Our children should not be political pawns.

Below is a copy of an email I recently received from my son’s school.

A message from MEADOWBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL

Dear Meadowbrook Parents:

As many of you know, the tragic incident in Parkland Florida on February 14 has begun a student movement that includes a 17-minute National School Walkout on March 14, starting at 10:00 AM.  This day also corresponds with our previously scheduled minimum day which will not change.  Our goal is to provide a safe, neutral environment that honors student voice and action, as we balance our efforts and responsibilities to uphold district attendance policies, school safety and the First Amendment Rights of our students and staff.

I have heard from various student leaders on campus, who wish to participate, listening to their ideas and collective efforts on ensuring their voice with this issue is heard. We realize that not all of our students want to participate and we want to honor each and every student.

At Meadowbrook Middle School, students who would like to assemble at 10:00 a.m. can do so in the Quad or the lower fields of our campus.  Our administrative team will be present to supervise the gathering to ensure we meet our responsibility to keep students safe while they participate in this nationwide event.

Students will not be penalized academically for participating in the gathering. Tests, quizzes, nor presentations will be administered during this time and there will not be any make up work required that results from this 17 minute time period. However, if your student elects to leave campus as part of the “walk out” and does not return, PUSD Board polices regarding absences and/or truancies will be implemented.

As a school, it is important to honor each student by remaining neutral on the issue.  I hope this information equips you with talking points to discus with your student.  Should you have any follow up questions, please feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you,

Dr. Miguel Carrillo

Proud Principal

_____________________________________________________________

Ok… so what is this really about? I’ve seen other parents post similar emails on FaceBook. Why are schools allowing this nonsense? Aren’t they charged with providing an education to students? I could understand this if it were something high school students were doing on their own time, but middle school students? This stinks to high heaven as some social cause promoted by liberal school administrators and complicit teachers.

Most middle school students have no idea who they are politically. They’re nothing more than little cookie cutouts of their parents. Sure, some kids are politically aware but most are not. They’re certainly incapable of organizing such a ‘walk-out’ in time to commemorate the one moth anniversary of the Parkland school shooting. These students are being used as pawns in something they cannot truly understand. It saddens me and lessens the respect that I had for teachers and principals alike. Our children are better than this… and our educators should be ashamed of themselves.

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

A lot of hysteria surrounds the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida. Could more have been done to protect the students? Should more laws be passed to control or ban weapons? Why wasn’t this shooter questioned by the FBI after having been reported many times in the preceding months? Why did the armed resource officer refuse to enter the building and confront the active shooter? So many questions!

I really don’t want to dwell over all the ‘if’s, ands, or buts’. I would rather address the 2nd amendment as it relates to this story. People are calling for gun bans because of this shooting event. Most are quick to say it’s ‘for the children’. Really, now??? If they’re so concerned about the children, how come they’re not calling for a ban on abortions? Methinks it’s more about disarming law abiding citizens than about ‘saving the children’.

My personal opinion on this subject is simple… The 2nd amendment is absolute. It cannot be amended, ‘interpreted’, or otherwise watered down. This is because it contains the language ‘shall not be infringed’.

People will tend to argue that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has the ability to rule on the constitutionality of our laws. I disagree. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant SCOTUS this right. The SCOTUS took this ability via Marbury v Madison (1803). In essence, the SCOTUS has been acting unconstitutionally since the time of this ruling. Here’s another point that should be mentioned… Congress may grant the SCOTUS additional powers, to include judicial review, but hasn’t up to this point. Why haven’t they done so? Hard to speculate, but it could it could be as simple as all the other SCOTUS rulings coming under review.

Here’s my line in the sand… the 2nd amendment is absolute, period. Is it a good idea to let mentally ill people etc.,  possess weapons? Absolutely not… but that isn’t up to me. The 2nd states ‘shall not be infringed’. That means we don’t have the ability to deny another citizen their constitutional right to bear arms.

Orlando Shooting

On June 12th, 2016… Omar Mateen went into a gay bar in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 people… wounded another 53. Mateen was a registered democrat and a muslim. But do you think the media and our illustrious president called this a terrorist attack? No, they refuse to use the term. Instead they doubled down and blamed the United States and then called for more restrictions of our 2nd amendment.

We’ve become a nation of idiots being led by fools.

9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment

1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

 

The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

 

The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p. 6).

3. Every citizen is the militia

 

To further clarify regarding the use of the word “militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

 

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56).

5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment

 

Interest-balancing means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don’t interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn’t mean that it is unlimited, the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

 

You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion

 

You may find this one comical, but it’s in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn’t an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).

