Remember Justice Scalia this November

Friday, February 19, 2016

More

If Barack Obama and those like him fail in their goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” it will be in large part because of United States Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Sadly, Justice Scalia passed away over the weekend.

Since his nomination to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Justice Scalia championed the view that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who wrote it, not according to shifting social conventions or judicial preferences. The Constitution, Justice Scalia once said, “means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” As William Murchison of the Dallas Morning News wrote on Tuesday, Scalia’s understanding of the constitution “came from his respect for the wisdom of the document, which was tailored to preserve freedom.”

Those of us who follow Second Amendment issues are most familiar with Justice Scalia’s “originalist” or “textualist” approach to interpreting the Constitution based upon the Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In Heller, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” without regard to service in a state militia. That right, he said “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Gun control advocates immediately decried the decision, falsely claiming that it invented an individual right out of thin air. Predictably, they are continuing to do so after Justice Scalia’s passing. However, the record clearly shows that Heller expressly articulated, in greater detail, the individual right the Court had recognized in previous Second Amendment-related cases and that our Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to guarantee.

Besides his majority opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia also was known for his stinging dissents in cases in which he thought the Court’s majority had improperly legislated from the bench. Columnist George Will wrote on Sunday, Scalia “often dissented in the hope of shaping a future replete with majorities steeped in principles he honed while in the minority.”

Whether those principles and the Heller decision survive will depend in large part upon the actions of the current Senate and the outcome of this year’s presidential election. Fellow Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented from the majority opinion in Heller and in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (which held that the Second Amendment was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against state and local action) has said she would like to see Heller overturned. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also said as much on the campaign trail recently.

Anticipating his eventual departure from the Court, Justice Scalia once said, “I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I’ve tried to do for 25, 26 years.” To prevent that from happening, from now until the polls close on Election Day in November, support a candidate who will counter the antigun agenda of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg, and who will nominate Supreme Court justices who will honor and follow the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Remembering a Vile Civil War Act, on Fifth Avenue

Photo

“The Riots at New York — The Rioters Burning and Sacking the Colored Orphan Asylum,” a wood engraving from Harper’s Weekly, Aug. 1, 1863. Credit New-York Historical Society

 Share This Page

Were more hateful words ever howled by a mob in New York history?

“Burn the niggers’ nest.”

This was one of the cries taken up by a crowd that descended on the Colored Orphan Asylum during the first night of the draft riots in July 1863. The sentiments left no doubt about the attackers’ goal: to kill African-American children.

Providence and quick thinking spared the 233 youths from death or injury, though the riots would claim more than 100 lives. But the asylum, a Greek Revival building that sat prettily atop a hillock off Fifth Avenue, between West 43rd and 44th Streets, was destroyed by the mob.

“Some 500 of them entered the house,” the asylum managers reported on July 25, 1863, in a record book now kept at the New-York Historical Society. “After despoiling it of Furniture, Bedding, Clothing, &c. &c. — they deliberately sat fire to it, in different parts — simply because it was the home of unoffending colored Orphan Children.”

It has always been painful to contemplate the sack of the orphanage. It is difficult even to picture it, at what is now a busy intersection in Midtown Manhattan, next to the Century Association clubhouse and across West 43rd Street from a Joe Fresh store and an Elie Tahari showroom in the former Manufacturers Hanover bank, a landmark of the International style.

Photo

“Infant School, Colored Orphan Asylum,” circa 1860. Credit The Jeffrey Kraus Collection

For now, however, the south half of the asylum site is vacant, nothing more than a 10,625-square-foot lot strewn with rubble, including brick fragments. Many brick fragments. So many brick fragments that you begin to wonder: Could any of these have been used to build the asylum?

If so, could there be artifacts strewn among them, plowed under the charred rubble long ago?

A broken hair comb?

An inky pen nib?

A small shoe buckle?

The moment has come to ask such questions because the developer Louis Ceruzzi plans to redevelop the site with a tower more than 70 stories tall that will certainly have retail space at the base and is likely to include a mix of hotel rooms and apartments above.

Photo

A developer plans to redevelop the site where the asylum stood, on Fifth Avenue between 43rd and 44th Streets, with a tower more than 70 stories tall that will certainly have retail space at the base and is likely to include a mix of hotel rooms and apartments above. Credit Byron Smith for The New York Times

An opportunity is at hand to examine the site closely in the hope of finding some tangible remnant of the asylum. Even if there are no archaeological finds, there is certainly a chance to commemorate the asylum and memorialize its pillage in some form at the new building.

The New-York Historical Society has a trove of documents from the Association for the Benefit of Colored Orphans, founded in 1836, including admissions records that would make it possible to create a roster of the children who were living in the asylum at the time of the draft riots.

There was, for instance, Lucinda Ann Brown, 7, who had been brought to New York from New Orleans by one Catherine Flint. Lucinda’s father was dead at the time. Her mother, though alive, had remained in Louisiana. Lucinda was admitted on May 16, 1863.

Sarah Jones was admitted to the asylum 13 days later, on her seventh birthday. Because her adopted mother was working as a stewardess aboard the steamship Ocean Queen, which traveled to Colón, Panama, Sarah was institutionalized by the Commissioners of Public Charities.

Nine-year-old Irving R. White; his younger sister, Martha Ann White; and their younger brother, Robert Cooper White, were all admitted on June 2. Their mother was dead and their father was in a temperance house in Albany run by Edward C. Delavan.

Then, on July 6, just a week before the riot, came William H. Judson, age and circumstances unrecorded.

Photo

An untitled tinted view of a playroom with boys and girls at the asylum, circa 1860. Credit The Jeffrey Kraus Collection

Lucinda, Sarah, Irving, Martha, Robert and William were all presumably there when mobs protesting the inequitable military draft began to vent their fury on any African-American unlucky enough to be in their way. Soon enough, the rioters chose a target where they must have known resistance would be unlikely: an orphanage.

“The destruction of this Asylum, supported, as it was, solely by charity, is certainly one of the worst and wickedest of crimes that were perpetrated during this memorable day,” The New York Times said two days later, “and clearly shows that resistance to the draft is but a cry raised to cover the most atrocious crimes that human nature is capable of committing.”

All that is believed to have survived intact is a Bible that an 8-year-old girl rescued by returning to the burning building. It, too, is in the hands of the New-York Historical Society.

Having been sheltered in a police precinct house, the children were removed safely to Blackwells Island (now Roosevelt Island). Though the institution’s mission, name and location have changed since the Civil War, its work is continued today by the Harlem Dowling-West Side Center for Children and Family Services.

To judge from his blog, Mr. Ceruzzi is fascinated by New York City history. Whether that translates to support for an archaeological dig and permanent memorial at 520 Fifth Avenue is another question. He did not respond to emails for comment.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission said through a spokeswoman that it had reviewed the site in 2008 and determined that it was “unlikely to contain intact archaeological resources.”

But 35 years of covering — and uncovering — the layers of New York City history have taught me that traces of the past are seldom eradicated entirely. And the story of the Colored Orphan Asylum seems too important to forget.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Destroys Geraldo on Hillary Emails

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is not going away. In fact, it just keeps getting worse for her as the case unfolds.
Most recently, it was revealed that the former Secretary of State had information on her private unsecured server that was so secret, lawyers involved in the case were not even allowed to go over the evidence without getting higher clearances.
That hasn’t stopped the army of Clinton supporters within the media from minimizing and rationalizing away the seriousness of the issue as well-respected legal scholars and judges continue to weigh in on the side that is calling for Hillary’s indictment.
Geraldo Rivera of Fox News is one of those who consistently defends Hillary on this issue. When he and Judge Jeanine Pirro appeared on ‘Fox & Friends’ recently, the two debated the issue.
Judge Pirro, demonstrating a superior knowledge of the law and this case in particular, completely destroyed Geraldo’s apologist stance with the facts.
When Geraldo accused the judge of playing politics, she responded, “She made Americans vulnerable because she had a non-secure server. This is about justice — this is about the law. This is about a woman who is not above the law even though she thinks she is.”
Do you think the Judge go it right on this one? Do Hillary deserve to be indicted for this?

Gun-Toting Grandma Waits Until the Last Second Before She Pulls the Trigger

A brief stop at a gas station after leaving work late at night brought about a string of events that targeted a Manchester, New Hampshire resident. The woman, who wished to remain unidentified, took notice of her surroundings and paid attention to a dark sedan that followed her out of the parking lot and to the parking lot of her home.

The woman said she tried to park as close to the door as possible, but the other car pulled in not far from her. She swiftly exited her car, but heard a car door close right after hers. As she walked toward the door, she heard someone walking behind her and briefly turned around to see a man, who was wearing a dark-colored hoodie, following her.
“Something in my head said to take the gun out of my purse,” the woman told a local ABC affiliate.
The woman took her gun from her purse and placed it in her coat pocket, keeping her hand on it all the while.
“Ten feet from the front stairs. That’s when he caught up to me, and he came around me and stood right in front of me. Right in my face,” the woman said.

As the suspect began yelling at her, the woman took action when he reached to grab her. She shot him a single time, directly in the chest. Her assailant, identified as Michael Bontaites, was later located by law enforcement at a local hospital. Bontaites was arraigned from his hospital bed, and charged with felony robbery.
The gun-toting Grandma has been a valid carry permit holder for ten years, and this was the first time she ever fired her gun. Nice shooting, ma’am.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, rape allegations.

Juanita Broaddrick ended years of silence with this tweet recently:


Do you think it’s time the left acknowledges and addresses the allegations and the part that Hillary played in all of this?

ISIS Supporter Specifically Targeted Gun-Free Zone for Attack

Friday, February 12, 2016

More

NRA has been criticized by our opponents for contending that those seeking to wreak mass violence on innocents choose their targets based on the likelihood that they will meet armed resistance, and that armed citizens could assist in halting this type of violent attack. As part of their efforts, gun control activists and their allies in the media have frequently lampooned NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s astute remarks that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The bankruptcy of this anti-gun position was exposed late last week when details from an FBI terrorism investigation revealed that an alleged ISIS supporter chose the target for a planned terrorist attack because it was a gun-free zone.

A notable example of our opponents’ error on this matter is a commentary from March 25, 2013 edition of USA Today penned by Mother Jones Editor Mark Follman. Titled, “The NRA's gun-free zone myth,” the item characterizes NRA’s argument as “killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no ‘good guy with a gun’ will be on hand to stop the crime,” then labels it, “Sound bite sophistry.” USA Today has exhibited an appetite for this position, as on December 11, 2015 they gave platform to another commentator for an item titled “The 'good guy with a gun' myth.” The writer contended that if a terrorist were to be met with armed resistance, “we’d have a lot more dead innocents.”

For its part, Bloomberg’s Everytown has gone to great lengths to perpetuate the notion that the ability to lawfully carry is not a deterrent to mass killers, going so far as to produce a misleading analysis of mass shootings since 2009. The Everytown analysis contended that 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in areas where guns were permitted. However, a closer inspection by former University of Chicago Professor John Lott revealed numerous errors in Everytown’s work. Lott concluded that a mere 8 percent of mass shooting occurred in public places where people were allowed to carry.

Following an FBI investigation that culminated last week, the dubious speculations of media commentators or the flawed findings of Everytown should hold little purchase.

On February 4, federal authorities filed a criminal complaint against a Dearborn Heights, Mich. man in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which makes it unlawful for anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. The complaint alleges that on two occasions the subject lied on ATF Form 4473 while purchasing a firearm, as he was in fact a drug user.

The FBI began investigating the man in May 2015 after learning of threats he made about “committing acts of terror and martyrdom… on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.” The complaint goes on to note that the individual repeatedly promoted the terrorist group on using social media.

During its investigation, the FBI engaged with the man using an undercover asset. The man told the undercover asset, “I tried to shoot up a church one day. I don’t know the name of it, but it’s close to my job. It’s one of the biggest ones in Detroit. Ya, I had it planned out.” The subject then told the asset why he chose the church, stating, “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” 

Policymakers across the country should allow the heinous statements of this ISIS supporter to inform their policy decisions regarding the efficacy of gun-free zones. Moreover, Michiganders should know that Michigan Compiled Laws section 28.425o(3) bans Right-to-Carry permit holders from carrying on “Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.” Church officials should use their discretion wisely in light of these events.

Has the VA Deprived You of Your Second Amendment Rights? NRA Wants to Hear From You!

Friday, February 12, 2016

More

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessing firearms.

The NRA has for several years been supporting legislation to correct this unjustified infringement on Second Amendment rights, including the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL) and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 (S. 2002, Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX).

Recently, this issue has taken on even broader importance with the planned implementation of a similar program concerning Social Security Administration (SSA) beneficiaries who have been assigned a “representative payee.” We reported on SSA’s plans last summer, and then the White House itself announced the program would be part of President Obama’s latest “executive actions” on gun control.

Now, in our continuing efforts to oppose these gun-grabbing schemes, we are asking you to share your stories. We are interested in hearing from VA beneficiaries who have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights after assignment of a fiduciary, especially if you are willing to allow your experience to be made public. Our hope is that by putting a human face on VA’s practices, we’ll be able to shine more light on this scandal and hopefully promote meaningful reform.

In particular, we’d like to know:

1. Who made the determination that a fiduciary was necessary?

2. Did this determination involve a formal hearing?

3. Were you told the effect the determination would have on your Second Amendment rights?

4. Were you apprised of your right to an appeal or to petition for restoration of rights?

5. What factors influenced your decision whether or not to pursue an appeal or restoration?

6. Were you successfully able to get your rights back?

If you are able to share documentation of your experience (letters, rulings, etc.) that would also be very helpful.

Please contact us using our webform here or call us at (800) 392-8683 and provide:

• Your name and contact information; 
• Brief answers to the above six questions; 
• Digital copies of relevant documents, if possible; and 
• Whether you consent to NRA contacting you for follow-up and using your information in our public efforts to right this wrong.

The NRA is committed to ensuring that the Second Amendment rights of all VA and SSA beneficiaries are respected. Your help will promote this effort.