Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

In the wake of SCOTUS ruling that you have the right to carry a gun in public for self defense, and not to have to prove “just cause” to any public official to exercise your Right protected in the Second Amendment, New York communists have gone crazy.

They hastily drafted a ‘law’ with many new infringements to circumvent SCOTUS! None of which will pass judicial muster when challenged. I will look at one. These communists decided that a license applicant will have to give a list of all his/her social media handles, so that officials can see what kinds of things are posted, and they will determine if the person is a good character or not.

So not only are they infringing on your 2A Right, but they will also use your 1A Right as a weapon against you if they don’t like your opinions that you posted! Who will get to decide that? Sounds like censorship of one Right to cancel another Right by some shadowy ‘official’.

Oh, they also require for you to turn in all social media handles of anyone living in your house and their contact information, so they can check their opinions on social media. If someone in your home says something ‘officials’ might not like, they will deny you your license because you probably think alike….

Overreach? YES. Unconstitutional? YES. Stand up in court? NO. These communists will be learning very many costly court lessons soon. The so-called law they threw together is far more onerous, I only gave an example here.

Your Freedoms are ALWAYS under attack! Pay attention and fight back, or you will lose them!

Mark Shean, 6-3-2022

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. Our Second Amendment.

The ‘left’ always says/claims the Second Amendment was written for the Militia only.

When the Constitution was written we did not have private armies.

The PREREQUISITE to a well regulated militia was for the individual, the People, to keep and bear arms, and therefore constitute that militia, males from age 16-60.

Shall Not Be Infringed referred to the Peoples Right to have and keep firearms not being infringed upon. That was the clearly understood prerequisite.

Happy 4th!

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.

I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

Great day for the Second Amendment as SCOTUS rules in favor of concealed carry in New York case. Justice Clarance Thomas gave the deciding brief. In part:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees”.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officials some ‘special need’.”

My NOTE: This will now impact many constitutionally dysfunctional states that dishonor our Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular. The precedence is now set, let the pro Second Amendment lawsuits BEGIN!!

When Americans send any representative to DC, or to state legislature, Americans expect their public servants, (that is what they are) to adhere to the Constitution, the entire Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, Americans abide by it and expect their public servants, that they gave their permission to represent them to abide by it. If public servants forget this trust, and dishonor their oath, that is when American citizens need to recall them, they are no longer worthy of our trust. Use that power!! That will be the only way to stop rouge politicians.

Mark Shean


“Shall not be infringed” is not negotiable. The oath breaking political career hacks in DC do not have the Constitutional authority without 2/3rds of ALL state legislatures ratification to change something/anything in our Constitution! We are under no obligation to ‘obey/comply’! Put that Constitutional FACT about the Second Amendment and ‘gun control’ in your pipe and smoke it!

Mark Shean

States under Article 1, section 10, Clause 3: the Compact Clause
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” This means the states being invaded by illegals can act on their own. Article 4 section 4 specifically points out the federal government’s responsibility is to protect all states from invasion. The Federal government has intentionally failed to stop the invasion, so the states can do it without the Federal government!

Funny, when bad/twisted/demented/evil domestic actors, and there are many, attack innocent people, the government immediately wants to disarm all honest citizenry.

I have to be convinced that this strategy would actually work first.

So, with that thought in mind, I would like to see our government, (and any others that care to follow) lead by example and disarm themselves, as an example of how, once doing so, that the bad actors on the world stage will see this and accordingly stop all aggressive behaviors in response. BEFORE I give up my Second Amendment and or Sovereignty first. I’ll be waiting…

I have said this for years, zero school shootings in Israel, because teachers there are not sheep waiting to be slaughtered, they are armed and know how to use guns and are not afraid to use them!! Bad guys know this. American teachers for the majority, are ‘woke’ morons that are useless, pushing an anti-Constitution pro socialist agenda down our children’s throats. It is far past the time to home school and give your children an education instead of the indoctrination they get now! Their safety and future depend on it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday told President Trump that Russia’s military destroyed a multitude of foreign bioweapon facilities that had been running carte blanche in Ukraine until his military took decisive and strategic action to rid the corrupt nation of what he called satanic influence, a Mar-a-Lago source told Real Raw News.

As much of the nation sat glued to televisions and computers watching the illegitimate president’s State of the Union Address—in a room half-filled with imposters—Putin and Trump, from his Mar-a-Lago command center, spent a 20-minute phone call once more discussing the Russian leader’s true reasons for mounting an assault on Ukrainian sovereignty.

Putin spent the first half of the call updating Trump on his efforts to destroy Western-sponsored biolabs in Ukraine, which he called a “blight” on a once beautiful landscape. According to Putin, who in 7 days has become the world’s vilest villain, supplanting Xi Jinping, the Russian military had obliterated the following: 11 U.S. State Department/Department of Defense-funded bioweapon facilities; 4 German toxic chemical research centers; 3 Swiss nanotechnology centers; 1 French bio-tech consortium; and 3 Israeli labs that were feverishly working to weaponize airborne rabies. Additionally, Putin claimed his forces had carried out precision strikes on mobile (18-wheelers unsafely retrofitted into makeshift labs) biolabs attempting to transport lethal pathogens across the Ukrainian border into Poland. He told Trump that Russian SU-35 planes used laser-guided munitions to eliminate the roving labs.

Moreover, Putin said his fighter planes had destroyed a Biden-owned, 200-acre villa 35km west of Kyiv. He insisted that Biden was deeply enmeshed in Ukraine’s criminal enterprises, and promised Trump that he’d soon give the world “all the evidence it needs.” Furthermore, Putin contended that “many people within Biden’s demonic den” profited massively from the “conflagration of evil” that had rooted itself on Ukrainian soil. Twenty of Biden’s foreign cohorts, Putin said, were killed in the attack.

Additionally, Putin continued to denounce stories of his insanity as Western propaganda, and refuted tales of mass defections, or of his convoys running short of fuel and food. Also, he rebuked Western assertions that his troops were committing war crimes by indiscriminately bombing and shelling innocent civilians.

“President Trump, you know what fake news is. This is all fake news. Your media shows the same three pictures of videos over and over again, 24-hours a day, to make false claims I am doing some genocide. Your country’s own intelligence sources admit I’ve sent only 75 planes and no UAVs. If I wanted to conquer Ukraine, I’d send 1,000 planes. You know what real invasion looks like. Go look video footage of America ‘Shock and Awe’ in Iraq. That’s an invasion. I could if I want to, but that’s not my objective,” Putin reportedly told Trump.

The second part of the call focused on Putin’s attempts to find, isolate, and wipe out child trafficking covens that had been running with impunity in Ukraine, an operation that began after Russian Special Forces, while searching for weapons of mass destruction, stumbled upon a brick building filled with captive children.

“What Putin told Trump—his people found another three locations, each with 25-60 kids inside. None were American, apparently, but still they were from a lot of different countries. Two of the three, at least Putin said, were guarded by Ukrainians, and his Spetznas killed them and freed the kids. Then they set explosive and detonated the camps. Much has been made of Russia killing five people in an attack on a television station in Kyiv. If Putin’s telling the truth, and I’m certainly not saying he is, the Ukrainian government and child trafficking cartels were using that spot as a means of communication,” our source said.

Asked how much faith Trump has in Putin’s overall honesty, our source said: “Trump takes nothing for granted, he measures everything carefully. We know at least two American children held hostage in Ukraine are now on their way home. Trump is always evaluating and calculating what’s going on.”

3-2-2022 by RRN, Real Raw News