Update no.1013

 Update from the Sunland

No.1013

7.6.21 – 13.6.21

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

            To all,

 

As reported in last week’s Update [1012], I reported the judicial ruling of Judge Roger Thomas Benitez in the case of Miller v. Bonta [USDC SDCA Case No.: 3:19-cv-01537-BEN (JLB) (2021)] [1012].  I completed my reading and study of this case.  The judge declared California’s 32-year-old, Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA) [18.5.1989] an unconstitutional infringement on the 2^nd Amendment rights of the state’s residents.  The AWCA prohibits a list of firearms “declared to be assault weapons” by their appearance, e.g. pistol grip, collapsible stock, et cetera.

Just a little FYI at this point: The federal “assault weapons” ban {Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban) [108 Stat. 1997] was included as Subtitle A, Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [PL 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796; 13.9.1994]} expired by law 10 years hence [2004].

I have a few overarching observations. First, while I may not like or appreciate Judge Benitez’s writing style and somewhat cavalier use of language in presenting his reasoning, I agree with his conclusion. The California AWCA is unconstitutional and should have been struck down years ago. Second, even Judge Benitez falls victim to the common misnomer. He does not maintain rigor in his implied meaning of the words by his usage. Assault weapons are distinguishable from other similar or identical looking firearms by one key, central function—the ability to fire automatically, i.e., multiple shots with a single trigger pull. The AWCA does not make that distinction. Just another little FYI here: Automatic weapons have been outlawed in the United States since 1934 {National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236]}; that law has not stopped bad guys from acquiring and using automatic weapons.

Judge Benitez observed by the evidence, “To summarize, the average rate of mass shootings with assault weapons (sic) in California has not changed in the thirty years since the assault weapon ban was enacted.” In essence, the AWCA did nothing other than criminalize the possession of a class of firearms for regular, peaceful, law-abiding resident.  Why?  The answer is simple.  The prohibition does NOT address the root cause(s) of mindless gun violence—only an emotional reaction to a symptom.  We can hope that someday rational logic and reasonable balanced action comes to this issue. The last line of the Judge Benitez ruling in the Miller v. Bonta ruling represents my assessment.  “Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear modern firearms.” I agree with his conclusion.  However, I think the concluding statement erroneously overstates the basis for the conclusion.  The right to bear arms is a constitutional provision established by men.  Inalienable rights—Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—exceed even the Constitution.  Among those inalienable rights is our fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. Several state officials indicated the ruling would be appealed, of course.

For everyone who was outraged at Judge Benitez ruling, let us have a more productive conversation about the root causes of the behavior that offends us and violates the common good in the public domain. Using a Band-Aid in an attempt to close a gaping wounds will not and cannot work to heal the wound. Such an injury requires medical grade treatment and suturing. I am all in favor of and supportive of doing far more as a society to deal with and treat the root causes of firearm violence. I am not supportive of any kneejerk, emotional response to the symptoms; I advocate for a comprehensive effort to address the root cause(s). Prohibition for everyone to deal with the wrongdoing by a few is not the answer.  I understand the urge, but I remain convinced prohibition is never the correct path in dealing with some morally objectionable behavior. We must resist the urge for prohibition if we hope to maintain (or rather return to) a free society.

A distantly related footnote: I have submitted a manuscript to my publisher for consideration that deals with this overarching phenomenon.  In my novel, the issue is drug consumption—the so-called war on drugs.  They very same phenomenon applies to firearms.  The vast majority of firearm owners are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who utilize their weapons in a safe, lawful, respectful manner.  Prohibition of an entire class of firearms for all citizens because people do not like them, or fear them, or resent what a few deranged people do with them is wrong.

 

I insert here a query this week from our middle son.  “Question – If the Founding Fathers could see America 200+ years later, do they ever write the 2^nd Amendment?” I will offer a few general comments and then a specific answer.

