Please, Justice Thomas, Preserve my 2nd Amendment Rights

The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Justice

Supreme Court of The United States

Dear Justice Thomas:

I have followed  your participation on the Supreme Court.  I “rooted” for you during the hateful confirmation hearings.  I recall some black “leader’ declaring that any decision on which “Clarence Thomas was in the majority should not be followed.”  Not actually sure how that would work but clearly though you are black, you are not the “right kind” of black man for the position according to that narrow thinking.  This country is fortunate to have your participation irrespective of whether or not your opinion prevails..

This letter is about the 2nd Amendment.  You support it, possibly with more conviction than any of the other justices but to write Justice Ginsburg is a waste of time.  I write you in case you (I flatter myself) pick a statement of mine you find enlightening in the upcoming case against New York City’s abominable gun laws. My letter to you is an individual’s perspective on the importance of the 2nd amendment. I have no idea how the court is going to consider the “A well regulated militia…” clause. My wife discounts my concern defining “regulated” very loosely.  I hope she is right. I have read numerous articles from folks who are scholarly or semi-so and the opinions vary widely. Arguing against what I hope you will decide, I think that clause poses a problem for individual ownership. But here is why gun ownership is important to me. I believe I have a perfect right to defend myself both inside and outside of my home. I do mean “perfect.” It is not the government’s role to dictate which weapons I have a right to use.  I recall three or four black men dragging a guy with a MAGA hat from his car in Chicago and beating him. The ONLY chance that man would have had is a gun. A knife? Not so much! Tear gas? Not so much. A gun would have either chased them away or mitigated any damages they intended to do to this guy. His right to protect himself from injury is again, perfect.

The current administration has been blocked at every turn by left-leaning judges who are determined to keep the borders open.  We know that the immigrants include criminals, especially MS-13. Do I not have a perfect right to defend myself from these evil people?  Of course. I might well not come out on top but I certainly have the right to equip myself to try.

Law enforcement has become politicized; look at Portland, Oregon, Berkeley, California.  Law enforcement did nothing to protect the rights of citizens peacefully protesting or trying to drive across the city. The right to “peacefully assemble NEVER includes jerks blocking normal travel and commerce or assault and battery. Certainly a gun is not the answer to non-violent civil disobedience.  The point is when government decides which rights it will protect and which it won’t I then have the right to assume I cannot count on government if I am in trouble. I live in a quiet area, Saint James, New York, an area where we don’t always lock our doors. However, I own three weapons, all registered.  I value the peace of mind whether or not the left wing thinks I may ever have to use the weapons. The ownership of guns is my decision, not government’s.

To obtain that license, just to have a gun in my own home (Suffolk County, NY) I had to submit an extensive application.  The process included an oral interview, background check, a written statement by three references, a letter from my doctor (I take Paxil as a mood leveler and she had to claim I am not a dangerous individual). I had to report a traffic citation for speeding received even before I moved here.  The police interviewed my wife to make sure I had never threatened her. I do not object to the process as administered by the police. The police were fine. It is the law to which I object. The County law is much like the New York City law you are going to review. I once asked a gent at the police station who was issuing my license for me if I were to witness a mugging, rape, murder in my cul-de-sac and took my gun outside to break it up, would I be violating the law and he said I would. I would risk that and demand a jury trial though I imagine the police would be reluctant to arrest me in that scenario.  Under the law to stop a felony with a gun is itself a felony.  I detest Long Island (that is an “aside”) and used to live in Spokane, Washington.  That state was a “shall issue.” I carried a pistol in my glove box for ten years. Not once did I shoot up a school or a gay nightclub.  What I did do was pull it from my glove box when I saw four thugs about to remove an old man from his car. I don’t know if it was road rage or a car-jacking.  I waved the pistol at them; they retreated to their car and sped away. No harm done; no one shot, old man unharmed. Perfect use of my weapon. Were I a bad guy there is no law on the books that would stop me from acting evil.  What would stop me is a good guy with a gun. This is the country in which we live. Like it or not. We have 10 amendments called the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a second class amendment. It is very important to the others. It has often been said that without the 2nd amendment the 1st has no value.

Another deep problem for the gun-grabbing mentality is the question of the risk we take just walking out the door versus gun-related violence.  Gun related suicides being removed from gun death totals (in my opinion suicide is not immoral and should be legal), then gun deaths are half of automobile deaths but we don’t deny people an auto license because the driver MIGHT cause a fatal accident.  Should we not hire the single woman with 4 kids because she MIGHT use more sick time than a married woman with no kids? Should alcohol be banned because people DO drink to excess and then harm others?

In that same community (Spokane) I awoke one morning for my usual early morning trip to the bathroom and noticed what appeared to be a burglary in progress at a neighbor’s house.  I called 9-1-1. Never left my house but it took 35 minutes for the police to respond. That was so long I concluded

they were there, in hiding, watching for an incriminating action.  Nope, 35 minutes. Nice protection! Considering these examples and the time it takes on average for a cop to respond to an emergency, the best bet a citizen has is to arm himself.

