frontlines

The 25^th and Impeachment  by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE’s purpose is to defend the Constitution with an emphasis on the 2^nd Amendment.  There is a lot going on with the Constitution that will eventually affect the 2^nd Amendment. 

Perspective is often lacking in political debates.  The media is running on amped up emotion with calls to end Trump’s presidency, prematurely.  Let’s take a moment and add some perspective.

Pelosi and Schumer are leading the charge to invoke the 25^th Amendment to remove the President. There are several problems with this;

As currently constituted, the Vice President, Mike Pence, must lead this effort.  Pence says he will not do it.  End of conversation?

If Pence did do this, Trump would only have to officially say he is able to do his duty and he resumes the Presidency.  The VP and Cabinet could try again and then it goes to Congress to decide, meeting within 48 hours.  It then takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to find the President disabled.  Even if successful, Pence would only be the Acting President for the remainder of the term.  (That’s what the Constitution says, not what you’re hearing from the media.)

The Constitution says the President must be unable to perform the duties of the office.  The 25^th as well as Article II Section 1 of the Constitution clearly state “inability”.  There is no doubt that this term meant disability and not dislike of his actions. It would be an unconstitutional “coup” to do this over dislike of a Presidents’ actions.  (That’s called a Banana Republic, which is definitely not in the United States Constitution.)  

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were familiar with the Constitution, and there is grave doubt that they have ever read it, they would know that calling for the 25^th is, in this instance, only political posturing.  Political posturing with the United States at stake?  Say it aint so, Nancy, say it aint so!

Lacking the 25^th, now Pelosi and Schumer aim at Impeachment (again).  And again, there are some issues worth exploring.  Primarily, the process takes time and there is only a week and a half left in Trump’s term. 

Why try it with such little time remaining?

Some Democrats scream that Trump might start a nuclear war.  Yeah, right!  It’s more likely Nancy Pelosi will resign from office, give all her hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor and become a Nun. 

Do they want to tar Trump as the only President to be impeached twice?  Which also means he could be the only President to be acquitted twice.  (Remember, it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict.)

With the short time available, there likely is not enough time to hold the trial before January 20^th.  But there is one precedent for holding an impeachment trial after leaving office: In 1876 the Secretary of War’s impeachment trial happened after he left office.  (He was acquitted.)

Would they hold an impeachment trial after January 20th?  Why?  Trump is already out of office and the purpose of impeachment is remove him from office.  Well, not quite.  There is another aspect to impeachment.

Trump has threatened to run in 2024 and 74 million people voted for him this time around.  But if convicted of impeachment, the Constitution says that he would be disqualified, “… to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”  He couldn’t run in 2024.  If Trump fraudulently lost the 2020 election, are the Democrats afraid that he would be elected in an honest election?  (Grover Cleveland did this split term presidencies and Trump would be Biden’s current age in 2024.)  Is Pelosi’s and Schumer’s real purpose to deny the American people the opportunity to choose their own President?  The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions come down hard to preserve the right of the people to choose their elected officials.

Let’s speculate on other possible motives.  The Democrats control all the levers of federal power.  Their Socialist policies have never worked while Trump’s were successful.  If the economy is bad in 2024, do Democrats fear that people might long for the good old Trump days? 

In politics and life, what goes around comes around.  The charges against Trump would be some version of “Inciting riot”.  In 2022, the Democrats could easily lose control of both the House and the Senate.  Kamala Harris would still be the Vice President. Last year, during the height of riots that caused a dozen deaths and billions in damages, she said those riots should “…not end.”  (This is not taking her words out of context, she really said and meant that.)  Sounds a lot like “Inciting riot”.  If it applies to Republican Presidents it surely applies to Democrat Vice Presidents.

But most importantly, and something which is being completely overlooked, the Constitution is based on the Separation of Powers.  Each branch of government has its own powers and the other branches are not allowed to intrude on those powers.  One branch may not like what the other branch says and does but they are bound, under their oath to uphold the Constitution, not to intrude on those powers.  The Democrats have already tried to break down this constitutional barrier with the first Trump impeachment, which was a trial without a crime. 

