Guest Column
by Michael A. Schwartz
In case you missed it last week, Tommy Knepper and I were on Carl DeMaio’s KOGO 600AM radio show to announce the formation of a committee and ballot measure in the city of Carlsbad that will secure a permit for Lisa Gunther’s indoor gun range!
Politicians are attacking our Second Amendment rights in our own backyard, yet again, and it’s time to take a stand.
In May, the Carlsbad City Council voted to deny a permit for an indoor gun range. On a 4-1 vote the Council cited that gun ranges are not “recreational use” and therefore cannot be built in the industrial park where Lisa Gunther owns her warehouse. Here’s my prior Rostra coverage of that City Council meeting.
If a family-friendly, indoor range isn’t recreational, then what is it?
Council Member Keith Blackburn, the only dissenting vote, told the Coast News, “In this particular case, I view this as kinda simple, that in my opinion, this is a recreational activity.”
Enough is enough. Our committee has been formed, we have retained an attorney, and we are gathering more and more support every day. There is an ever growing army of grassroots supporters anxious to take the matter to the people via the initiative process. Once passed, the ballot initiative will change the Carlsbad zoning code to include gun ranges in this industrial area!
Those of us who support the Second Amendment and support small business are tired of government not following its own rules, so it is time for us all to get involved! This ballot initiative is how to make a difference in a very real way. We will send a clear message to the county that you can’t continue to infringe on our rights without consequence.
We need to gather 10,000 signatures in order to qualify the initiative. Here is how you can help:
1. Visit our website: CarlsbadCitizens.org
2. Make a donation: There are no contribution limits. Please consider giving $5000, $2500, $1000, $500, $250, or $100. All amounts help.
3. Sign up to help us gather signatures.
4. Share this on Facebook and via email today!
With your help we will win!
Individual and Corporate Checks are accepted. Please make your check out to “Carlsbad Citizens for Responsible Government” and mail your check to PO Box 27227, San Diego, CA 92198, or visit the website CarlsbadCitizens.org to donate.
Thank you!
*****
Schwartz is the Volunteer Regional Coordinator for Gun Owners of California
Comments 32
I will never understand why the government impedes a business like this. The left complains all the time about irresponsible gun ownership. This would help the people exercise our 2nd amendment responsibly.
Monica,
It was four Republicans who voted against the gun range.
This is a bad call for Carlsbad. NPR reported previously how Asian tourists love going to gun ranges. Also, Arizonans heavily vacation in Carlsbad. Its a win-win for the community, business owners, and the people of Carlsbad to have a recreational range. Why can’t the council see that?
Good government knows no party.
If you’re a Republican, support this issue because you support gun rights and business.
If you’re a Democrat, support this issue because it’s a woman owned business and you’re tired of hypocrites not caring about the voters and not being fair.
If you’re an independent, support this issue because you’re tired of politicians playing these silly, expensive games rather than doing what they’re supposed to do while in office.
If you’re a freedom loving American, support this initiative because it protects the God-given rights of private property ownership, self defense, and self-determination.
It IS important to realize that local Republican officeholders too often disrespect liberty, property rights and fundamental fairness. The only effective defense offered by their GOP apologists is the lame “Democrats are worse.”
True, but lame nevertheless.
A noble fight!
But eventually, sadly, a losing one. See, the same moral decay and woeful political and societal ignorance that brought us the decisions of late regarding Obama Care and SSM are the same decay and ignorance displayed by tens of thousands of SDC soccer mommies and South-of-the 8 pseudo-sophisticated latte drinking urbane-metrosexuals, both having no clue or care as to why we even have a 2A and think guns are “icky”. They now are thinking maybe Ms. Clinton is on to something regarding guns…”its the guns”….now who wants an icky, anachronistic, mainly white male culture of aggression, animal butchering, and war-mongoring to danger the kids in their neighborhood? These are the same voters that have no issue with SCOTUS shaving off the edges of the constitution and literally changing the meaning of words in some altered Orwellian reality to push OC and SSM through the legal grommet, so why should the curtailing or altering of the 2A be any different?
