Click for eBooks!

https://www.gunlaws.com/books22-ebooks.htm

Click for eBooks!   You CAN take it with you!

We carry several of his excellent books -- Browse: https://www.gunlaws.com


====








1- A Presidential Fable

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian American all tried out for the presidency of the United States. The Kenyan American said, "I'm eligible because the Founding Fathers believed a person with an African dad would make a fine president, would have no divided loyalty, and wouldn't even have to prove he was born here in the U.S. until well after he got into office." He said they put that logic right into the Constitution in Article II.

The Cuban American said, "I'm eligible because both my parents come from a brutal communist dictatorship that aimed nuclear bombs at the United States, but because they escaped in time to have me born in Florida, the Founding Fathers believed I would have no split allegiances of any kind, and I would be a perfect candidate for the presidency and the nuclear launch codes." He dropped out of the race when too few people voted for him in the primaries. Cuban law claims him as a citizen, as they do for everyone with even one Cuban parent, but Americans like to ignore that, because it would make things difficult with such a hostile enemy.

The Canadian American, who is also a Cuban American thanks to his Cuban refugee dad, giving him triple citizenship, said, "I'm a Harvard law grad, and I can tell you for certain the Founders would believe I'm eligible because I renounced my Canadian citizenship last year. I can also tell you it is a 'settled matter of law' that being born in a foreign country like I was doesn't matter, because I have at least one American parent, my mom, and that's how the Founders planned to protect the presidency, right there in Article II. Paternity didn't matter to them, despite what the British thought." The British thought nationality came from your father, not your mother. Other countries thought it was land based, or both.

But then John Jay spoke up. He became our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 1787 he said we have to prevent any chance that the commander in chief and the presidency "be given to, nor devolve on" foreigners, in a letter to George Washington, and Washington had written back to agree. [I have those letters posted here.] That's why the Committee of Eleven, the group appointed by the Constitutional Convention to do a lot of the editing of the Constitution while it was being drafted, wrote Article II to require only a "natural born Citizen" could hold the office of president and commander in chief of our military forces. They changed Alexander Hamilton's weaker draft.


So modern-day skeptics asked, "How did those old dead white guys even know what a 'natural born Citizen' was, or that it was the correct phrase? They might have used a term like that, in that critical spot, and just guessed at its meaning! They didn't even define it in the document itself!"

To which a frustrated uninvited ombudsman blurted out, "Only brain-dead idiots or followers of network "news" could believe such poppycock! They didn't go defining ANY of the terms in the Constitution. They knew EXACTLY what their words meant. Those white men were inspired geniuses. The definition of that exact term was written down at that time for Pete's sake."

In a reference book Ben Franklin brought to the Convention, Law of Nations, that phrase is precisely described, and it means just what you would expect if the Framers were trying to guarantee a 100% American president free from foreign entanglements, like Jay and Washington discussed in writing.

Law of Nations says, in Section 212: "Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That's it. A three-part requirement. Two citizen parents at the time of birth (jus sanguinis in Latin, "of the blood"), on U.S. soil (jus soli in Latin, "of the land").

No Kenyan Americans. No Cuban Canadian Americans who renounce foreign citizenship the year before they run for office. Sorry folks, some people are not eligible. That was the Founding Fathers' plan. How foreign is too foreign? Any.

Ben Franklin wrote a long letter back to Charles Dumas in 1775, who provided their copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (Ben had gotten three), to thank him and tell him, "...the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting..." He also mentioned, among many other items, they were working hard to make saltpeter, desperately needed to manufacture gunpowder. The letter is in the National Archives.

The Convention used "natural born Citizen" in only one place and to this day has only one use in our entire body of law -- as a restriction on who can be president and commander in chief. Every other official requirement in law uses the plain word "citizen," a condition that can be achieved in numerous ways, including after birth, and appears constantly in law. Natural born citizenship can only occur at the moment of birth.