Were I at the “negotiating” table crafting legislation, I would agree to background checks (with some retention time limit after which they would

be required to be destroyed), the usual preclusions such as felons (but not white collar crime felons) and places where weapons should not be allowed such as bars, courtrooms, mental institutions.  Notice I did not include schools. Nor did I include licensing which risks becoming a database from which an Obama/Clinton personality could retrieve names in the interests of confiscation. I believe people do not have a right to nuclear weapons or rocket propelled grenades but when the amendment was adopted and the musket was standard for the military it was the same for homeowners.  There is no basis for outlawing semi-automatic weapons or magazines beyond a certain size. The stated logic is that a bad guy is going to do less damage with a musket but the underlying reason is a hatred of guns. Any regulation will later be touted as a foot-in-the-door to further restrictive legislation.

There is no law on the books, anywhere including New York, that has prevented a mass shooting or a domestic death, certainly not the well-publicized shootings.  I once read a quote that I thought ironic, about the laws violated by a mass-shooter, “...including laws that it is illegal to kill people.” Gun grabbers may not like that we have a 2nd amendment but we do and if there were an effort to repeal it I believe that effort would fail...except in California, New York, Oregon or New Jersey of course.  In the meantime, hoping that “A Well regulated militia…” is not a barrier to my owning weapons I want the right to carry my weapon anywhere, subject to the usual reasonable limitations. Part of the law in New York City, mimicked by Suffolk County, is I cannot carry a pistol anywhere except to a listed firing range. One day I hope to own a cabin in Maine and I want to carry my pistol with me, both on the road and to keep it in the cabin.  That New York and Suffolk County tells me I cannot do so is nothing short of the Nazi confiscation of guns in Germany.

You were recently quoted, I think in your wish that the court take up the issue that it is unreasonable that the people who have armed protection, want the common folk to not have weapons to protect themselves.  That hypocrisy thrives, both in D.C. and Hollywood. I recently wrote Suffolk County, demanding they leave their laws in tact should New York try to

short-change the case before you by changing their laws. I want the Suffolk County laws to remain as they are should it be necessary to substitute

Suffolk County as the defendant in place of New York City. In my letter I assumed most of the representatives have concealed weapons and I suggested they relinquish those licenses.  No response, of course. In the perfect world the gun-grabbers would cancel armed security, turn in personal weapons and live with the same concerns we the common folks live with.

USA is a country more violent than many but not because of the existence of guns and thus that has little to do with the 2nd amendment.  I recall an idiot official in Australia warning citizens to not visit the USA after an Australian tourist was killed, in Kansas, I believe, because we have guns.  Oh, okay but that is a rancid view of who we are as a society. Stay home, Australians if you are really that afraid of us. We do not tailor our laws to the standards of your country.

I am a good guy; I am peaceful; I am not violent;  I respect the rights of others but if others attempt to hurt me or my family, I want preserved the right to stop those folks, with lethal force if I deem necessary.

Thank you, sir, for any consideration you give this letter.  You are a good man and Justice. May you live to 100 and remain on the bench.

The Other Half Is Right, Deductions on Federal Taxes for State and Local Taxes Ought Not to Be Limited

I am a Libertarian.  Though I have yet to find a rating scale, I would trust I am about 85% “pure.”  Government is best when it is inconspicuous and citizens have the absolute right to benefit from their gains as they  are totally responsible for their losses.

I live in New York, one of the “blue” states.  I don’t like living here. If it were not for my wife, there is no reason for me to stay here.  To increase the punishment, I live on Long Island, one of the more expensive places to live in the U.S. (though by Long Island standards my house is “moderate”).

The Trump tax program had varying effects on people depending on their income level and the deductions they had been claiming for property taxes, state and local.  The cap for the Federal deduction in the tax law is $10,000.

The mad-cow-disease liberals had a fit. It is inconsistent with socialism that they did, but, heck, the prostitutes want to be reelected.  It is the “blue” states that are so expensive and have exorbitant tax rates. That they do is absolutely the fault of the taxpayers. New York state is controlled by the unions; long ago the control of public expenses was sold to the unions in exchange for labor peace and the re-election of politicians at the state and local levels. On occasion I will attend a local meeting of government...and no one else is there.

In the meantime the rich have multi-million dollar houses and thus pay far beyond the $10,000 cap.  I am aware of a property in Saint James, NY (where I live,) that pays $30,000 PER MONTH in property taxes.  He can afford it; I am aware of his background. (As another issue, the tax grabbers frequently use the term “fair share”.  Is it reasonable to expect this gent uses $30,000 per month in public “services”?)

I am not wealthy but when I have extra money I will often give some of it to people I believe need help.  As a Libertarian, I cannot demand that others do the same, as would Adolf-Ocasio-Cortez. On an emotional level (on which we should NOT govern) I believe that the extremely rich ought to be helping others out.  Again, I stress that is NOT a Libertarian position. Statistics show that the less wealthy give a larger percentage of their income to charity than do the wealthy and that does not surprise me.

