Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Mark Caserta: Security essential to protecting students

26 May


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

May 25, 2018




Just 20 weeks into 2018, we’ve already had 22 school shootings in the United States where someone was hurt or killed, per a recent CNN column by Saeed Ahmed and Christina Walker. Averaging over 1 per week is simply incomprehensible.

The column had a U.S. map inserted identifying the locations of the shootings by bullet points. The graphic eerily reminded me of a “firing range shot grouping” surrounding the Tri-State area.  The column and graphic can be viewed at:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html.

Gun control advocates are dangerously off-base with their notions of taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. When you restrict guns from properly vetted, trained, law abiding citizens, you broaden the window of opportunity for a criminal who will not abide by the law.

Recently, The Heritage Foundation published a commentary, originally appearing in The Daily Signal, by Steven P. Bucci, a visiting fellow who focuses on cybersecurity, military special operations, and defense support to civil authorities, entitled, “4 Steps to Better School Security.”

In the column, Bucci lays out definitive steps we must take to protect our children from the malicious, domestic attacks we see escalating in our nation’s schools.

The first step mandates a “Pre-emptive Response.” Most school shooters have had some sort of mental health or social interaction issue of which someone took notice. In nearly all the school shootings, there were clear warning signs which emerged before the shooting occurred, whether on social media or interactions with others.

The second of the 4 steps involves, “Controlling Access to School Facilities.” If an unauthorized person is attempting to enter the school or if someone is attempting to bring in a weapon, they must be denied access. Bucci recommends schools have limited points of entry (one or two, at most) that are monitored and controlled. Allowing people to enter without authorization is a huge point of vulnerability and will be exploited by the shooter. No provisions should be made for convenience!

Third is “Securing Classrooms.” Classrooms are usually the teacher’s only option for sheltering in place, particularly for younger children. Bucci recommends classroom doors either not have windows or a speedy way to cover them in an active shooter situation. The doors must be lockable from the inside and have a quick “blocking” mechanism as well.

Interestingly, there are now bulletproof sanctuaries that can be put inside classrooms and double as “story corners.” While this may seem to be beyond the budget of some schools, one must weigh the alternative cost. I strongly believe this should be a serious consideration.

Finally, “On-Site Response” is critical. Per Bucci, schools must be equipped with the ability to confront and stop an active shooter on-site. Most active shooter scenarios are done in three to six minutes.

It’s simply become irresponsible for schools not to have trained, armed security in place. And if a teacher is adequately trained with a firearm and how to respond in an active shooter scenario, he or she should be allowed to carry.

Protecting our classrooms is a huge responsibility and one every parent should support. This disturbing trend of dying children must stop. If we can spend millions of dollars providing resources to protect our nation’s leaders, we can certainly spend the equivalent protecting our future leaders.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Mark Caserta: Liberals inject misinformation in gun debate

13 Apr


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor



AR 15



The assertion by the left that “fewer guns mean fewer crimes” is simply not based on fact.

Violent crime may be on the increase in some areas of our country, but it certainly isn’t due to law-abiding citizens purchasing guns.

One would be inclined to believe that a rationally minded, intellectually honest individual would understand that when guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.

It’s interesting liberals are strict constructionists when interpreting the Constitution in matters of civil rights and social injustice in America but vehemently declare it to be antiquated in addressing the gun violence we face in our nation today.

I never cease to be amazed how political expediency impacts progressive reasoning.

Isn’t it a reasonable expectation for anyone sincere about defending their cause, such as politicians, anti-gun groups and members of the media, to be adequately educated in the matter? Frankly, the ignorance of some of the most vocal gun control advocates is astounding!

Perhaps if these individuals spent as much time researching the facts as they do rattling their emotional sabers, they could comprehend the truths of the issue and contribute to a real solution.

A routine error by many people is to refer to a semi-automatic carbine as an “assault rifle,” a fully automatic weapon designed for purely offensive purposes. Many carbines have shorter barrels than full-length rifles, making them cosmetically similar to a military rifle, but they certainly don’t function the same.

For example, how often do you hear liberals describe the AR-15 as an “assault rifle” and argue, “the average citizen has no need for one?” Well, it may surprise you to know many gun enthusiasts enjoy shooting their firearms for sport just like many of you enjoy golfing or fishing. I personally enjoy target practice at the range with my sons.