First of all, they shouldn’t attack one of the centerpieces of our Constitution, Separation of Powers.  Second, what goes around comes around.  A Republican House and Senate with Joe Biden as President in 2022 might like the precedent set by the Democrats, and even expand upon it.  That of course would not be good for the United States but if politicians always did what was good for the United States we would not be in this situation.

Pelosi and Schumer don’t seem to realize that the United States is not a parliamentary republic and impeachment is not a parliamentary “vote of confidence” but they seem to want to treat it as a “vote of confidence”.

With an epidemic, a recession and a change in administrations happening, don’t Pelosi and Schumer have something better to do with their time?

Firearm Friendly Freshmen Class Reports for Duty  AmmoLand Editor Jim GrantJanuary 6, 2021,  By Larry Keane   The GOP freshman class, outnumbering Democrats by a three-to-one margin, arrived at Capitol Hill at the same time America is watching the face of gun ownership change.   The 117th Congress gaveled into session on Jan. 3 and among the new faces in the U.S. House of Representatives are dozens of firearm-friendly freshmen. It’s the most diverse Republican freshmen class ever and includes military veterans, minorities, and a historic tally of women.

The GOP freshman class, outnumbering Democrats by a three-to-one margin, arrived at Capitol Hill at the same time America is watching the face of gun ownership change. A record 21 million firearm purchases were made in 2020. That includes 8.4 million people who bought a gun for the first time last year. By all counts, the image of who is buying guns no longer fits dated caricatures. Forty percent of 2020’s gun buyers are women. African American gun buyers grew 58 percent over 2019.

The threats to Second Amendment rights are real and the new Members of Congress have staked out their position to defend those rights.

Six Second Amendment-supporting freshman members hail from Texas, including Navy veterans U.S. Reps. Tony Gonzalez and Ronny Jackson and former Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls. Former Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne was sworn in, campaigning on a message of firearm ownership and personal security for women and calling out the “defund the police” movement that puts lives at risk. Rep. Pete Sessions regained a congressional seat and former Texas state legislator Pat Fallon was also elected – both hold strong, well-known records on gun rights.

California sent five new members to Congress and all are stalwarts on the Second Amendment. Reps. Michelle Steel and Young Kim are the first two Korean-American Members of Congress and each back firearm rights. Congressman Jay Olbernolt, who was a state legislator, previously criticized California infringements on the Second Amendment, saying “I know what the solutions aren’t. The last thing we ought to be doing is taking the arms out of the hands of our concerned citizens who know how to use them properly.” Rejoining Congress are Reps. Darrell Issa and David Valadao, each with gun rights records.

Florida added Congressman Byron Donalds, a former state legislator. He said, “In Congress, you can expect me to defend your Constitutional rights, no matter the cost. Shall not be infringed, means Shall not be infringed!”

Congresswoman Kat Cammack, herself a Florida concealed carry permit holder, agreed, saying “I will always uphold and defend our Second Amendment rights. As a concealed carry permit holder and the wife of a first responder, I am adamant about protecting this most basic American right. This issue is personal to me and my family.”

U.S. Reps. Scott Franklin, Maria Elvira Salazar, and Carlos Gimenez also join the ranks from the Sunshine State.

In South Carolina, gun rights supporter Rep. Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, took back a congressional seat from a gun control congressman. Congressman Andrew Clyde will represent his Georgia district, bringing his experience as a firearm business owner and former Navy officer along with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been vocal on her gun rights positions.

Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has a well-known reputation as a Second Amendment supporter and already made a splash for gun rights by forcing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to cave on implementing new gun control rules in the House of Representatives.

The great news for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters across the country is that there are dozens of more new members who will also be allies in Congress. They’ll be needed as the threats to the firearm industry and gun owners are expected to grow.

