I Don't Need To Carry

I Don't Need To Carry. And Leftists Don't Get To Claim That Matters
I Don’t Need To But Tyrants Don’t Get To Say That Matters

Somewhat overshadowed by certain sorts’ screaming, hysterical outrage of the SCOTUS’ decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is the rage and hatred inspired, especially by NY politicians, about the highest mortal Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which declared NY’s second-step, means-end scrutiny, for issuing a concealed carry permit to be unconstitutional and, hence, illegal.

What this means and what this only means is that nobody who can and does legally own a firearm in NY and who wishes to carry it with them in a concealed – aka nonthreatening – manner has to prove to the police department’s satisfaction that: a) carrying a concealed weapon is in my interests; a) carrying a concealed weapon would be effective in furthering my interests; and c) that there is no lesser method than my carrying a concealed weapon that would sufficiently further my interests.

Personally, I believe that this ruling is century overdue. I also believe that certain criteria in the NY laws covering legal firearm ownership need strict review, but that can come and be discussed later.

Consider This If You’re Raging

Before Bruen, if anybody desired to carry a firearm on their person outside of their home – that includes in public spaces of their building, e.g., laundry rooms, if it’s multi-tenanted – they would have to prove to assigned members of the police department that they needed to do so, carrying a weapon would fulfill that need, and that there was no better way of fulfilling that need. And, each person would have to individually prove to the specific officer(s) appointed to that licensing review that all of the above were true. And, if they are denied, they have to practical recourse, as Bruen having to go all the way to the US Supreme Court proves since very few private individuals have the wealth needed to sustain such a legal battle.

Each request is fielded by appoint officers of the local law enforcement body and each is decided upon based up individual, subjective value judgements. That opens up the doors – more like knocks down the whole wall – for bias-based denials. That or those specific licensing officers are Racist for any value thereof? Individuals of the detested race can and likely will be denied. If they’re sexist? individuals of the denigrated gender will be denied? Homo- or Heterophobic? Again, denied. And, in all those cases, that’s it. It’s over. The petitioner had no authority that they could reasonably go to in order to overturn the decision.

So, what those who are raging about this decision are really saying, though the vast majority of them don’t in any way consciously realize, is that they want the police – an organization that they regularly vilify as being violently and lethally racist, sexist, and homophobic, to be the sole authority to issue concealed carry permits based upon criteria that they are the sole arbiters of the meeting thereof.

Better, Objective, Prerequisites

Firstly, allow me to completely, utterly, and irrevocably alienate a large swath of my fellow Americans. I don’t care what you believe, I believe that carrying a weapon on your person, concealed or openly, in public is a privilege and not a right as enumerated by our Second Amendment. As such, it is acceptable to me that there are preconditions for any of us to be allowed to do so.

What I firmly believe is that means-ends testing and other personal, subjective standards to being acknowledged to have that privilege mus be struck down and abolished to the midden pit of history.

But, please do add in objective requirements, especially requirements for basic firearm usage competency and the requirement for training on real world best practices for defensive use of one’s carry piece(s). Just ensure that, whether or not government agencies will offer the training and testing or not, that private entities’ competency/completion avowals are accepted so as avoid returning to the same biased standards through a back channel.

Again, again, and FUCKING again, please fucking do that! I was a certified Range Safety Officer (RSO) and at one time a large part of my job was providing the firearms safety and use training required in my state for getting a concealed permit. I’ve seen what is likely most of the whole range of people with firearms and I don’t want to ever see a number of them walking around “strapped” in public.

You’ve probably never had a fool respond to being corrected on the range by unthinkingly panning his locked and loaded shotgun across his wife and pointing at you as he responds, “What?” I have.

So, technically, I do want “ends testing” insofar as does the applicant have the basic competency so that carrying a firearm could serve his or her perceived needs or desires and wouldn’t exacerbate other people’s need to do so as well. I just want a fixed, objective criteria for proving that.

Some Disclosures And Rant-Like Stuff

I live in NYC, epicenter of this conflict. For over 18 years I’ve been subject to the City and State’s draconian firearms laws. And it hasn’t effected me one whit. I’m writing about this whole thing solely because of my love of the Constitution, not because I have any “skin in the game” at all.

I lived many years when I almost always had at least one firearm on my person or within my easy reach 24 hours per day 200+ days a year, with that number rising to over 300 if one discounts the beach days when my weapon stayed with the rest of my gear, especially my smokes, while I was in the water. But, I haven’t lived that way for almost as many years since then and I don’t miss it at all. I love that I changed my life so that I don’t have yet another piece of gear that have to be constantly concerned about “going adrift.