A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian Cuban American were sitting in a bar, having read this short essay and asked themselves, "So, what do we do now?" The Canadian Cuban American said, "I'm eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court, and since I'm a Harvard law grad, even though that's not a requirement, I think I'll go for that." The Cuban American said, "I'm a U.S. Senator, and even though I rarely vote there and too few people voted for me, I'll try to stay there." And the Kenyan American said, "I may have a problem, I'm going to seek legal advice from an undisclosed location." And everyone lived ever after, for a while.




2- Background checks for presidential candidates


The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

There's another presidential debate tonight, live at seven, don't miss it! There's a presidential caucus... polling coming... talking heads... this candidate hates that one... look at the wives... we don't objectify women... did you hear what that guy said today... blah, blah, blather, blather.



The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In light of recent revelations about political candidates at every level, the "news" media has continued to refuse to insist on background checks for people running for political office.

Critics point out that from the president on down, these people will have to handle top secret documents and information. The public should know before they vote if the people they're electing can pass a security clearance. Otherwise, the elections are fraudulent -- the people aren't qualified to do what they're being elected to do.

Another top issue is the eligibility question hanging over the man who was born in a foreign country to a Cuban father. Three other hopefuls also had direct foreign upbringing that probably disqualified them under the Article II instructions in the U.S. Constitution.

Article II requires a person to be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to become president, defined at the time of the Founding as having two citizen parents and being born on U.S. soil.

Background checks have become increasingly popular in American life. Even routine jobs for corporations, health care, education, transportation and many government positions require background checks, along with more traditional functions, like eligibility for various firearm permits and grade-school teaching. Security clearance background checks for elected office is a concept whose time has come.



3- Pistol Looks Like a Cell Phone

Two More States Get Constitutional Carry


The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

A man has invented a gun that looks like a cell phone. When closed, it appears more-or-less to be a phone, but it unfolds into a two-shot .380 caliber pistol. It is still in development, but he already has thousands of inquiries.

[image]


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

As a matter of law, a gun that doesn't look like a gun, is an "Any Other Weapon" or AOW, specially regulated by BATFE, and it is treated like a machine gun or silencer. You can get them, but a $200 tax stamp is required, and it has to be registered and tracked. The inventor either knows this already, or will find out right quick, and it will put a kink in the plan. But still, it's a clever idea, and I hear he's working on a six-shot version. News reports are gushing about the device without noting this tiny little wrinkle. Some take a wow-how-cool perspective, while others think OMG-people-will-be-secretly-armed, as if they haven't noticed all 50 states have discreet carry laws, and 10 now have Constitutional Carry (Idaho and West Virginia just enacted it).

Idaho overcame a ton of outside spending by anti-rights New York billionaire bigot Michael Bloomberg to defeat this right of the  public to keep and bear arms. West Virginia overrode a governor's veto to pass the important freedom legislation. Despite hoplophobic fear of "BITS" (blood in the streets) it has never happened anywhere permit laws or Constitutional Carry has been enacted. https://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm.

Although the cell-phone gun that doesn't exist yet got a lot of news coverage, Constitutional Carry, a major advance of the public's fundamental freedoms, got little, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

Keep in mind a wallet gun -- a small pistol that fits in a leather pocket wallet, is an AOW and illegal without federal papers, if it can be fired from within the wallet without the gun visible. The feds consider it a violation to even own a trigger-hole wallet and a gun that fits it that can fire that way, even if you don't have them together. Sort of like owning the unassembled parts of a machine gun.

http://www.12news.com/news/mn-company-invents-gun-that-looks-like-a-cell-phone/106832592







4- Judge Garland Is Not a Moderate, He's Leftist

News Media Is Not News, They're Cheerleaders


The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

"... before the nomination of Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was even formally announced, there was a series of back-and-forth edits to his description as “a judicial moderate” and “a strong liberal” on Wikipedia...

"One of us (Michael Giles) has collected data that might permit us to answer this question...

"... Using these data, we estimated ideology scores for all judges sitting on the D.C. Circuit who participated in these cases. We used a standard model from psychometrics and ideal point estimation in political science, known as an item-response theory model... The figure suggests that Garland is indeed a moderate...." Washington Post, March 17, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/17/how-liberal-is-merrick-garland/




The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Washington Post, a widely recognized propaganda arm of the political left, has inaccurately labeled Barack Hussein Obama's choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a moderate. This come as no surprise to anyone.