President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris won’t be slowed. The most anti-gun presidential ticket in history is ready to move on several gun control proposals, including plans to confiscate and ban modern sporting rifles, impose red flag laws that deny due process, suffocate firearm small businesses through regulation, and above all, eliminate the firearm industry by repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

NSSF is already forging relationships with these Members of Congress, showing them the importance of the industry to their states, districts, and the rights of the citizens they represent.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect, and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

Reciprocity bill (HR38) introduced again!

The year 2020 saw Americans across political and demographic lines embrace their Second Amendment rights in unprecedented numbers. Last week, Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) reintroduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would give more meaningful effect to those rights by ensuring they stay intact as travelers crossed state lines.

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia routinely issue concealed carry permits to all qualified applicants. The norm among these states is to have reciprocity agreements to give effect to those permits beyond the issuing state. States are also increasingly passing universal recognition laws for all concealed carry permits. And 16 states recognize a right to carry concealed without a permit. (Detailed information is available on the NRA-ILA’s website.)

Yet a handful of anti-gun states where concealed carry permits are issued on a discretionary basis continue to deny non-resident concealed carriers any recognition at all. This creates traps for unwary travelers, who – having made a point of jumping through the legal hoops to carry lawfully – believe these efforts will be given full faith and credit by other jurisdictions. Stories abound of travelers facing years in prison for the carrying of a concealed firearm that they innocently believed was covered by their permit or that was otherwise lawful in their state of residence.

H.R. 38 would correct these injustices. It would recognize the right of travelers to carry who:

•        May lawfully possess and receive a firearm under federal law.

•        Are carrying photographic identification issued by the U.S. or a state government.

•        Have a concealed carry permit or reside in a state that otherwise provides for lawful concealed carry.

to carry in other states that provide a means of lawful concealed carry for the state’s own residents.

These travelers would be able to carry in other states that provide for lawful concealed carry for that’s state’s own residents and will have to obey any laws that establish prohibited places for firearms or concealed carry. Private property owners, moreover, would maintain discretion over whether or to what degree concealed carry was authorized on their property.

National reciprocity has long been the NRA’s highest legislative priority to ensure that the fundamental right to self-defense does not end at the state line. The NRA thanks Rep. Hudson for his strong and consistent leadership in the march toward national reciprocity and commends H.R. 38 for immediate action in the U.S. House.

Assembly Bill A416   Liberals have been trying to stifle any speech with which they disagree, the 1^st Amendment be damned.   Dissent is dangerous to them.  If you have the temerity to disagree with the accepted position of those in power, you will be punished.  Joe Stalin perfected this approach years ago; lock ‘em up.  Apparently, Nikita Khrushchev was right that Communism would eventually take over. 

A Democratic member of the New York State Assembly from NY City, Nick Perry, authored Bill A416 which calls for the ‘removal and / or detention’ of individuals who are identified as or even suspected of being a ‘case, contact or carrier’ of a contagious disease.  A golden opportunity to remove those that dare disagree with the left, under the cover of law.

From the bill itself:

“Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a  case,  contact or carrier,  or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner,  may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor or his or her delegee…may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons... Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee…”

The liberal Governor of NY - or his liberal delegee from within Albany’s liberal swamp - will decide if you need to be imprisoned as a public health menace.  Since it is likely that people will object to being removed from their home and imprisoned (in violation of several parts of the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution), it’s likely people will have to be removed at gunpoint. 

Further down in the bill it says, “A person who is detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises, shall not conduct himself or herself in a disorderly manner and shall not leave or attempt to leave such facility”. 

Disorderly manner?  Like not wanting to be imprisoned in violation of the Constitution?  And if you try to leave the facility, expect armed guards to say “No.”

Then, the bill says, “When a person or group is ordered to be detained…for a period not exceeding three business days, such person or member of such group shall, upon request, be afforded an opportunity to be heard”. 