~*~

I have all warranted respect for police officers, but very little respect for the actual level of training in proper combat use of firearms that police officers receive or are de facto allowed to relieve. Hence, their being the authority which determines who can carry a firearm really strikes me as equal parts stupid and hypocritical. Statistically speaking, none of them quite obviously not even many of their SWAT teams – have undergone the training I did, which I actually consider pretty close to the minimum needed vs. something “bad ass,” in Close Fire situations with friendlies and/or collaterals present.

Sadly, due to what it would cost, how many police academy enrollees would fail, and the Liberals’ insane fears of “militarized police,” the police are unlikely to ever receive this training.

~*~

This last bit I can figure out no way of saying without sounding like a total arrogant ass who’s most likely just lying to make myself look “tough.” But, here goes anyway, since showing my own bias and “privilege” is important to me in this post:

I am a weapon in a sadly too true sense. I’ve approximately 50 years of training in hand-to-hand and melee weapons combat, a great deal of it being what aficionados would call “street tactical.” A firearm to me is just a force multiplier, and my life doesn’t require me to have one of those anymore. And, if that changes, it’s unlikely that I’m going to care what the laws on the books are, that those laws are still enforceable, or that I would choose to carry a concealable weapon.

So yeah, I’ve earned the privilege of being someone who is unlikely to ever feel that I need a concealed carry permit. That does need to be taken into account as an admission of my bias in this issue.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

So Fashion Forward

hot-handmaiden

Mmmmm… So Fashion Forward. I Love It! ๐Ÿ˜‰

Now, with the SCOTUS’s decision and specific opinions on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization having overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a lot of Liberals and Progressives, and all the Feministas having ranting about how America is going to become the nation in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, it’s good to see that some women are being fashion forward about it. ๐Ÿ˜†

OK, now I’m thinking of some Mayday operative, Handmaiden roleplay. “Tell me your name as I put my child in you before sending you back to that Commander!” #MKINYKBMKIOK

Oh, and if any of you Liberal Womyn want to get ahead of the game, you can buy your very own bonnet here. And, don’t you worry your pretty-enough-that-some-man-had-sex-with-you heads about raising your unwanted but now unable to be murdered children. Believe me, no Americans want you raising any children. We have many, many good, upstanding, American couples will be quite happy to have the State give them your progeny to raise and raise rightly.

[/sarcasm]

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Wrong Bumbling Idiocy

Wrong Bumbling Idiocy
Your Complaining About The Wrong Bumbling Idiocy

As of May 31, 2022 due to a California Appellate Court overruling a lower court’s legal decision, Four species of bumblebees – the Crotch’s bumblebee, the Franklin’s bumblebee, the Suckley’s cuckoo bumblebee and the Western bumblebee – are now eligible to officially become endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This means that the California Fish and Game Commission will now have a certain amount jurisdiction over those 4 species of bumblebee and their protection. Assuming, of course, that this decision isn’t overturned by a higher court.

Bombus crotchiiBombus franklini

The Poor Beleaguered Fish In Question

So yeah, for now and possibly for some time, bees are legally fish. And yeah, a lot of people are seriously lampooning the CA Appellate Court’s obvious and rank stupidity is declaring them so. But… all the complaints, insults, and jokes are misplaced. The bumbling idiocy happened way back in 1970.

The California Endangered Species Act was designed to protect “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.” But, in 1970 when the law was actually written the definition of “fish” was written as, “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” While it is patently obvious to anyone who can read for comprehension that “invertebrate” was meant to be limited to marine and aquatic ones, e.g., corals, sponges, and sea urchins, that’s not what was written into law.

Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited.

Associate Justice Ronald B. Robie

The important part of the portion of the ruling shown above is Term of Art. And in the legal field those terms have specific, explicit meanings, not implied ones. Purposivism will, far more often than not, fall before Textualism in the Courts.

In this case, the statutory definition of fish states it means a โ€œwild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.โ€ The statute may have an implicit limitation to marine and aquatic creatures, but the legislators didnโ€™t state that explicitly, meaning no such limitation actually exists.

Frankly, if judicial error happened, it was by the lower court that ruled that bees aren’t per the term of art in play fish. So, if anyone should be lampooned, it should be the Legislature, who wrote a piss-poor law using hasty language and without thought of potential use case scenarios.

