Skip to main content

Canada’s ban on assault rifles is a warning to America

Written By | May 6, 2020
assault rifles, canada, gun ban, 2A, Second Amendment, NRA

WASHINGTON —  In the wake of a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unilaterally banned over 1,500 types of semi-automatic, or assault rifles. Canadians have little to no recourse but to comply. Canada does not have a Second Amendment, or any protection to self-defense, as does the U.S.A.

The assault rifles ban was inevitable. Other commonwealth nations, Australia and New Zealand, have already followed Great Britain down that path.

Yet we in America believe that we cannot follow that road to disarmament, because of our Constitution.




Think again.

Great Britain once had a constitution that protected a citizens’ right to be armed.

Those protections were within the Magna Carta. In fact, our Second Amendment is based on the words in that document. But tyrants cannot be tyrants when armed citizens oppose them.

So England simply ignored its constitution to the point that those rights no longer exist.

It is already happening here were over 30,000 federal, state, county, and city laws are inhibiting our right ‘to keep and bear arms.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) protecting America’s rights

As noted, in England, the personal right of Brits to own weapons, even to defend their property or lives, disappeared. One of the reasons was because there was no organization dedicated to protecting the right to be armed. In America, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) protecting those rights. Any rights of gun ownership we still possesxs are largely due to the existence of that organization.

The singular purpose of the NRA is to maintain the Second Amendment. At one time it did a spectacular job. But the constant push by leftist to roll back the Second Amendment, as happened in Great Britain, has severely weakened the organization.


For America, the tyranny of government is more dangerous than COVID-19

Today, attacks on the NRA are occurring from every angle. States like New York are finding ways to attack it through insurance legislation prohibiting anyone connected with the NRA from conducting business within the state. This problem is proliferating in other states due to left-wing organizations that work to prohibit banks, and credit card companies, from funding the NRA, even through loans.

Simultaneously the NRA is imploding. Its CFO, Wayne LaPierre, is taking it down the path of ruin, with no remedy in sight. A turf war erupted between LaPierre and Lt. Col. Oliver North, who was then serving as NRA President, over the organization’s unusual management of its funds. This has left the NRA weakened to the point that Democrats are now are going in for the kill shot.

It is why we see the urgency in blue states to enact all the gun control they can force down the throats of America before the NRA, or some other Second Amendment rights organization regain the high ground.



In a juxtaposition with the left, our Second Amendment rights now depend on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In two recent decisions, SCOTUS ruled the gun case that it was supposed to hear, that of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, was moot. Meaning that it no longer mattered. In a clever maneuver, NYC changed the law in question to evade the thrust of that lawsuit.

The second conclusion the court arrived at was that they wanted to hear a Second Amendment case, sooner than later, in lieu of dropping this case slated for this session. As of this writing, a four-judge panel consisting of justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh is debating a list of cases to be heard.


Democrats election 2020 hope damaged by SCOTUS Obamacare decision

They see the importance of hearing a Second Amendment case due to lower courts’ misreading or unwillingness to abide by the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Potential cases

The cases under consideration are, as listed on the website Bearingarms.com.

  • Mance v. Barr is a case challenging the ban on interstate sales of handguns.
  • Pena v. Horan is a challenge to California’s microstamping law, which took effect in 2012. It has curtailed not only the availability of new models of handguns but has caused existing models of handguns to be barred from being sold in the state.
  • Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo, and Ciolek v. New Jersey all deal with challenges to New Jersey’s carry laws and “justifiable need” requirement for a carry permit. Malpasso v. Pallozzi takes on similar requirements in the state of Maryland.
  • Culp v. Raoul challenges an Illinois law barring residents from 45 other states from applying for a non-resident concealed carry license. Wilson v. Cook County takes on the Illinois county’s ban on modern sporting rifles.

The Court is also considering two cases out of Massachusetts. A challenge to Massachusetts’ carry laws, Gould v. Lipson–  Worman v. Healey and a challenge to the state’s ban on the so-called assault weapons.

Finally, there’s Beers v. Barr, a case dealing with the lifelong prohibition on firearms for those who’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. A decision on any of these cases could also have long term effects on Roe v Wade, the decision that allowed abortions in America.

More than half of the cases before the Court deal with onerous carry laws prohibiting average citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.

It will be a few more weeks before a case is chosen. And then another year before a final decision is made. The importance of hearing a Second Amendment case now rather than later cannot be understated. The left is hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment now when its supporters are weaker, largely due to the ongoing NRA infighting.


The Government, Second Amendment Rights and the average guy

A decision will determine whether our Constitution remains our guiding principle. Or if it is not worth the parchment it is written on. SCOTUS is in the position of deciding America’s fate. Luckily conservatives elected President Trump in 2016 because, in part, due to his promise of conservative judicial appointments. His two confirmed appointees  provide an equal balance to Obama’s radical choices.

The balance of our future hangs on one man’s shoulders now, namely those of Justice John Roberts. The rest of the court Is equally divided. The inconsistent Roberts has not proven his metttle, even though appointed by George Bush. He has become the swing vote, in effect replacing retired Justice Kennedy. And each of his tilts to the left has badly hurt America, as occurred in his opinion that did not finding Obamacare unconstitutional.

We can have no confidence that he will vote to protect the Second Amendment now, as the attack on it intensifies. It is why all Americans must turn out to reelect President Trump in November. His judicial appointments will protect American’s futures long after he has left office, no matter who follows him in 2025.

And there is little chance Ruth Ginsburg will remain on the bench for four more years.

The next appointment to SCOTUS will determine our future. We must make sure it is President Trump who makes that appointment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joseph Ragonese

Joseph Ragonese is a veteran of the United States Air Force, a retired police officer, has a degree in Criminal Justice, a businessman, journalist, editor, publisher, and fiction author. His last book, “The Sword of Mohammad,” can be purchased at Amazon.com in paperback or kindle edition.