What does “well-regulated” mean anyways…I’m sure, in time, like marriage, life, and “tax”, SCOTUS will have ample opportunity to “define” that too…
Many of you on this comment stream were so vociferous in your support of the SSM issue, so I’m sure you can sympathize with the activism and support for more reasonable, sensible, tolerant cultural and political evolutionary change…right? Shouldn’t kids be abe to live in a gun-free/violence free atmosphere? Why are men so enamored with guns as a soceity anyways? “Guns are mean….” is what is taught in elementary school..like “Heather has to daddies..”, perhaps it’s time has come…it’s evolutionary, really.
Perhaps the next projection on the WH facade will be the international sign for ending gun violence; a dove carrying a pistol with the barrel twisted closed..just as SSM has undoubtably made us freer (except for those intolerant Christians…), gun control shall surely make us safer….
FF,
Restricting gun ownership would be taking away a right. Allowing same sex marriage was giving (confirming) a right. Can you see the difference?
HQ,
You mean like taking away the universal right to peace, free of violence and aggression of an old, white, “hillbilly” gun-culture by continuing to allow the out-dated and oppressive 2A? Or are you referring to the rights of the religiously conscience being stripped and being forced to soon suffer the legal and financial penalties for non-compliance of the SSM law for that which they find morally reprehensible and scores of constitutional scholars found unprecedented?
Please clarify as to which “right” can/should be taken away? Let me guess, you’re ok with either…because, hey, got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? Gruber proved that with his complete lying and deliberate disinformation on the OC Act..and David Axelrod admitted BHO lied about his position on SSM..so, which right?
FF,
Let’s try this for your 2A argument,
Gun ownership is to violence and aggression as owning a bottle of tequila is to drunk driving. In both of those examples, the former is legal and the latter is not. Your ownership of a gun does not take away any of my rights. Different story if you get violent with that gun, but we already have laws covering that.
As for marriage, unless you force ME to marry outside of my religious beliefs, your choosing to marry your boyfriend takes away none of my religious rights.
HQ-
The first is reasonable, logical and cogent…if that is the case, then why would you, or any democrat that believes the same way support Ms Clinton for president? She said its “the guns”…this is a common theme in the Democratic Party; most urban inner cities (almost all led by Dem Pols, Chicago being the prime example) virtually ban any legal gun ownership, yet still have hundreds of murders with guns every year…like prohibition, banning alchohol didn’t stop people from getting drunk…but you just adroitly pointed out it isn’t “the guns”…A pro-2A Democrat-..the four-leaf clovers of the modern Dem Party….refreshing…
The second, I’m afraid, you present is a tad less elegant- Already, religious freedom is under the greatest assault this country has witnessed in a generation; photo shops, bakeries, caterers all across the country have been embroiled in the weaponization of the legal system by Gay rights advocates because these merchants were not willing to service a gay wedding or other gay function based on their moral conviction. While the patron was offered in many incidences perfectly suitable, and in some cases, more financially savvy alternatives, the anti-religious mercenaries at the ACLU backed by their glitter-bombing gay shock troops, now sanctioned by the federal government, attempts to financially eviscerate these small business owners solely on their religious convictions. They are entangled in legal fees reaching into the $100K, their livelihoods, their children’s futures and the lives they might or might not lead are all decimated because supporters like you say the “boyfriends” have a right…
The law of unintended consequences, My Friend…that’s what happens when emotion, feeling, and aspiration get politicized, hyperbolized and militarized. Who’s doing the “forcing” now?
FF,
The answer to you first question is simple: I am not a one-issue voter and I do not expect to find any politician who I agree with on every issue. While I disagree with most Democratic politicians when it comes to the second amendment, I disagree with most Republican politicians on many other issues.
As to your second point, I assume you are saying that private business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they think is committing a sin. In that case, a devout Catholic restaurant owner should be able to refuse service to anyone who is divorced, a Jewish tailor should be able to refuse service to anyone who eats pork and a Baptist baker should be able to refuse service to anyone from a mixed (religions) marriage. If that were the (legal) case, then I would agree with you that any business owner should have the legal right to refuse service to a same sex couple. However, I don’t think that is what the law says, is ir?