Again, that pesky “Bill of Rights” doesn’t state you have to “request” to be heard, it requires that you automatically be given a hearing.  In fact, the Constitution is specific about what “to be heard” actually means while this bill allows “to be heard” to be left open to interpretation.   Of course, the Constitution deals with “Criminal prosecutions” and liberal lawyers will argue in front of liberal judges that this is a loophole since this NY bill covers public health and not criminal prosecutions.  But no liberal judge would buy that argument – would they? If there is any doubt about politicians’ priorities, the part of this bill that allows three business days to be heard ensures that no bureaucrat will have their weekend or holiday interrupted because of some silly constitutional issue over being imprisoned.  Apparently, NY’s bail reform law that frees public safety threats does not apply to those imprisoned under this bill?  This bill imprisons people (for public safety) while other NY State laws release recidivist criminals (for their safety) into the general public.  No threat to public safety there! All the Governor of NY would have to do is define someone with a different opinion than his as having a communicable disease (like the flu which kills thousands every year) and that person could be imprisoned in the name of public health. Our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to protect us from these things.  But that’s just a piece of outdated paper that needs to be reinterpreted (or ignored) in view of modern issues 

The bill further states that, “The provisions of this section shall be utilized in the event that the governor declares a state of health emergency due to an epidemic of any communicable disease". 

Don’t liberals often describe gun violence as an “epidemic”?  It certainly seems to be “epidemic” in cities governed by liberal mayors where criminals are released without bail!  And since carrying a gun poses dangers to others, in liberal minds, doesn’t that make ammunition a carrier of a communicable disease? 

Make sure you wear your masks and practice social distancing or you will be taken to the detention center!

Jan 06, 2021

REFERRED TO CODES

S65 (ACTIVE) - DETAILS

Current Committee:Senate CodesLaw Section:Penal LawLaws Affected:Rpld §270.00 sub 5, add §265.18, Pen L; add §845-e, Exec LVersions Introduced in 2019-2020 Legislative Session:S1038

S65 (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY

Restricts the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such weapon; creates the no-gun database under the division of criminal justice services.

S65 (ACTIVE) - SPONSOR MEMO

  BILL NUMBER: S65 SPONSOR: PERSAUD   TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law and the executive law, in relation to the sale of ammunition; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law relating thereto   PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the purchase of firearm ammunition by individuals not allowed to own or possess the weapon for which the ammo is used for, pursuant to state and local law.   SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill repeals Subdivision 5 of section 270.00 of the penal law. Section 2 amends the penal law by adding new section 265.18, which

creates the crime of criminal sale of firearm ammunition. It will be against the law to sell firearm ammunition to a person not authorized to possess the firearm capable of firing such ammunition. Section 3 amends the executive law by adding a new section 845-c, which mandates the establishment of a no-gun database, which shall contain the names, dates of birth, and any other identifying information the divi- sion deems appropriate of any persons not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm. Any person selling firearm ammunition within the state will be permitted to cross-reference the database with the poten- tial buyer of ammunition's identifying information.

Follow this link for the full text of the bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S65

Senate Bill S65 (and Addendum)   Every two years, a new NY State Senate and Assembly is elected.  Bills that are introduced in the first year of a new legislature - but are not voted on - are carried over to the second year of that legislature.  After a succeeding legislature is elected, bills are not carried over from the old legislature to the succeeding legislature.  However, the old bill may be reintroduced and get a new number.

SCOPE will be keeping you updated as to new bills effecting gun rights.  If they seem familiar and the anti-gun liberals seem to be playing the same old song…they are.

With the anti-gun Democrats in control of both houses of the NY legislature as well as the governorship, it will be important for gun owners to be vocal. Let the legislators know that another election is only two years away and we are very aware of any efforts to infringe on our rights.

Here is one of the first efforts: Senate Bill S65, (which was S01038).

This bill does two things: it restricts the sale of ammunition only to individuals authorized to possess such weapon and it creates a no-gun database under the division of criminal justice services.  And the devil is in the details…

It repeals section one, sub-division 5 of section 270.00 of the penal law, which states, “it shall be unlawful for any dealer in firearms to sell any ammunition designed exclusively for use in a pistol or revolver to any person, not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver.”  The violation of this section shall constitute a class B misdemeanor. 