With respect to this question, the Founding Fathers were concerned about several broad matters that led to the creation of the 2^nd Amendment.  One, they documented considerable apprehension regarding the potential influence on governance of a large standing Army.  Concomitantly, they also recognized the need for a robust collective defense system. The solution to find balance between these conflicting aspects was a reserve force of distributed state militias that could be rapidly called up to national service. The system has been exercised many times in our history, thus the words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . “ Two, they were deeply concerned about the tyranny of a willful majority as well as the tyranny of power in the hands of flawed men. They stated in the Declaration, “. . . mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” They saw the need, but they also recognized that an armed citizenry was the only mechanism to deal with a tyrannical government. Three, while they all believed in the basis of law and checks & balances of their construct of governance, they envisioned an engaged citizenry to deal with anomalies that would invariably happen over time. Whether we have achieved that state is debatable, but I think they truly believed in We, the People.  Four, the right to bear arms was not in the original Constitution. It was added in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) three years after the ratification of the original Constitution. They saw the Constitution as the basis for the federal government—responsibilities, authorities, and boundaries. They also recognized that there had to be protections, minimums if you will, for all citizens as part of the bulwark against the potential tyranny of the government. In that belief, they knew the citizens had to have the means to fulfill their obligations to a free, peaceful, secure, representative Republic.

That said, I think the Founding Father would be appalled by the senseless violence we see today, and they would see what is happening in our society as an abandonment of our founding principles.  Of course, I think they would never have anticipated the Civil War, the lawlessness of the Wild West, and certainly not foreseen the insurrection of January 6^theven in their worst nightmares. Citizens turning on each other with firearms in lethal exchanges does not show up in their reasoning. Those men 250 years ago were very insightful regarding human nature and the demands of democratic governance, but I am not so sure they would see the root cause(s) of the gun violence we see today. Seeing what exists today might have amended their words, but I do not think it would have been sufficient for them to abandon a citizen’s right to bear arms.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 

I listened intently to the CNN program AC360° Special: “Barack Obama – On Fatherhood, Leadership and Legacy” with Anderson Cooper, broadcast on Monday the 7^th. Boiling down the whole hour program to a basic observation, I was reminded in graphic terms what an articulate, fit, intelligent, knowledgeable, compassionate human being he is, especially when compared to the buffoon who succeeded him. Obama was very careful, effusive and candid about his support of the Becoming A Man (BAM) program intended to improve citizenship and parenting. Taken in this form, if I must choose this or that, there is not a sliver of doubt in my choice. 

 

Vice President Harris flew off on her first foreign mission.  I watched parts of Vice President Harris visit to Central American countries and listened to her various speeches and public statements.  Her objective was to understand the root cause of the Central American migration that challenges our borders and stresses our immigration control system (such as it is). She stumbled on the question of whether she has visited the border. It was a crude and unsophisticated effort to distract and deflect from the vice president’s mission.  She could have handled the question better, but the reality is she was correct; her mission was focused on the root cause(s), not the symptoms (border).  Of course, the right-wing media wants to diminish the importance of the vice president’s mission. At the end of the day, I thought she did an admirable job on a proper assignment; she was far closer to the root cause(s) of the border immigration crisis than the previous administration ever was.

 

President Biden also took his first foreign trip as well for the G7 Summit, a NATO conference, and the meeting with Russian dictator Putin in Geneva.  Just the visual imagery alone is monumentally different from what we endured and apologized for in the last four years.

So far, I think the president has done exceptionally well on the international stage. I have seen no signs of the “Ugly American Syndrome” we, and the world, endured during the last administration.

For those who may not recall, here is a URL for one of many video clips of the same incident on 25.May.2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xeCg0hCFiA

The president has a NATO conference next week as well as the summit conference with Russia’s Putin, so there will be more to this story.

 

For those who may doubt the existence of institutional racism in the United States, I strongly urge you to watch the PBS documentary “Tulsa: The Fire and the Forgotten” that aired on 31.May.2021—the 100^th anniversary of the Tulsa, Oklahoma, massacre of an uncounted number of American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. For those interested in history, this is an essential documentary.