Nor, I choose to add, is this the first time the fishiness of a species has come into legal debate. One need only turn to the 1818 Maurice v. Judd case in NYC, where the court ruled that, statutorily speaking, whales were fish.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The My Choice Argument

The My Choice Argument
The My Choice Argument

Bluntly put, the “My Body, My Choice” argument from the Left is one I’ve heard – or rather read – in the past. It’s an old argument. It is essentially the same argument used by the majority of anti-abolitionists in the decades leading up to the Civil War.

There’s not much difference in fact or law between claiming that you find the enslavement of Blacks to be abhorrent but feel that it’s not your or the government’s place to deny them that “right” and saying that you find killing and unborn child to be abhorrent but feel that it’s not your or the government’s place to deny a woman that “right.”

It's Not A Person
It’s Not A Person!

And the core of both the slavers and the abortionists are the same, that the victims aren’t persons. They’re not and lesser to humans and have no rights and only the privileges granted to them by their betters. In the case of abortion, the privilege to live at all.

So, no matter how you look at it, the Left’s primary argument in favor of abortion is the same argument with the same core foundation as the argument in favor of continuing to allow slavery in the 1st half of the 19th Century. And, given how the Left has violently responded to the probably overturning of Roe v. Wade, it may well lead to something akin to next Civil War.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

What Was The Point?

What Was The Point Of Installing Ketanji Brown
What Was The Point Of Installing Ketanji Brown?

The Democrats have installed Ketanji Brown in the SCOTUS – a foregone conclusion surrounded by quasi-useless political kabuki and posturing for the electorate. But what was the point of it? She’s not particularly well-qualified and can’t or won’t even provide a definition of “woman” when asked.

It Was Actually A Secondary Point

While, exactly like choosing Kamala Harris as Biden’s Vice President, Brown’s race and gender – irony in the epic tier – was the primary point in her nomination, it was important for Brown to show her allegiance to LGBT+ front, including the anti-science dog-whistle of referring to biologists as opposed to psychologists in her negative answer.

For too long, our government, our courts haven’t looked like America. I believe it’s time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with a nominee of extraordinary qualifications, and that we inspire all young people to believe that they can one day serve their country at the highest level.

Creepy Uncle Joe Biden

Of course, like almost everything a Democrat says, Biden’s statement was false. Black’s make up approx. 13% of the population, so they’re already “over-represented” in the SCOTUS, necessarily so given the small number of Justices if one places any value in race. But true, Brown being a woman does now split the genders of the court 5:4, which is as close to what America looks like gender-wise as one can get. Still though, pretty much a wash to anyone who doesn’t believe that minority over-representation is still somehow both under-representation and important in and of itself – in other words, important only to the sorts who vote for Democrats.

Why Brown’s Virtue Signalling Matters

Firstly, while fear-inducing, Brown’s trans virtue signalling should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s not uncommon for applicants to lie during job interviews and that’s exactly what confirmation hearings are. Of course she was going to say what Democrat Senators wanted to hear from her. So there’s that.

Why Definitions Matter

But, anyone in the legal profession, especially any judge who can’t or won’t declare the definition of “woman” is a clear and present danger to the women in America. America has a number of laws, regulations, and norms solely designed to protect and privilege women and men choosing to “identify” as women have been encroaching on most, if not all of them, more often than not to the detriment of our womenfolk.

And how, pray tell, can we trust a Justice to opine correctly if they can’t or won’t provide or abide by the definition of “woman?” And, frankly, it’s plausible with the way things have been going – see Dolezal and Warren – the potential problem could expand even further.

~*~

So yeah, I’m unsurprised but quite unhappy with both the nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown to the highest court in America. Not because she’s Left-wing, though she is, since she’s replacing another Left-wing Justice. Certainly not because she’s either Black or presumably a woman since I see neither harm no value in her race or gender. I’m unhappy because her nomination and confirmation lends legitimacy to Tokenism and her verbal prostration to the Left’s LGBT+ front potentially puts the basis of our legal system in jeopardy.

Please remember that even minority and dissenting opinions by SCOTUS Justices have, can, and will be referenced in lower courts to further one side of a case or another.

But, maybe Brown was just “code-switching” and voicing what the Democrats wanted to hear so she could land a sweet, lifetime job that she can’t in all practical respects be fired from. So, there’s hope.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |