A Jewish firearms organization is preparing to sue New York state over its new gun-control law, which prohibits most congregants from carrying a concealed weapon into a house of worship.

The New York State Jewish Gun Club has “retained a civil rights attorney to challenge the law and is asking others to join the fight,” reports the Bronx’s News 12. “[Founder Tzvi Waldman] says synagogues should be able to let licensed civilians carry guns in case of an attack.”

The law, known as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), was introduced and passed on July 1, just eight days after the Supreme Court invalidated the Empire State’s prior, highly restrictive concealed-carry law. The CCIA, which took effect September 1, makes it a felony for anyone to carry a concealed weapon in a “sensitive” location unless he is an active or retired police officer, an active-duty member of the military, or a private security guard. As one might expect from a law specifically designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision, that list of “sensitive” locations is quite lengthy and includes most public buildings, private businesses, schools, and houses of worship.

Houses of worship, especially synagogues, have good reason to oppose the new law. As New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms observes, “In essence, the state has made it unlawful for houses of worship to have armed congregants serve as members of their security teams unless those congregants are active or retired law enforcement officers. Churches would be permitted to hire professional security, but that could prove cost prohibitive for many houses of worship.”

It is, in fact, quite common for churches and synagogues to have congregants packing heat.

“Almost every orthodox synagogue in Baltimore has an armed congregant,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director for the Coalition of Jewish Values, told the Daily Caller. “People do not feel like calling the police or having an armed security guard who may be five blocks away is enough.”

Even if the police got there in time, they could react as the officers did during the May school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. “What happens if we run into a police officer who does not want to involve himself?” Pastor Jesse Stevenson of Revive Church of Rockland County told News 12. “Why then would it not be necessary for someone who is licensed to carry?”

Houses of worship have, after all, been the sites of several shootings in recent years, from the 2015 South Carolina church shooting to the 2017 Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. A 2019 attack on a Texas church was largely thwarted by an armed worshiper, demonstrating the value of allowing concealed weapons in church services.

“The average Orthodox Jew spends up to 20 hours a week in shul (synagogue). So for us, not being able to be protected in shul means more than the average person who goes to church once a week,” Waldman told News 12.

Jews aren’t alone in fearing racially motivated attacks during worship. One clergyman told Buffalo’s WGRZ that the racist who allegedly shot 13 people, killing 10, at a Tops supermarket in that city “was seen on security camera video apparently casing an East Buffalo church the week before his supermarket attack.” Another clergy member “said they would not allow themselves to be sitting targets for a killer looking for a place where Black people congregate,” meaning worshipers at that minister’s church should be permitted to arm themselves.

“Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not congregants should be allowed to carry in church,” asserted New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “Instead, state government has taken that decision out of their hands.”

Not if the gun club’s proposed lawsuit succeeds. Waldman told the Daily Caller he is “very confident” the courts will overturn the CCIA because it is “unconstitutional on so many levels.”

“The Second Amendment,” he declared, “is not a second-class right.”

*****

This article was published by The New American and is reproduced with permission.

Editors’ Note:  This well-reasoned argument was made before several Supreme Court decisions which affirm, that the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right.  Two important decisions in that regard were rendered just this year, even though the right of self-protection has long been part of our history and tradition.  This morning, a lead editorial in the  Wall Street Journal cites a “new study” from Clemson University showing that where Blacks kept arms, they were much less likely to be lynched in the Jim Crow South.  You would hardly think a “study” would be necessary to confirm common sense, but as readers likely know, common sense is in short supply these days. A number of states continue to try to make an end run around recent Supreme Court decisions and have reconfigured their onerous restrictions on the right to have arms in defiance of the Court. Likewise, Progressives have successfully bullied banks and others to deny credit to gun dealers and credit card companies are now conspiring among themselves and with Progressive pressure groups to code firearms-related transactions in a way that could act as a national registry. There is a growing ominous trend whereby Progressives, are unable to democratically get their way in the legislatures, and are unable to prevail in court, but resort to enlisting private companies to deny rights to citizens. That these companies would even consider alienating more than half the population, and hence many of their customers, is an indication of how “woke culture” has captured the executive suite. In order to appreciate the importance of these recent Supreme Court decisions and corporate developments, it is likewise helpful to revisit the Biblical antecedents for the right of self-defense and the English common law.  Much like a cut flower, you can’t expect the flower to remain beautiful for very long if it is severed from its roots. Hence, you can’t expect our rights to be protected if severed from the philosophical roots that produced them. You would think freedom-enhancing positions would be supported without much argument.  But the actions of many governors and legislatures in Democrat-run states, corporate executives, as well as recent statements from the Premier of Canada Justin Trudeau; indicate that many in the West no longer understand the origins of Western morality or the theory of natural rights.  Or maybe, they do understand the origin of these rights, and rather wish to destroy the roots from which they have grown.