But then it replaces it by adding section 265.18 - Criminal sale of firearms ammunition to the penal law.  “A person is guilty of criminal sale of firearm ammunition when such person sells any firearm ammunition to a person not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm capable of firing such ammunition.  Criminal sale of firearm ammunition is a class B misdemeanor”.

The second part of the law adds a new section 845-e to executive law.  It states that, “The division shall establish and maintain a no-gun database which shall contain the names, dates of birth, and any other identifying information the division deems appropriate of any persons not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm”.

• “The division shall allow for any person selling a firearm or firearm ammunition within the state to check the no-gun database for the buyer of such firearm or firearm ammunition”.

This means that the ban on purchasing pistol or revolver ammo - unless you own that caliber weapon - would now be extended to include all firearms, not just handguns.  Taken a step further, it opens the door to requiring prior authorization to buy ammo (passing the equivalent of a NICS check). 

In order for this to work, there will need to be a gun registry of all firearms.  How else will the dealer know that you own a similar caliber weapon?   Won’t a gun registry be necessary if the government is contemplating confiscation of guns?

This is another law which assumes that criminals will obey the law. It also assumes that the same illegal “Black market” source, from which the criminal illegally bought the gun, will not also illegally sell ammo for it.  (Is the spirit of entrepreneurship dead amongst criminals?)   

Kiss goodbye to any family or friends buying any ammunition for you.

Most criminals use handguns when committing crimes with firearms.  NY City has the most restrictive hand gun laws in the nation and the ban on selling ammo for handguns already exists.  How’s all that working out for NYC?  Let’s duplicate a law that already doesn’t work! 

• Basically, this will create another NICS check for ammo sales.  Hasn’t the legislature heard the Governor talk about a massive budget deficit?  Why would they want to add the expense of creating and administering a new, undeveloped system, which duplicates an existing system, at a time of great budgetary stress?  Unless of course your goal is not safety but control at any price.  Millions of taxpayer dollars can be paid to a campaign contributor to develop the system. 
  

  
  

• Bill S65 goes into effect the first November after passage.  Since NY would only have until November to develop the system and given Cuomo’s previous record of success in developing new systems, maybe he will need to contact Donald Trump about another operation “Warp Speed”. 

To all those gun owners who are not active voters because the government is not coming after their guns…guess what?  One small step for ammo, one giant step for gun control. 

Addendum:                S65 Definitions

The email on S65 did not make it clear as to what weapons it covers. 

Below is the actual definition of “Firearm” from NY Penal Law 265.0. 

We apologize for any confusion...

or  (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel  on  a  shotgun  or  rifle  shall  be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle  and  the  face  of  the  bolt,  breech,  or breechlock  when  closed  and  when  the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the  distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center  line  of  the  bore.  Firearm  does  not include an antique firearm.

"Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having   one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration,  modification,  or  otherwise  if  such  weapon  as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; 

At the annual members meeting in April, At Large Directors to the Board of Directors are elected by the entire membership.  These positions are full-fledged board members with full voting rights.  At Large directors represent the SCOPE membership, as a whole, whereas County Chairs represent their county.

To be an At Large Director, one must be at least 18 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years prior to their notice of candidacy.

To become an At-Large candidate, a member must give a notice of candidacy and a biography by January 1^st, by US Mail.  (must be post-marked by 1/1/2021)

Mail to:

SCOPE
PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052 

Biographies will appear in the February edition of the Firing Lines.

