Tag Archives: freedom

More Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

…from President Barack Obama’s (D) timidity in the South China Sea.

Beijing has responded to the January election of Tsai and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party by intensifying pressure on Taiwan with military exercises, diplomatic moves and cross-border deportations and prosecutions.

It’s quite explicit.  Here’s Zhu Weidong, Deputy Director Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing:

It is impossible for the mainland to get along with a party or a leader that doesn’t recognize the one-China policy or seeks to split the country.

There will be no so-called cold peace, but will definitely be a fresh confrontation.  In that case, the domestic and international situation for Taiwan will only get more and more difficult.

And Li Fei, Xiamen University’s Taiwan Research Institute Deputy Director:

If Tsai fails to recognize the ’92 consensus and one-China principle, there will be no room left for Taiwan’s diplomacy.

And this, too:

In April, a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s steel committee ejected a [RoC] delegation after China complained.

We could help Tsai and the Republic of China by expanding trade with the RoC to reduce its dependency on the PRC and by selling the RoC arms with which to upgrade and strengthen its military.  And we could tell the PRC to stop whining; the RoC, as a vibrant, prosperous nation, is entirely welcome in organizations like the OECD.

A personal, State Dinner-type meeting between our President and President Tsai would go a long way, too.

Another Right Answer by a Federal Trial Court

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering DC police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

US District Judge Richard J Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment….

And another protection of our individual liberties.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says (again, for those of you steady readers of this blog):

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.

Notice that (again…): there’s not a syllable of permission for the Federal government to dictate to us citizens what our purpose in keeping and bearing may be.  The Federal government has no legitimate interest in our purpose, and so any demand that we satisfy the Federal government of our good reason is not merely unconstitutional, it’s dishonestly so.

We citizens do, through our government, restrict convicted felons’ right to keep and bear.  It stops there, though: unless the Federal government can show that a citizen has been convicted of a felony, it cannot further restrict.

Full stop.

Zhang Dejiang Inspects

Posted on by
Reply

Zhang Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and so the number three man in the People’s Republic of China’s government is on an inspection tour of Hong Kong this week.  The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed on the matter has a surprisingly naïve subtitle: …it’s a chance for China’s No 3 to hear local voices.

There’s this instead, though.

Officials say that 6,000 police will be on patrol and equipped to lock down roads and walkways whenever Mr Zhang moves about during his three-day stay.

And

Media interviews won’t be allowed during official events.

And the kicker:

The private purpose of Mr Zhang’s visit is to “inspect” Hong Kong, as state media put it, and to consider whether to give Mr [pro-Beijing Chief Executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun-ying] Leung a second five-year term.

Because Zhang and the PRC government will decide that, not the citizens of Hong Kong.

Doesn’t look to me like there’s much listening going on.

Yes, It Does

Posted on by
Reply

The 9th Circuit is going to release, soon, its ruling on a lawsuit that involves California’s claim that it can mandate that firearm manufacturers incorporate safety devices into their firearms.

Anthony Hakl, a lawyer for the state, said the gun-rights groups sought to establish a constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.

“No such right exists,” he wrote in a September brief.

It’s impressive that a highly trained lawyer should make such a statement with a straight face.  Alternatively, it’s depressing that our law schools do such a poor job of teaching our Constitution.

Here’s the 2nd Amendment on the matter:

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.

Nothing in there about safety mechanisms, nor is there anything that addresses one way or the other the purchase of any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.

Here’s the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no power to limit the sources of our Arms delegated to the United States by our Constitution.  Even the power to require us to license our Arms is a power merely to require us to know how to use—to be safe—with them.  Notice that, too: we have to be safe, not our Arms have to be safe in our stead.  Although it’s true enough that a safe weapon helps us be safe with them, it’s our responsibility to be safe, not the responsibility of an inanimate object.

Now, here’s the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As noted above, there is no power to limit the sources of our Arms, either delegated or enumerated (a delegation by our ratification).  That’s a power retained by the people.  That’s a power retained by We the People.  The ability to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever we might choose is already long established in our Constitution.

Only a Progressive lawyer would seek to rewrite the Constitution in so blatantly obvious a way.

Maryland’s Anti-Gun Law

Posted on by
Reply

…is back before the 4th Circuit, this time for an en banc hearing, after an earlier 3-judge panel had vacated the prior trial court’s ruling upholding the law.  At issue is Maryland’s

Firearm Safety Act of 2013 banned possession of firearms designated as “assault weapons,” a broad category that includes dozens of types of high-capacity weapons, including the popular AR-15 rifle.  Maryland also banned sales and purchases of ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds among other provisions.

The Maryland Attorney General, Douglas Gansler (D), is arguing

…AK-47s, the state argues, are “suited, for military-style assaults,” not sport shooting or self-defense….

This is an utterly disingenuous argument that only the Left and its anti-gun nuts could make.  The government has no legitimate interest in the purpose for which an American citizen might choose to keep and bear Arms, only that that right shall not be infringed.

Full stop.