 

A group of 117 nurses at Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, filed suit against their employer claiming that they were being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine—Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital [USDC SDTX 4:21-cv-01774].  The nurses argue that they were refusing to be “human guinea pigs.” U.S. District Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes of the Southern District of Texas dismissed the suit outright.

Somehow, they believe they have a right to the job they have, that the job belongs to them.  The action is extraordinary and outrageous in so many ways.  To my knowledge, and I believe the hospital management has made it crystal clear, the hospital is not forcing anyone to take a vaccine they do not want to take.  They are only stating publicly that the hospital’s obligation is to patient treatment and safety, and as such, the inoculation requirement is a condition of employment.

 

Oregon State Representative Michael J. ‘Mike’ Nearman became the first state representative in Oregon history to be expelled from the legislature on 10.June.2021, by a vote of the legislature’s members. All representatives except Nearman voted in favor of his expulsion. He was documented having violated capitol security by enabling protesters access to a secure area of the building. I dare say there are members of Congress who should face the same expulsion for their support of the January 6^th insurrection.

 

I freely and unabashedly confess to my failure to and inadequacy in understanding the term Critical Race Theory (CRT).  The movement has been percolating in conservative conclaves for fifty years.  Who knew?  For the uninitiated, like me, CRT is an academic movement in the United States seeking to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice. Critical race theory examines social, cultural and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. All that sounds good and reasonable until we translate those innocuous words into practical terms. In reality, CRT endeavors to forbid teaching about white privilege, institutional racial bias, et cetera, in public schools. The social conservative movement cannot be ignored. We must pay attention. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1012:

Comment to the Blog:

“I’ll skip most of the virus stuff, but Dr. Fauci (or Faust) brought it on himself. He has no clue about human behavior or effective communication, or there is something wrong in his mind.

“I have seen a brief quote of the judge who overturned (for now) California’s assault weapons ban calling the AR-15 “ordinary” and “sporting” and stating that it was useful for home defense. I disagree.”

My response to the Blog:

You are not alone in vilifying Doctor Fauci. He is not a psychologist or orator; he is a virologist.  His expertise is not politics.  Let us not forget that politicians and the Press pushed him to be the de facto face and spokesman for the pandemic response; he did not seek what has come to him.  In many respects, he tried mightily to confine his words to his expertise, but he was not trained or practiced in dealing with Media scrutiny that engulfed him.  He is a virologist, not a politician.  The vilification of Doctor Fauci is just plain wrong; he does not deserve what he is being subjected to by primarily the far right.  He is in the position he is, and I, for one, resent the attacks on his professional status.  I laud his measured handling of the myriad attacks on him personally.

I will have to save my opinion until I finish my reading of the ruling.  If we continue this exchange, I will eventually be able to respond.  Until then, my response may have to wait until Update no.1013 hits the wire.

 . . . Round two:

“Dr. Fauci's failings have nothing to do with politics or politicians.  If he's employed as an expert on public health, shouldn't he have some inkling of how the public will respond to his edicts?  Or at least how the virus will respond to them?”

 . . . my response to round two:

I understand and appreciate your ire . . . truly.  He is certainly not without fault.  We are all flawed.  What you are describing is an attribute that all doctors should possess, especially and even more so a doctor in a leadership role like Doctor Fauci.  He deserves criticism.  However, I think early mistakes have colored everything hence.  When he said early on that masks are not necessary was his biggest mistake, but respectfully, I think he fell victim to the denials of the [person who shall no longer be named].  I believe the early no mask statement was a political action, not scientific, and he should not have taken the bait; but, he did.  His confrontations with Senator Paul were spot on the money, IMHO.

 . . . Round three:

“I believe the early ‘no mask less than N95’ was in fact accurate. More importantly, he failed to foresee the ‘unintended’ consequences of the lockdowns and nobody made any attempt at a united national response. Nope, not excusing Fauci as having ordinary human failings.”