Beth Baumann, Town Hall 12/20/2020  Here's What America's Largest Ammo Manufacturer Has to Say About the Shortage:  All across the country, millions of Americans are on the hunt for ammunition, either for selfdefense, target practice, shooting sports or hunting. Sporting goods stores and small mom and pop businesses have had to severely limit how many rounds of ammo a person can buy at one time. Some have even went so far as to limit ammo solely to those who are purchasing a new firearm because of the shortage. Rumors have swirled through the Second Amendment community, particularly online, about Vista Outdoors, the parent company of Federal, Remington, CCI, and Speer Ammunition. Some have said that Vista Outdoors has ceased manufacturing ammo all together while others have insisted the company is picking and choosing who to sell ammo to. Vista Outdoors' President of Ammunition, Jason Vanderbrink, decided to address – and squash – the rumors once and for all. "I am tired of all the hate mail. I am tired of people showing up at our factories. I'm tired of reading the misinformation out on the Internet right now about us not trying to service the demand that we're experiencing," Vanderbrink explained. "... After a year like right now, when we've hired hundreds of employees to support American manufacturing jobs, all I hear is that we're not making ammunition." The company president broke down the realities of the shortage, something he calls "basic economics." "Seven million new shooters since March, times two boxes [50 rounds per box], which is a conservative estimate, is 700 million new rounds of ammunition our factories have to help produce," he explained. "That is impossible to do in nine months." Not only does the company have to find and hire manufacturing employees, but the employees have to be trained and materials have to be sourced. On top of that, the company is dealing with the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic as well. "So tie all of that in together and you will see we are indeed making ammunition. We, indeed, are shipping ammunition. We're not storing it in secret warehouses," Vanderbrick stated. 12/21/2020 Here's What America's Largest Ammo Manufacturer Has to Say About the Shortage https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/12/20/president-of-four-ammo-companies-addresses-rumors-surrounding-the-ammo-shortage-n2581… 2/2 The company executive said all three of the plants are producing ammo as quickly as possible. Vanderbrick stated the company has produced more hunting ammo – especially in 30-06 – this year than ever before. They are doing their best to keep up with demand. The other calibers they are seeing a high demand for are .22LR and 9mm. According to Vanderbrick, the Vista Outdoors has never seen such a high demand for .9mm than they are now "All of this ammo is sitting here, waiting to be packed up so it can hit the retail shelves," he said. It should not come as a surprise that there is an ammo shortage. It happens every few years, especially during presidential elections. Look at what happened during the 2012 election cycle. Second Amendment-loving Americans were concerned about the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton. What did they do? Bought guns and stocked up on ammo. The same thing happened this year, in part because of a Biden-Harris ticket, and also because of the pandemic. Americans spent more time outside, hunting, fishing and recreating. And guess what? In order to bag a buck you need ammo (assuming you are using a firearm). Every month we have seen record-breaking new numbers of gun owners. In order for those folks to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves, they are buying ammo and hitting the range. They are also keeping a stash for self-defense. While it can often feel frustrating to not see ammunition in stock, give these guys a break. They are working hard to meet demand. They are running on all cylinders in the middle of a pandemic that frequently shuts down manufacturing plants and warehouses. This is also a great reminder to be prepared and buy extra ammo so you won't be out when things are scarce.

Note:  Many of the items covered in this article have varying opinions by different firearms trainers, but the article presents many of the specifics that are relevant in a self defense situation-- much good food-for-thought... It's because of these complexities that we highly recommend to all new firearms owners that they receive professional training from a competent vendor:

Customer Meets Restaurant Robber – Armed Citizen Stories by Rob Morse, Ammoland

It is 10:30 at night. You walk into a small restaurant to get your takeout order. You’re talking on the phone when a man behind the counter turns around, sees you, and points his gun at you. He orders you to hand over your phone. The three employees behind the counter have their hands up and are emptying the cash drawer. While you had your head in your phone, you walked in on a robbery in progress.

You’re a gun owner. You have your Pennsylvania concealed carry permit. You’re armed tonight. You hold your phone out as you draw your firearm. You shoot your attacker one time in the neck. Now the attacker drops his gun and falls to the ground.

You and the store employees call 911. You stay at the scene and talk to the police. Police recognized your attacker. EMTs say your attacker died at the scene. The police take your gun and ask you to talk to detectives as they review the security video.

Comments

Our defender did a number of things very well. The first thing is that he recognized a problem. It isn't unusual for victims to ask the robber to repeat his demands or to ask if the robber is joking. This is a natural response. We call it a normalcy bias where we experience something so unusual that we don't recognize what is happening. In an extreme case, the robbery is over before the victim is aware of what happened.