Because the term is an adjective, "an opinion," run where news and reporting is supposed to appear, the paper cannot be accused of lying. The judge's voting record however makes it impossible to fairly use the word "moderate." Arguing with the Post, from past experience, is an exercise in futility.

When the D.C. Circuit Court overturned the ban on keeping a gun at home in Washington, D.C., he voted to overturn that. In a long string of National Labor Relations Board cases, he voted consistently against people and businesses and in favor labor unions.

A constant flow of reports from the left portray judge Merrick as a moderate. Reports from the right, recounting his voting record, reveal him to be a left-wing ideologue, surprising no one in Barack Hussein Obama's selection.

The only fly in the ointment is that, if this man isn't put in place and Hillary wins the election, she may nominate Mr. Hussein-Obama for the position, the worst possible choice in terms of survival of The American Way. Despite bluster that they will not act on the nomination, foolhearty Republicans have one again tasted shoeleather. We shall see.






No time today to review the Caetano v. Massachusetts case, the eight-to-zero U.S. Supreme Court decision, its 112th gun case, that affirms the right of self defense, the right to carry a stun gun, the tremendous put down of the Massachusetts high court for outrageous behavior, and the High Court's misuse of the per curiam mechanism. Stay tuned, I plan to get to it.









The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

Barack Hussein Obama has decided to skip the funeral of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law does not closely match Mr. Hussein-Obama's, according to leading experts.



The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The District of Columbia vs. Heller case, considered by the firearms community to be among Justice Scalia's finest pieces of work, is being made available in annotated form and on special terms by Bloomfield Press, the nation's largest publisher and distributor of gun law books.

The book's co-author Alan Korwin was invited by the High Court to observe oral argument in the case. He attended with his Cartridge Family Band https://www.gunlaws.com/CFB-BandInfo.htm fellow musician Bob Blackmer (who had originally planted the idea of going); Bob had to wait outside overnight in freezing conditions to obtain a seat. Korwin reported directly from Washington D.C. on the landmark event and was joined by dozens of luminaries in attendance, including his co-author, David Kopel (who sat at the Respondent's table up front). Read about the court time itself: https://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-Heller2-PostGameReport.htm

The book, The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed! here: https://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm became an instant classic, spelling out in plain English what SCOTUS Justice Scalia had written in crisp, compelling legalese, having been assigned the case by Chief Justice John Roberts. It confirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right of American people, despite fabrications and concoctions invented by leftists to deny the right people had exercised for more than 200 years. The opposition claimed the right was "collective," and belonged to no person in particular, a false perspective expressed in the dissent, which the book includes.

In addition to every word of both the decision ("the holding") and the dissents, the book highlights hundreds of important quotations in the texts and features plain English summaries of every aspect of the case, plus explanations of how the case came to be, who the various players are, and how the Court works. "News" media typically exhibit an abysmally low understanding of such things, misleading the public, you included, unfortunately.

The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed!,  https://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm also includes three other Supreme Court important gun cases that were decided before the Heller case, but after Supreme Court Gun Cases, the unabridged guide to the Court's 92 prior gun cases Supreme Court Gun Cases https://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm. Journalists constantly and inaccurately say the Court has been largely quiet about guns but that is totally false -- they have used some form of the word firearm more than 2,900 times in those decisions, consistently recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This is reflected in the fact that in America we have gun stores, we have always had gun stores, and you don't need to join a state militia to walk in and buy as many firearms and as much ammunition as you like.


The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed! is a joy to read and a tribute to the memory of one of the finest legal minds to ever grace the Supreme Court bench. If you have never actually read a High Court decision, this is the place to start. It is an education, an exhilaration and rollicking good fun all at the same time.























Get my 12th book, After You Shoot: Your gun's hot. The perp's not. Now what? https://www.gunlaws.com/AYS.htm, virtually as important, so you don't end up in more trouble than the crook.

Just go to GunLaws.com and sign up on the home page.



----:::----