So, I have been amused by the rich in the Hamptons and other wealthy places on this island (I detest this place but that is an aside) who have to pay more in Federal taxes than they did when there was no cap on deductions.

But, my wife reminded me in a vigorous debate, that my position is NOT libertarian.  These people, through whatever means, have the right to enjoy their wealth without the government claiming a “fair share.”  I had already written a local congressman supporting the deduction cap, as he was advocating for a removal and I suppose I feel a bit sheepish now.  My wife was right and I was playing “fair share” politics with “SALT” (State And Local Taxes) caps.

I don’t have anything against the rich but on an emotional level I do resent them living in $20 million houses in the Hamptons and driving their Mercedez/Hummers when there are hard-working people who could use some help. However, they have no obligation whatsoever to offer that help.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but I love you, wifey, and you were absolutely right in challenging me. IF were are going to allow deductions for “SALT” then there should be no cap. A "cap" is essentially a "fair share" by another name and as a Libertarian I do not support that.

OBSERVATION AND SUGGESTION to "AOC"

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

U.S.  House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Cortez:

I am not in your district; I could have fudged a zip from your area but instead write you via snail mail.  I am the persona of the person you most hate: a 72 year old white male who has made all his meager wealth without stealing from minorities and women.  I am not “proud” I am white. I just simply am white. Pride stems from accomplishments and how one treats others, not skin color or gender. There is nothing about your platform with which I agree and I am glad you are as prominent as you are as I think in the end you will hurt “your” party’s chances of unseating Trump.  I am a Libertarian and as such I am not thrilled with Trump but there is not one democrat on the stage now for whom I would vote and that includes, of course, Senator Sanders.

However, I have an observation and a suggestion for you that you might find constructive..

1) I nearly fell out of my chair when I read you want to break up the tech companies.  I would love nothing more. Our reasons are perfectly different but the end would be the same.  You want to break up tech for monopolistic and social reasons, i.e. “they are not union” or “their employees are not paid enough.”  My reason is twofold. First, I do believe they are a monopoly, although there are a few players. In their position, they are able to control thought. They are a monopoly in the “speech market.”  I believe

they censor conservatives; you likely believe they censor the left.  Doesn’t matter because that is where we meet. Other than clearly inciteful speech there should be no censoring at all.  The 1st Amendment applies only to the right to speak openly about government but when a few private-sector players, of like mind, censor all speech, on any topic, with which they do not agree, there then is no effective venue for truly free speech.

And, I don’t like them “following me” and selling information about me to third parties. I lead a clean life (at least as much as an old white gun toter can) and have nothing to hide so I am not worried about a socialist government coming after me, at least not now.  But, I don’t want my information passed around anyway...even if they offered to pay me for it. Any such practice should be clearly on “opt-in,” not “opt-out.” I deleted both Facebook and Twitter six months ago. Apparently I buck the trend as I understand most people return.  I have not and miss neither of them.

In a nutshell, you and I agree on an issue.  Truly I thought that would never happen.  I suppose coalitions are built on desired outcomes even though reasons may be different.  I had written Representative Zeldin (my district) about cell phone snooping and as I listen to the news it looks as if there is mounting pressure to do something about these information autocrats on social media.

2)  As the author(?) of the “Green New Deal” you may be interested in my suggestion.  My wife and I receive 3 - 5 catalogs daily by U.S. Mail. I understand that the USPS has lost money for years.  I suggest, both to save trees and to give the USPS a shot at solvency (they have MANY problems but this should help) that postal rates for “junk mail” be increased to the point that the marketers will make more use of the Internet and retailer history to decide to which people they should mail their catalogs.

I am quite sure, in part thanks to the very social media sites I have left, that a catalog marketer can obtain enough information from the sites (and retailer past sales) to more selectively mail catalogs.  The catalogs I receive are not nearly as offensive as the spam calls (I never answer them but I resent them) but in the case of catalogs, they are a waste of natural resources and a net cost to the USPS. I don’t know what junk mail rates are but I trust they are well under the rate of a first class stamp and do not recover cost of delivery.  If a marketer had to pay, say $1.00 to mail me a catalog I bet they would better research the likelihood I would buy from a given retailer. My wife and I buy a great deal from your favorite retailer...Amazon...they are inexpensive but I suspect they under-pay their contracted carriers, at least the USPS and if the delivery charge were increased we would still buy from amazon.  It is just plain quick, reasonably priced and easy. But, the government has no place subsidizing my purchases from Amazon. This idea is not tongue-in-cheek; I really mean it. I am a supporter of business but don’t want business subsidized by government and to the extent fewer natural resources (i.e. trees) can be used to distribute the catalogs I think it is a win/win.

I have no comment for you on government.  I think it, and you are very dangerous people.  I also think we are past the point of returning to truly efficient, effective representation.  Should you ask someone to reply to me, feel free to do so via e-mail and save the government money...as well as a small part of a tree.

Sincerely,

John M. Tyson

bonner83856@gmail.com