The best self-defense moves in the world don't work until we understand what is happening around us.

Our defender decided to defend himself and the other people in the store. He presented his firearm and hit his attacker in a vital area to quickly end the fight. Our defender then had the presence of mind to stop shooting. Most of us are taught to shoot until the threat stops, but there is a reactionary gap between the attacker's response to being shot and our new decision to stop shooting. It looks like our defender was prepared to shoot, and also prepared to stop shooting. Our defender stayed at the restaurant and gave a statement to the police. That is important because we want to establish ourselves as the victim of a violent encounter. There are a lot of details we don't know in this defense, and small details can make a critical difference.

Deciding to defend yourself with a lethal weapon doesn't mean you have to draw that instant. The attacker pointed his gun at the defender and that give the attacker a large advantage. The good news, of a sort, is that robberies are chaotic. We want to wait until the attacker has turned his attention, and hopefully his gun, somewhere else before we draw.

Having our hand on our gun cuts our draw time in half. If you can turn and mask your motions, then you probably gained a half-second by having your hand on the grip of your gun. That is particularly true in cold weather when many of us are wearing a heavy coat. Fortunately for us, reaching for a firearm also looks like getting your wallet out of your back pocket. That half-second is critical in a gunfight.

We also want to move as we draw. Instructors may argue about shooting on the move, but they agree that it is a good idea to move as we clear the gun from the holster and bring it onto the target. We move because movement buys us time. When the bad guy notices that something has changed, he will point his gun back to the location where we were the last time he noticed us. It is a huge advantage not to be there. It takes time for the attacker to notice we moved, to find us, and to point his gun at us. You experienced something like this when you alternate your shots between two targets at the shooting range. Your time between shots is longer than if you were simply shooting at one stationary target. Those fractions of a second add up.

Movement may have another purpose as well. We are responsible for every shot we fire. We might want to move so the ice machine is behind the attacker rather than letting a bullet fly through the kitchen. We can move to the side as well as up and down. We seldom have a perfect situation with a known backstop behind an attacker. Movement may give us an improvement from bad to better.

There is still a lot to do once the bad guy is down. Ask the employees and any other customers in the store if they are hurt. Ask them to look around and see if anyone else is injured.

Robbers often have friends waiting for them as they commit their crimes. Once the bad guy is down, then we want to lock the front and back doors. Maybe the store staff knows this, but maybe they'd appreciate the reminder.

If the immediate threat has ended, then our gun in our hand is no longer our friend. Take a breath or two. Then, carefully put your gun back in its holster. We would also like to cover the attacker's firearm if we can do so without significantly altering any evidence. Emotions are running high and we don't want one of the bystanders to grab the attacker's gun. People feel better once the attacker's gun is out of sight.

Everyone calls 911. You call. The store clerks and cooks call. Ask the shopkeeper from next door who came over after he heard the shot to call 911 too. Those phone calls identify the material witnesses who can affirm your defense. If the store employees don't have access to the security camera video, then ask them to call someone to get the video for you. You'd like your own copy separate from the copy of the video given to the police. At some point, you want to call your lawyer.

Be prepared for the police to take your weapon. They do the same to a policeman who discharges his firearm. I hope you get your gun back soon and in good shape. There are no guarantees.

If we were there, then we might want to do something a little different. We want to look before we enter a new environment so we can avoid potential problems. That means we might have to ignore a phone call that comes at the wrong moment.

The largest lesson is to think how we would act in this situation. Would we see the robbery unfold? Would we watch from outside and call the police? What would you do if your friends, family, or children entered the store before you looked inside? It is easier to come up with possible answers now than in the moment of a robbery. If you're fortunate enough to live with friends and family, then share that question with them.

Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.

Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore

Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.

In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”

Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.

2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted

Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.

3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims

Notwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”

In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

4. Texas’s Standing to Sue

Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.

5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump

These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

6. Texas Brings the Quotes

The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.