 . . . my response to round three:

I do believe we are confusing things here. Doctor Fauci is a medical doctor specialist in a scientific advisory position. He had and has no authority beyond the influencing of the political leaders and the public.  It is my impression, accurate or not, that he was caught in a vice during those early days—the proverbial between a rock and hard spot.  He knew we faced a highly infectious respiratory virus with “just in time” PPE stocks across virtually our entire health care system and a president who was publicly insisting “no problem, nothing to see here folks” and not taking aggressive national action.  A unified national response was the president’s responsibility, not a director at the National Institutes of Health. You (and anyone else) can not like the guy for any reason(s) you wish but blaming Doctor Fauci for the grotesque failings of the [person who shall no longer be named] is just wrong.  The president was the single man responsible for the preparedness and action of the federal government.  Let us put the blame where the blame belongs.

 . . . Round four:

“Dr. Fauci's words and deeds played a central part in our flawed response to the virus. Save the apologetics for religious settings.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Yes, they did, but what we do not yet know is, to what degree was he pressured by the administration to say what he did.  I hope someday we will know why they did what they did, but that day is not today.

“Religious settings”?  What do you mean?

I acknowledge that you do not like Doctor Fauci.  I do not share your view and opinion on that issue.  ‘Nuf said.

 . . . Round five:

“Feel free to look up ‘apologetics.’”

 . . . my response to round five:

“My query was not the word apologetics but rather religious settings. I know what the words mean, but I want to understand your usage.”

 . . . Round six:

“Defense of beliefs without evidence is apologetics to me.”

 . . . my response to round six:

Wow!  That is quite the accusation.  I suppose “without evidence” depends upon how we define evidence and scientific method.  I could make a comparable accusation, but I will not.  You have been quite clear about your opinion of Doctor Fauci; that shall have to suffice until you decide to amend your opinion.  I will not be holding my breath on that one.  It is an interesting footnote that Doctor Fauci has his critics and detractors on both the left and the right; they condemn him for doing too much and not enough.  Such is life these days.

 

Another contribution:

“Thanks for the blog, sorry I haven’t added for some time. Should we call it Covid exhaustion. Let’s get our real lives working again and very soon. We’re expecting a total release from the grip of lockdown but the latest of what could be endless varieties of this damned bug is trying to gain a hold in some parts of the U/K. Fortunately the jabs seem to be working for the majority. 

“Do you think Cap that we will ever find where and who launched this calamitous and appalling disease on us all-and I mean us all. There are still countless countries across the globe that have barely started a vaccination programme.

“If humanity is to survive this cataclysm then we must fight this together as a human race.”

My reply:

No worries, my friend.  There is no obligation or expectation—only an open forum and invitation whenever the urge strikes. COVID exhaustion hits us all.  Things are returning to normal—not normal yet but headed in the correct direction.  The day has finally come when we enter a restaurant or store, we ask, “Are masks required?”  That is a new phenomenon—refreshingly new.

The reality is, the longer we provide a fertile host environment (unvaccinated citizens), the more the virus will be allowed to mutate into variations, some eventually being more virulent and fatal to humans.  If there was one lesson learned from the abysmal pandemic response of the United States, it is just that; our best hope of beating a virus is nipping it in the bud.  Because of the inept, ill-advised, uninformed, foolish actions of the [person who shall no longer be named] early on, the virus was allowed to sink deep roots in our human population.  That reality cost us nearly 600,000 lives and untold economic injury so far.  A laissez-faire, every man for himself approach to any pandemic situation is absolutely, categorically and emphatically WRONG . . . in every possible way. The [person who shall no longer be named] shall forever be condemned for his failure.

Because of the reality on the ground, I suspect we may never factually establish the identity and viral vector of Patient-0 in the COVID-19 pandemic.  The PRC government has been characteristically secretive.  In an obtuse manner, we must admire the effectiveness of the PRC in controlling access . . . just enough to give it an air of credibility, but never enough to truly know.  I think the only thing that will allow us to know factually the source will be removal of the Communist Party of the PRC—not likely any time soon.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)