8. The Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time”

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn’t unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What is protected are weapons “in common use of the time” (p.55). This doesn’t mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). The Court’s criteria includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by American society” (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans” (p. 58).

9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent

 

The Court didn’t rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” (p. 55).

They further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p. 56). A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling.

Update from Magpul’s FaceBook page

 

Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.

It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.

Guns Suppliers To Leave Anti-2nd Amendment States

Regarding LEO Sales

March 1st, 2013

 

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds.  After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

 

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

 

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution – specifically the second and fourteenth amendments – as it applies to all citizens.

 

Richard Fitzpatrick

President/CEO – Founder

Magpul Industries

Two edged sword cuts both ways.

Company will move if Colorado approves gun control

ERIE, Colo. –  Unnoticed amid dozens of tract homes in the Denver suburbs, a nondescript industrial building is suddenly in the middle of the gun control debate in Colorado.

The company, started in an ex-Marine’s basement in 1999, is in a standoff with Colorado Democrats who want to restrict the size of ammunition magazines after mass shootings in a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school. Magpul has issued lawmakers an ultimatum potentially worth millions: Pass the bill, and the business will move.

It’s a bold threat from a company that, by its founder’s admission, has distanced itself from politics.

“The people who wrote the bill didn’t even know we existed in the state,” said Richard Fitzpatrick, the founder and president of the company, one of the country’s largest producers of magazines and other firearm accessories for gun enthusiasts, law enforcement and the military.

The warning from Erie-based Magpul underscores the political pressures Democrats are weighing as they advance the strictest gun-control measures lawmakers have ever considered in a state that still prides its frontier spirit. Other gun-control proposals include universal background checks, a ban on concealed firearms on campuses, and holding assault-weapon sellers and owners liable for shootings.

Opponents need only three Democrats in the Senate to vote no against the magazine proposal to defeat it, and two have already said they won’t support the bill. But most Democrats are not budging.

“When you have the means available to you at every single corner to commit a horrendous act, we will continue to see what we’ve seen, which is the status quo, where unfortunately gun violence and violence in general is prevalent in our communities,” said Democratic Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, who will be considering the magazine bill on Monday in the Judiciary Committee. The bill has already passed the House, and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has promised to sign it.

The bill would make it a crime to have magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, with a stricter limit of eight for shotguns. People who own larger magazines now would be allowed to keep them.

As the debate unfolds, states have made overtures to Magpul, including offering to pay their moving costs. The company won’t name the states, but Wyoming and Texas have expressed interest in netting the $85 million the company projects it will spend in Colorado next year in payments to suppliers, subcontractors and service providers. Magpul said the move would also impact its 200 employees, plus an additional 400 who work for suppliers and subcontractors.

“It’s not so much, `Oh, these people are making something that’s going to cost Colorado lives.’ We truly believe this bill will do nothing. It’s a feel-good measure,” Fitzpatrick said. “But these (workers) will be directly affected.”

Fitzpatrick said the bill’s requirement that all magazines have serial numbers adds enough production costs to make it worth leaving. He also said smaller magazines can be easily connected to each other — magazines can be hooked up to make a 60-round magazine, for example — and the company fears it would legally liable if people were to do that.

Democrats have tried to ease Magpul’s fears, amending the bill to make clear that the company can still manufacture magazines of any size, as long as they’re sold only out-of-state, to the military or law enforcement.

Republicans who oppose the restrictions argue Democrats are sending mixed messages about gun control to keep a company in Colorado.

“It’s being hypocritical. These things are either bad or they’re not,” said Republican Rep. Brian DelGrosso.

Magpul argues that limiting magazine sizes will not reduce gun violence, and that criminals will find ways around laws, including going to other states to buy larger magazines. Magpul officials note that some of their products sometimes end up in California, which limits magazine sizes to 10 rounds.

“The solutions that people want to bring up are hardware solutions,” said Magpul Director Duane Liptak. “And they want to talk about this physical piece of equipment that’s not inherently evil. It’s not inherently good. It’s a tool like anything else. It can be used for good, and it can be used improperly by people who have evil in their hearts.”

Supporters of the proposals say Magpul is bluffing and that a move would prove too costly.

“I don’t think Magpul is about to pull out,” said Bill Hoover, 83, whose grandson AJ Boik was among the 12 killed in the theater shooting. “It’s going to cost them a bundle of money.”

Fitzpatrick said his company is serious.

“It’s not really a threat. It’s a promise,” he said.

Sens. Lois Tochtrop and Cheri Jahn are the two Democrats voting against the bill. Both say they don’t believe it addresses the main problem — mental health — and Tochtrop also cited Magpul’s potential departure.

“I think we really need to address that problem. Look at the cause, not the tool,” Tochtrop said.