, that all Individual Rights, long under attack, have now been completely stripped away from everyone no matter if currently a convicted felon or not. IE: N Dakota.. 1st graders that their mask slip now = Felon .. as I hear from one source… true or not we see everything now is just fleeting & arbitrary with just enough of polish of legal ease that the polecats believe they can get away with it.

        It seems to many of us now we no long even have the pretext of a Republic form of government as guaranteed by the USC, but we wake up to the fact the US has slide to just another 3rd Sh.ithole banana republic. Thank you white shoe boys from Yale, CIA, etc.

        And notice even in the state of Virginia the recent election is clearly stolen in front of their eyes yet hardly a word is said. No protest, no people slow rolling traffic, etc. They likely won’t even eat all the meat off their Turkeys & pile the bones up at the office doors of the corrupt individuals/pollcats with a msg attached that the people of Virginia are giving them back the Bird.

        1. “Thank you white shoe boys from Yale, CIA, etc.”

          700 American billionaires are the enemy. All their captive institutions and countless bureaucratic mercenaries, and their petty volunteers, will be chastened and fall into line soon enough if those 700 billionaires are punished sufficiently with severity. This is the sine qua non of any popular effort to reclaim American sovereignty. People must face the fact and start saying it as much as possible, openly, often, and however many times their minions ban you, say it again

          –Saloth Sar

      2. Mespo, fully automatic weapons require a federal permit plus it only applies to those already in circulation which are few and hideously expensive. It is illegal to posses them without an ATF permit or manufacture them for the civilian market.

        1. NFA compliance and payment of $200 tax stamp can buy pre 86 full autos. there’s 192,000 or so and yes the price creeps up

          SOTs manufacture them. there’s prolly 300K post 86 non-transferable dealers samples out there in dealer hands. the US has a massive small business firearms base, and only the guns bazaar of Karachi comes in a distant second place

          silencers should be legalized, and they should reopen the books on full auto registration and transferability

          -Saloth Sar

          1. cheapest legally civilian transferable full auto tube gun like $5,000 now. why bother? got get 5 tricked out semi autos instead. aimed fire is always better than spray and pray

            1. This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
              My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

              Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will …

              My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit …

              My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will …

              Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

              So be it, until victory is America’s and there is no enemy, but peace!

    1. We have a need for a well regulated militia. A militia can be firmed when some invader or treason group poses threats. To form a militia the citizens need to join with their guns. That includes guns that compete with the guns if the enemy. Therefore citizens should have fully automatic weapons. Hear that Trump? Get outta Dodge.

    2. JF-I legally own a weapon and don’t particularly care to own a fully automatic weapon or suppressor but I care less if someone wants to own one legally and they do. In all the years that I have owned a legal weapon I have never had the urge to brandish, point or fire it in the direction of any human. Point of fact I gave up hunting after my tour of duty but I still own a weapon. The people who have died over the past weekend in Chicago, New York and LA died at the hands of people who did not own weapons legally. They died in cities with heavy weapon ownership restrictions that’s probably because they’re Democrat cities. They are murdered in cities were they want to defund police. They would have killed with knives, axes, mallets, hammers, plastic bags or vehicles anything that they could get to kill. That’s the way they are and that’s the way they will always be until they are apprehended and placed in an institution for the rest of their days. Spend time on how to deal with the violent people in the Democrat cities and how to curtail their violence and civilize them, that’s where the problem is not weapons. Work on that then come back and tell us of your success, for some reason liberals are blind to the real issues. I wonder what the death by weapon count would be if you could civilize those doing the killing?

      I belong to a gun club of 2000 members, all legally own weapons of all types who have sworn to support the constitution and all state and local laws pertaining to owning weapons legally. We fire our weapons at a legally operated range managed by licensed range officers. Would you believe it Jeffery there wasn’t one incident of weapon violence by any member this weekend, for that matter there never has been. Tell me Jefferey why is that? You know nothing about weapons, you know nothing about people, you are as your posts prove day in and day out a left wing liberal who feels a need to tell everyone how to live, you want control.

      PS: Jeffery if you really do work for PC they should fire you, you spend much too much time here submitting useless posts.

      1. “Point of fact I gave up hunting after my tour of duty but I still own a weapon.”

        Was that the tour of duty when you were a hilltop telephone operator and receptionist doing your nails?

    3. Fully automatic weapons are VERY heavily regulated. But of course, you wouldn’t know that. Otherwise you would have never written that ignorant screed. I once commanded my pistol to kill. Nothing. It just sat there.

      Here is a factoid for you. Wrap your head tightly so it doesn’t explode. Since the 1930s when the current regulations went into effect only two people were murdered by fully automatic weapons. One of those two killers was a cop.

      And you can still buy one of those antiquated “Tommy” guns today. They are just not full auto.

      1. Infringement is unconstitutional and shall not be effected.

        The right is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

        Rank, position or ego have no weight or force.

        The arms Americans may bear must be sufficient and equal to oppose those of a tyrannical and oppressive government.

        The American Revolutionaries possessed the same arms as the British military.

    4. Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “But I dare say that most gun owners believe that fully automatic guns should be banned.”

      Fully automatic firearms are not actually “banned”, they are regulated differently than non-automatic firearms.