HQ-
Of course not- If fact, many merchants had already been providing services to the very people that were now insisting they service their gay wedding or event and the same people who were now villifying and persecuting these same merchants that offered to refer and provide alternatives. The issue is not about “sin”. It is about any American having the ability to discern. The free market was just that- The patron is free to discern what service or product they seek, and the merchant [was] free to discern what and how they can provide it. The service was always able to be provided, just who was going to provide it was altered. When the ACLU hyperbolized and militarized the “refusal” scenarios, it became about “discrimination.” Yet, the market provided alternatives, the merchants in most cases displayed no “discrimination”. They discerned that a particular event would not align with their moral conviction. The red hearing touted by gay marriage psuedo-sophisticates is that in civil rights cases involving race, the “aggrieved” party can’t choose another skin color. The “aggrieved” gay patron is always able to choose another merchant. Given the reaction by many companies to the SSM decision, there appears to be no shortages of merchants willing to provide services. Another unintended consequence of the gay marriage Putch is many African-Americans find it insulting that their centuries’ long struggle would be equated to a very small few who have and could make select choices any time it suited them. Skin color was never “a choice” in the true civil rights of Blacks and other racial minorities. Pursuing civil unions or pursuing “gay” marriages in the tradition of the biblical construct (for which ironically the opposition claims is bigoted) was always a choice.
Curious- would you expect the family of a holocaust surviver deli owner to cater a Nazi rally?
FF,
We may disagree about whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, but I am sure we agree that the religion one believes in, getting divorced, eating pork or marrying outside of one’s religious faith are all clearly choices.
If any business refused service to an individual based on any of the above choices, there would certainly be many other businesses ready and willing to provide the same service. Even so, the refusal of service would still be illegal. Why should refusing service to a same sex couple be any different?
FF, there’s a link above where those who find this fight noble can take action by donating rather than just chit chatting about it.
And I’ll be sure to let you know when we need help gathering signatures.
HQ-
I agree, they should not, and many previously did not refuse service to them because they were gay- Many that are being persecuted right now in a weaponized legal battle ground served the same gay people many times before- However, it is now the merchant being forced to serve them for a cause and belief for which they are religiously obligated to forgo. It is not the gay person being forced or refused in this incident; it is the person of faith now being forced to perform a service where previously they had no issue as it did NOT violate their conscience.
I give the Left kudos for perpetrating a false narrative of “persecution” when in fact they and their NKVD-like ACLU proponents twisted and maligned the argument, even going as far as hijacking the Black civil rights experience as a template. They are the ones now telling Christian business owners, – “There’s the closet”…
The very issue they claimed to have fought for, their right to live as they choose and express their (albeit secular) beliefs is the very issue for which they now pressure and in increasing cases persecute Christians.
The bullied have become the Bullies….and they are particularly vicious too…just ask Father Morris from Fox News as he was spat upon by gay rights advocates as he walked down the street.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/28/well-known-priests-amazing-response-after-he-said-two-men-spat-on-him-in-midst-of-nyc-gay-pride-parade/
…but to reel the comment stream back to the 2A issue; I hear the argument a lot from Dems and increasingly from GOP-ers regarding the “one issue” voter spiel…
So, when Ms. Clinton says “it’s the guns”..and she were to determine that the “guns” are the cause of the inner-city and random shooter massacres, and therefor they need to be…[fill in the blank]…”controlled, registered, reduced, removed, banned”…which verb is where you believe it warrants being a “one issue” issue?
Have you or will you as a Liberal Democrat ask the DNC or Ms. Clinton to clarify? Or is it overshadowed by all the other wonderful things she wil do as POTUS?
Michael,
I tip the hat to you on your 2A advocacy….and I have been an advocate for gun rights for decades..but you probably already knew that. 🙂
I’ll engage vehemently if and when the time is warranted. Watched the Patriot last night…always a reminder of how precious all our God-Given rights are…
FF,
I think you are missing my point. I hope it is not intentional.