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.

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only … which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, and the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:

• New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
• Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty…”
• New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.
• The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.
• The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

• A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See … Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
• B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
• C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings extensively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.

Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die … unless the people are armed.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

• (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
• (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
• (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
• (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis, and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

*****

This article was published by JPFO, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and is reproduced with permission.

Editors Note: Gabbie Giffords is the wife of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and a former liberal Congresswoman from southern Arizona. Kelly, who is making every effort to appear to be a moderate Democrat, is actually a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment. Don’t be fooled. Conversely, his Republican opponent Blake Masters is a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. If you believe in Second Amendment rights and the rest of the Bill of Rights is important, support Blake Masters.

Progressive Democrats are advancing a multi-prong attack on personal safety. They have let huge numbers of dangerous felons out of prison ostensibly because of Covid, they want to put fewer people in prison supposedly because of “racial equity”. They promote prosecutors who will not work to put criminals in prison, weaken criminal statutes,  reduce or eliminate bail, push for early release, and strive to both defund and hamstring the work of local police. The results in many Democrat-run cities are obvious: widespread carnage and lawlessness. Thus leaving citizens more exposed than ever to violent criminals, they seek to confiscate or restrict access to firearms by citizens. In a crisis, the citizen is the first responder, and cannot rely on the government. If Democrats get your guns, you will be defenseless against the Democrat crime wave.  Arizona must not return Mark Kelly to the US Senate. He is just too dangerous to our safety and our Constitutional rights. It is Florida today, and tomorrow, it will be Arizona.

One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of the criminals and paid so little attention to their victims. Thomas Sowell

Gabbie Giffords is taking aim at the Gunshine State.

In a press release issued this week, she announced the creation of Giffords Florida, which she described as “a new initiative dedicated to supporting candidates for local, state, and federal office in the Sunshine State who have the courage to fight gun violence.”

According to the release, this is Giffords “first and only state-specific political initiative,” as well as the “largest bilingual gun safety political program focused entirely on Florida.”

Giffords, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has more than $5 million in assets. Their law center, located in San Francisco, has more than $10 million.

Giffords bankrolled their new Florida office with $1 million, which they say they will spend on “endorsing candidates with strong records on gun safety, helping get out the vote for gun safety candidates, conducting research about Floridians’ views on gun violence prevention measures.”

Much of their efforts and money will be spent in Miami-Dade, promoting a slate of anti-gun candidates Giffords calls its “gun safety champions.”

Giffords endorsed Democrat Janelle Perez for Florida’s Senate District 38, which consists of part of Miami-Dade county.

According to her website, Perez, a political newcomer, holds extreme anti-gun views, including the licensing of gun owners.

“Much like driving a car requires a license, Janelle supports license requirements for owning a gun to keep our community safe,” her website states. It does not draw a distinction between owning a firearm, which is a constitutional right, and operating a motor vehicle, which is not.

Perez also supports a ban on “military-style assault rifles,” increased background checks “for every gun sold in the state of Florida,” and a ban on “modifications that increase the rate of fire.”

In a written statement, Perez does not appear to know the difference between constitutional carry, which Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-dominated state legislature support, and open carry.

“Our Governor and radical Republicans in the state Legislature have committed to passing open carry next year – putting our children, our community, and our future at risk for preventable gun violence,” Perez said in a statement. “When elected to the Florida Senate, I vow to fight for the kind of responsible, commonsense gun safety measures supported by the majority of Americans that protect us all.”

Giffords Florida steering committee consists of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, State Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, and others. The committee is chaired by former Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

*****

This article was published by the Second Amendment Foundation and is reproduced with permission.