New Second Amendment Case Granted Cert by Supreme Court

New 2021
SCOTUS Justice Group Photo

When it comes to gun rights/gun control narratives, the media and opposing political establishment has it out for the Second Amendment.

Here’s the key talking points of what just happened yesterday:

Issue as SCOTUS defines it: “Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

In non legal terms, can a state restrict a person’s right to get licensed to carry a firearm outside the home, based on the requirement of demonstrating “proper cause” for self-defense?

Even through the balance of power for the Second Amendment far outweighs political opposition, with the news that SCOTUS has accepted NYS Rifle & Pistol v. Corlett, this is seen as a case that could potentially be a landmark ruling, advancing gun rights in a major way, nationwide.

Not since District of Columbia v. Heller has the Supreme Court weighed in on a major Second Amendment case, and with this new case, SCOTUS has the potential to do four things:

1. Strike down the NYS restrictive concealed carry law that requires a person to demonstrate ‘proper cause’ for self defense.

2. Clarify the court’s stance on 2A, and concealed carry.

3. Set precedent on gun rights for American citizens, both in and outside their homes.

4. Establish new standards for review on gun rights cases.

The case will likely be argued later this Fall, with a ruling expected by or before June 2022.

In coming media segments on this SCOTUS case over the next year, credible gun right’s experts have an opportunity to educate and drive clarity on 2A realities.

The Chauvin Trial Jury Tampering Was An Injustice

(Photo Credit: Court TV. via AP)

Here’s the alternative viewpoint on the Derek Chauvin verdict and conclusion of the trial; a viewpoint shared by millions of Americans:

The USA justice system works because an impartial jury views the evidence and trial arguments, and comes to a verdict without influence or bias.

The day before the jury arrived at their verdict in the Chauvin case, Judge Cahill complained that elected officials should not be discussing the Chauvin case in ways that were “disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch.” via Reuters

The judge was referring to Rep. Maxine Waters who went to Minneapolis over the weekend, and used her position of power to tell the crowd she was looking for a guilty verdict. After the Judge’s comments, and request for elected officials to not get involved, President Biden calls for the “right verdict”, based on “overwhelming evidence”. Which I argue is an impeachable offense, because POTUS undermined the the Judiciary, creating a very unfair situation.

You can’t have the President of the United States and a Congresswoman tamper with an arguably unsequestered jury, while the media toys with doxing the jury, and get a fair trial. That’s not how an impartial jury system works.

The day before the verdict was read, I wrote: If a guilty verdict comes in, an appeal is seen as more likely because of jury tampering and witness intimidation like what Maxine Waters (and others) are doing. Soon after, the judge said, “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

What President Biden, Maxine Waters (any many others), and media did to tamper with the jury is the biggest legal system injustice I have ever seen (or know about) in this nation. The frightened and intimidated jury moved quick to convict Chauvin on all three charges. (This writer believes at worst Chauvin was guilty of negligence, not murder)

The odds of an appeal are always tough, but let’s see how this plays out.

Ironically, the way this all went down may have killed momentum for any serious police reform.

Thoughts on the George Floyd Case and Due Process

The video imagery of the George Floyd arrest on May 25, 2020 while Floyd appeared to be foaming at the mouth, while in a neck restraint was both disturbing and horrible to watch.

That said, I’m in the tiny minority that doesn’t believe what happened to George Floyd was excessive police force, or murder. I also believe the four police officers were trained and skilled, and were doing their job, and this case has zero to do with racism. The national uprising that led to riots and unrest could have been avoided had everyone let due process play out, and evidence weighed.

In America, we have ‘Due Process’ and presumption of innocence deeply embedded in our legal system. This means, the law (and Constitution) give the accused the right to fair treatment during the legal process, and allow the process of evidence to be compiled and objectively reviewed.

The lead video (there were three public videos, and activated police body cams) of George Floyd show one angle of the arrest, and neck restraint. Other video angles add to the evidence, and there were three autopsy reports, and a criminal complaint with a progression of documented events anyone interested in the case should read.

I’m arguing George Floyd was possibly having a heart attack during the arrest, while resisting arrest, and likely died of a health condition, and not from the neck restraint. The autopsy reports list heart disease, heavy drug use, and no evidence of strangulation from the neck restraint, which is listed a non deadly force option in the Minneapolis Police Department Policy & Procedure Manual.

On the initial 911 call, there was legit concern George Floyd was under the influence of some kind of substance when the alleged crime was committed, and during the time of arrest.

Yesterday the body cam transcripts were released. What is most interesting is while Floyd was standing (not on the ground in the restraint yet), officers observed foam on Floyd’s mouth. Also, at one point it was suggested maybe Floyd was on the drug PCP, a point I argued on May 28. Though PCP is not listed as a substance in the autopsy reports. Point is, Floyd was on a strong enough drug (Fentanyl and Methamphetamine listed on autopsy) that officers noticed shaking of the eyes, and the behavior of someone who just wasn’t acting right.

All this is important to the case, and while initial evidence was quickly overlooked to drive a reform agenda, now we wait for a trial (scheduled for March 2021), so evidence can be submitted and weighed.

Obamacare Unconstitutional? A Nightmare for Republicans

The world has changed some.

Republicans didn’t lose the House last month to gun control, climate change, or immigration. They got wiped out in the suburbs, and elsewhere by Health care.

2018 Midterms was about Health care. Period.

If last night’s ruling holds, Republicans can weaken themselves electorally in suburbs, and swing states, thereby putting the Republican Presidency at risk in 2020, and losing odds to win back the House.

This isn’t 2010. Health care is now a political winner, and pre-existing conditions are the new Holy Grail of Health Care.

Next time Dems are in power, they’ll push for Medicare-for-all, which would be a disaster.

We’ll see how the coming months go, but at this point, if the Obamacare ruling holds, I’m thinking Congress gives Trump his wall, in exchange for protecting pre-existing conditions.

RT nicholaskitchel: This is the photo taken at the White House right after HouseGOP voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year.

Everyone with an ❌ has since been voted out of Congress.

Health Care

Legal Analysis

On Friday’s memorandum from the Feds:

– President Trump has NOT been implicated in a crime. There is no evidence here to support an allegation.

– The President cannot be charged in office.

– Tough for prosecutors to prove illegal campaign finance violations by Trump, even if legit evidence ever emerged. In addition, Michael Cohen has a major credibility problem.

– POTUS could pardon himself.

– Partisans are holding President Trump up to a legal standard that the Obama Campaign violated, much worse, and then settled with a fine; for a total bigger than Cohen’s total case.

– Impeachment is not a legal proceeding. It is political. If the House of Representatives wants to impeach the President during a major election cycle term, have at it. Without evidence, the votes in the Senate to convict are just not there.