In the United States of America, it is not legal for a business to deny service to anyone simply because that person is “guilty” of legal actions that happen to be contrary to the religious beliefs of the business owner. Hence my examples of legal actions which are certainly contrary to the religious beliefs of some business owners. I think even you would agree that none of those actions are grounds for the denial of service. Having a same sex spouse is likewise an action that runs contrary to the religious beliefs of some business owners but is likewise not legal justification for the denial of service.
As for the 2016 Presidential race, if I could find a candidate I agreed with on every important issue, I would vote for that person. Since that is unlikely and I find many of the other candidates’ positions on a multitude of issues more repugnant, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton in spite of her position on gun ownership.
HQ- (long but hopefully explanatory)
OK…thank you…however, we appear to missing each other’s points ( and no, it is not intentional)
1. The merchants in most cases were already providing services to alleged aggreived party (the gay patron)
2. When the alleged aggreived party asked for services to provide for a ceremony they found incongruent with their religious beliefs, they offered, again, in most documented cases, suitable and financially viable alternatives.
(this would seem like the reasonable man approach where the “issue” would be civilly solved and both parties are assuaged to their respective satisfaction; patron receives requested service, merchant doesn’t violate conscience)
3. The aggreived party then elected to pursue the service with the merchant they knew to oppose their request based on religious conscience.
4. The aggreived party at that very moment could have elected to accept the offer of the merchant for alternative options for service.
5. The aggreived party then claimed “discrimination” even though no service, not even in previous cases, had the merchant denied them based on sexual orientation..they chose not to provide in the “last” case because the ceremony for which they would either have to “shoot” or serve at, or pass out items/food was going to be at a ceremony at which their deeply held religious beliefs were violated.
Are you suggesting that a Christian merchant must serve a Satanic wedding or some Wiccan Ritual? Shall an athiest be forced to serve at a Billy Graham revival event? Shall a Latino bookstore owner descended from illegal immigrants be forced to host Ann Coulter at his bookstore?
While a good number of highly educated and scholarly legal analysts have debated, and some very prestigous impartial legal scholars profusely calling the decision unprecedented and unconstitutional, at some point reasonable people (which often has nothing to do with jurisprudence) can agree that some situations, like the unintended consequences of federally mandated SSM recognition was unwise, and unwarranted, in addition to being strongly argued as unconstitutional.
In the end, Gay marriage advocates picked this fight..they have been itching for it…what they were not expecting would be the sleeping giant they will have awoken and that there are perhaps tens of millions of people that will never, ever accept the ruling, even it it means civil disobedience. Like Dred Scott, just because SCOTUS decreed it, doesn’t make it moral, ethical, or worthy of adherence. And while we are a nation of laws…laws can be immoral, leading to disaterous results…German Anti Juden laws of the early thirties are a testament to that..read “Bonhoeffer” and you may have a completely different outlook on politically insideous “legal” decisions.
As for Ms. Clinton- More so than her rather ominous phrasology about “the guns”, I am not sure she pases the Commander in Chief test…having lied to those Benghazi families right to their faces at the memorial service, knowing the incredulous “video” mantra falsely peddled by the WH was a contrived and politically convenient narrative (as now confirmed by the email disclosures)…and she was alleged to be friends with AMB Steven’s who was dragged, reportedly sodomized, and left for dead with smoke inhalation as she had ignored countless cables indicating increased terror activity and requests for operational security enhancement …with “friends” like Ms. Clinton,, who needs enemies…
FF,
“Are you suggesting that a Christian merchant must serve a Satanic wedding or some Wiccan Ritual? Shall an atheist be forced to serve at a Billy Graham revival event? Shall a Latino bookstore owner descended from illegal immigrants be forced to host Ann Coulter at his bookstore?”
Definitely yes to the last two although I understand how hard it would be to deal with Ann Coulter. As for the Satanic wedding, that would depend on whether or not all the rituals were legal.
The same is true if the roles were reversed: If you were denied service, because of your beliefs, at a restaurant owned by a same sex couple, you would have grounds for a lawsuit even if the owners made you a reservation at a similar restaurant next door.