    5. Another dumber than dirt progressive. I honed my shooting skills recently at a licensed, legal, indoor range next to a person shooting a fully automatic rifle. Are you saying that was illegal?

    6. Too lethal for self defense? Do you read what you post before you hit the enter key?

      Self Defense is just that…..and using a firearm is considered “Deadly Force” and you best be very darn legal when you go down that muddy road.

      No matter the caliber, style, or type….a firearm is a deadly weapon.

      If you kill someone defending yourself and do so within the confines of the Law….you are safe, alive, and your attacker who was criminally assaulting you to the point or in the manner that posed a deadly threat or one of great bodily harm…..is dead…..legally dead.

    1. I too am interested, some lawyers are concerned that she associates with the Federalist Society & seems to always side with the Deep State Commie/Authoritarian Azzholes.

      So if you’re depending on the SC to save you you’d might as well kiss your azz/Trump’s azz, America’s azz goodbye.

      Other then that let us not forget to give God thanks for the success we’ve had this year.

  13. The Second Amendment includes the right to arm bears. When the Amendment was printed there was an error. The Framers said verbally the right to arm bears. Bears we’re at that time part of state militias.

    1. Little Known History: It originally was penned by Madison as the “right to bare arms,” but too many sleeves got ripped off so they changed the syntax.

        1. I am sitting out in my yard under a large oak tree. James Madison just called down to me from Heaven and said I am right. He said he is going to contact the Justices. A live bear lives in the woods next to my yard and he just walked up to the tree line and growled.

          1. Was he bearing arms , or were his arms bare ?

            What most people don’t understand , at least from what I read here, is just this .
            The 2nd amendment merely AFFIRMS that the people have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT
            to self protection .
            It’s a RIGHT , NOT a privilege . You cannot take away a RIGHT !
            In my state , the Dept. of motor vehicles says that driving is a privilege , not a right .
            And if you don’t follow the laws , your driving PRIVILEGE will be taken away . Fair enough .

            But self defense is a RIGHT , not a privilege and therefore CANNOT be taken away .
            THIS is what the 2nd amendment affirms .
            This is exactly what the founding fathers intended .
            And for those who DON’T believe in GOD , but believe in evolution ,
            name me ONE animal ,reptile , bird , fish , insect or even a germ
            that will just roll over and bare it’s throat to an attacker .
            EVERYTHING will fight for it’s life !
            SO , since I’m not a skilled swordsman or a ninja , I depend on my gun for self defense .

            The solution is not to take away people’s tools of self defense , but to LOCK UP
            those people who misuse the tools .
            Just taking away one tool , a gun , WILL NOT STOP a violent person from killing some one .
            They will just find another TOOL . Machete , axe , hammer , knife , etc.

            PEOPLE , stop believing the lie ! Gun control is NOT about GUNS , it’s about CONTROLING all of us !

            Take away the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to self defense and you will have COMMUNIST Russia ,
            COMMUNIST China , Venezuela and even England . Where madmen roam the streets ,
            knifing people , who have no means of self defense .

            Far too many people today want to rely on someone else to defend them from harm .
            MAN UP ! Stop being a Soi Boi . Take some responsibility for your own well being
            and the safety of your family . GROW A PAIR !

            I may die , fighting off an assailant or intruder . But I will go down fighting ,
            not whimpering like a craven COWARD !

            1. Fair enough Elf but stop worrying about “communists.” The communists of the 20th century in Asia were essentially peasant nationalists. Acting against their own native sellouts and comparador elites.

              Today we are like peasants in Asia right before their civil wars. The billionaires are our native sellout, comprador elites. The globalists are the enemy

              Mao and Ho and Kim may seem like monsters, but their playbooks should be dusted off for a study by the middle American peasants of today, if we ever want to put globalists in their place

              –Saloth Sar

              1. I kind of understand what you are saying here . But I think you are still obfuscating the truth .
                I’VE lived in a communist country . I KNOW what they do !
                ANYBODY’S efforts to take away the freedom of a man or woman to live their life freely ,
                without fear , in peace and harmony , whilst doing NO HARM to their fellow humans
                is against GOD’S will .
                And not being multi-lingual , I don’t know what Saloth Sar means .

                1. Saloth Sar, look him up.

                  Communist societies had a lot of shortcomings and still do. I am not advocating communism. I am saying, communism was often not what Americans have been taught that it was. it had a very strong nationalistic orientation in practice. If not in theory. & If you are from Eastern Europe, then you will understand me to a degree.

                  I am saying that people can use the historical insights of Marxism to understand how billionaire financiers control politics. Like Geo Soros and the other 700 or so billionaires among whom a big majority thereof are Democrat donors by the truckloads of gold. They are globalists and seek to destroy the sovereignty of America from within, they seek to keep the political sphere weak as compared to their unseen economic power, which has made of them hidden kings and aristocrats.

                  I also say, look to the Asian communist civil wars for strategy against these comprador elites. They trade with foreigners to despoil our country and weaken us further in every step of the game, so that their massive economic power grows by default and design

                  Republicans and conservatives need to hold their noses, look to the money, and apply the lessons learned by successful nationalists of the past, who flew the red banners., and preserve or increased their national sovereignty and power. Yes, it is distasteful, but it is instructive, when dealing with a supercaste of billionaire plutocrats.

                  –Saloth Sar

Leave a Reply