As for the Dred Scott Decision, of course the Supreme Court is not infallible. Only the Pope is, except of course when it comes to climate change. Seriously though, the Dred Scott Decision, like your previous Second Amendment hypothetical, took away a basic right. The same sex marriage ruling gave one. The history of our country shows us gaining civil liberties over time, many which were thought blasphemous at the time and are now taken for granted. I sincerely believe that you are on the wrong side of history on this one but only time will tell.
As for Hillary Clinton, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about whether or not Benghazi disqualifies her from being Commander in Chief. That issue will certainly be decided by the voters, but I will say that those voters have forgiven much worse over the years. Heck, they even elected a President who was previously divorced!
HQ-
I like it..it is good debate…I would leave you with this..in your hypothetical about Christians being denied any service at a restaurant or the gay patron denied service; in both incidences, either party would have to either overtly demonstarte or proclaim their status (Christian or Gay)…in the case of the Black patron, they cannot evade or deny or conceal their source for bigotry (this is the Achilles’ Heel of the red herring argument of the Gay activists’ attempts to link the Black experience with their agenda). In the case of an issue of conscience, it was only when either party declared an aggrieved status would it then become an issue.
In the case of Christians nowadays, many are told they cannot display items of faith expression in their work space (a quaint calendar or a phrase quoting Scripture)…yet those same institutions are now openly promoting and celebrating uniquely gay themes and in many cases “highly encouraging” employees/workers to participate and recognize said event or display. In disturbingly increasing cases many are “warned” or openly shunned to wear or display a religious icon or symbol on their person (displaying/wearing a crucifix) But, one wearing a LGBT Rainbow Tee-shirt or a “Stop the H8” hat is allowed, and in the county government, encouraged, to display it..
Who is de facto the truly aggrieved party now?
As for Ms. Clinton and Benghazi, “being decided by the voters” is precisely what she, and a fawning, sycophantic and irresponsible media are counting on…it worked for President Obama..twice. The American people still know relatively very little about the 44th POTUS.
FF,
Starting with your last paragraph, please tell me you are not suggesting that someone other than the voters should decide who our President is.
As for the rest of your latest, it is off-topic. I never once in this entire thread equated the homosexual’s struggle with that of African Americans. But since you mentioned it, it is probably difficult for a same sex couple to hide their sexual orientation, especially at their wedding.
Similarly off-topic but worth a response is what is happening in the work place. I can only speak for myself, but I have never once witnessed anyone being told not to wear a Crucifix or a Star of David to work.
FF, so no donation?
HQ-
Point 1. Of course the voters need to make that decision- But they should be informed voters from a responsible and impartial press. When Ms. Clinton minimizes her exposure to the press (the roped off press corps in New Nampshire was particularly illustrative) and fails to address some politically and historically significant issues (Clinton Global Inititive Fund, Private Servers, whereabouts and conversations with POTUS the night of the Benghazi murders for starters) , she and the compliant press manipulate and malign the “voters” ability to make informed decisions.
Point 2- The essence of the Gay SSM agenda, and at the crux of your argument, has been crafted as a “civil rights” issue and one based on “equal rights.” Yet, those proponets had to literally change the definition of a millenia long tradition to do it. As Chief Justice Scalia said, when words no longer have meaning then anything can be manipulated and changed.
Point 3- It is already taking place at local, state and federal government facilities and institutions…religious or faith-based material are restricted and in some case prohibited…its coming to a workplace near you…are you feeling freer now?
MS-
I made the mistake of donating $1000.00 to the SDGOP a few years back. Tell you what, go ask TK if he is willing to share some of that with you…All I received was hostility, recalcitrance, and a complete abandonment of Republican Conservative ideals.
My donations are with the local ammo store on all the 9mm .150GR FMJ ammo I can get my hands on!! 🙂
Keep up the good fight!
FF,
You are yearning for a bygone day that never was. We never had an impartial media. At least today, there are so many options for obtaining information that any voter can get “news” that he/she agrees with politically.
As for an informed electorate, that too is a byproduct of an era that never existed. However, don’t for one second think the uninformed are only on the left. You opine that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President because of her culpability in the deaths of four brave and patriotic Americans. Yet, the voters (and not the ones on the left) not long ago re-elected a President who led us into war against a country that had never attacked us. That unneccessary war cost the lives of over 4,000 brave and patriotic Americans as well as more than 100,000 mostly innocent Iraqis.
Your second point about a millenia of tradition defining marriage as between one man and one woman neglects equally long traditions of marriage being limited to people of the same religion, same race and same socioeconomic status. We were able to change those traditions and today no one thinks twice about a marriage between a Jew and a Catholic, for example. This too will soon be the case with same sex marriage.
Finally, I agree that we have lost some of our freedons over the last 20 years or so, but I would put much more blame for that on our reaction to 9/11 than I would on any so-called gay agenda.
HQ-
1. Media biased on from the Left is well documented – Over 90% of “mainstream” journalists are Democrats..probably because 98% of all journalist professors are as well.
2. We attacked Germany. (twice)..they never attacked us…what’s your point again?
3. Traditional marriage has proven a cornerstone to societal and anthropological wellness in family units- Once again, homosexual advocates want desperately to conflate racial and ethnic bigotry with the destruction of the nuclear family and in the process take out religious conscience and expression of that conscience to advance the desires of a very small percentage of the population. If you were truly about marriage equality, why aren’t you and the rainbow shock troops goose-stepping and glitter-bombing for legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage? They have a much greater “tradition” and history globally than homosexual marriage.
4. And your alternative to a Counter Terror campaign to protect the Homeland would be…what? More Muslim Brotherhood members invited to the WH? Increase immigration? Perhaps a nuclear program for ISIS ala Iran…you know, to give them hope, jobs, oh, and a 10 kiloton yield device to hide in a maritime container and float into Baltimore Harbor……maybe Mr. Obama can do “Apology Tour 2.0”..because the first tour has proven so successful.
We made some progress though…we both agree the 2A is a good thing…(cue the Golf Clap….)
FF,
2. Germany attacked our allies and when Iraq attacked Kuwait, we rightly responded and put a stop to it. On the other hand, there was no good reason for the second Iraqi war and the loss of more than 100,000 lives.
4. Containment. It worked with the Soviet Union and it worked in the Middle East under every President before George W. Bush. We were much safer when Iraq and Iran were equal powers able to keep each other in check. Do you believe Iran would be as big a threat and/or ISIS would have a foothold in Iraq if Sadam was still in power?
I think we have said all we can say on #1 and #3.
HQ- You can’t “contain” what you can’t see.
Speaking of “bygone” sentiments, in the 21st Century, asymmetrical warfare is the new norm..nation-states are irrelevant to Jihadist terrorists. Cyber terror and propagandizing social media, all of which America’s enemies exploit with much greater proficiency, require proactive, clandestine, and in some cases covert action that may require a parallel effort in conventional military and diplomatic approaches.
Containment will not work with ISIS- Containment regarding the failure to curtail DPRK nuclear aspirations did not work…and it won’t work with Iran. We can’t even “contain” Jihadist terror sypathizers infiltrating our own border…the “containment” with the FSU was because we had nuclear pistols at each other’s heads. It was US deterrence with a large formidable military and not physical containment that eventually wore the Soviets down.
President Obama has squandered US national power unlike any other POTUS…more allies mistrust us, and more enemies no longer fear us. That is a failure of galactic proportions. That is a national security albatross the left will not soon shirk. Hopefully, the US electorate will determine Leftist ideals are just too dangerous for them and their children.
FF, ouch. This rant is prolific. Since 1975 I have been a fan of Captain John Birch and John Robb. With preachers like yourself,there is still much hope to be enjoyed in this pending rebellion.
Keep on collecting your 7.62 rounds. A 7.62 round is The URBAN ROUND.
I’m just trying to be the 20,000th comment.
Please donate: http://www.CarlsbadCitizens.org