And here’s a little tidbit for the left. The letters “AR” don’t stand for “assault rifle” but “ArmaLite,” after the company that developed the weapon in the 1950s.

Nor does the “AR” stand for “automatic rifle,” as assumed by many inadequately informed pundits. This “evil” weapon, so often decried by the left, is a semi-automatic rifle, like most of the firearms sold in the U.S. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges per the National Shooting Sports Association.

Additionally, the term “assault weapon,” a gun control moniker often unwittingly brandished in the gun debate, is a name fabricated simply for influencing.

According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ to broadly cover everything from shotguns to standard-capacity handguns,” or anything they want to eliminate besides the real culprit – the shooter.

The misinformation progressives carelessly leverage in the debate ostensibly delegitimizes their anti-gun position. And if progressive methodology holds true, “baby steps” toward gun control will, no doubt, turn into “liberal leaps” in years to come, hence the NRA’s firm stance on the 2nd Amendment.

Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves. Nearly every horrific mass shooting committed through the years has been done void of an opposing force – a properly trained individual, adequately armed and mentally prepared for such an attack.

When only criminals have guns, we’ll be at their mercy.

Patriots who believe in the 2nd Amendment simply aren’t going to allow that to happen – period.


Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.


Obama acts is if he’s above the law; he’s not

3 Mar


Feb. 27, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

What liberals refer to as “obstructionist” tactics by Republicans in blocking the socialist policies of Barack Hussein Obama, conservatives call “preserving the Constitution.”

It’s interesting that while the president has often referred to himself as a “constitutional law professor,” the title is somewhat gratuitous. While never a full-time or tenured professor, he did teach courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago as a “senior lecturer.”

Unfortunately, rather than use his knowledge to adhere to its provisions, the president has chosen to test the boundaries of our government’s founding document.

Article II, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution, sometimes known as the “Faithful Execution Clause,” is best read as a duty that qualifies the president’s executive power. By virtue of this power, the president is required to “take care” that our nation’s laws are “faithfully executed.”

But not only has Obama been derelict in his duty to protect our laws, he’s an offender.

As Democrats are so fond of reminding Republicans, Obamacare is now the law of the land.

But despite the fact The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was indeed signed into law in 2010 and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, President Obama believes it’s within his power to make changes without Congressional action!

Our Constitution clearly grants legislative powers to Congress. The president does not have the authority to arbitrarily “alter” legislation signed into law.

The employer mandate, which requires businesses employing 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance or pay a fine, was scheduled to take effect in 2014, but has been delayed entirely or in part, twice, by the president!

The fact that Obamacare is poor legislation doesn’t grant the president powers exceeding those afforded him by the Constitution.

And in the first case of its kind, the Supreme Court is now arguing the legality of four “recess” appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2012. The Constitution allows the president to make temporary appointments to those positions that otherwise require Senate confirmation, but only when the Senate is in recess. The problem is — the Senate was not in recess!

Three federal appeals courts have already ruled that Obama overstepped his authority in these appointments.

It’s obvious the president is following the “executive version” of the liberal playbook which calls for continuous contestation of preconceived limitations designed to “progressively” tilt the scales of totalitarian power to the left.

President Obama is arguably the most liberal president in our nation’s history. If he’s successful in these attempts to bypass our nation’s laws, what leftist policies will he pursue in his remaining years in office?

The U.S. Constitution is not merely a guideline to be consulted by those it was written to regulate. It’s the supreme law of the land written to protect the rights of all Americans and must be protected.

It’s time Americans “tether” President Obama to the Constitution and hold him accountable for adhering to its precepts.

This president is not above the law.



18 Apr






17 Mar




7 Mar






Obama’s goal has always been to take our guns

18 Jan

Obama’s goal has always been to take our guns

This piece was written in 2008.



16 Jan


Just checking for understanding…We elect our representatives who supposedly cast a vote in Congress…theoretically to represent their constituency.

Well, that alone isn’t working.

Congress’ approval rating is just above a cockroach or herpes.  But in an issue as important as protecting the 2nd amendment, we can only hope for them to rise to the occasion.  But Obama simply “shoves them aside” – seizes the opportunity arising from an emotional disaster, and shoves legislation down our throats compromising the U.S. Constitution.

Does that seem wrong to anyone?



16 Jan


I thought only al Qaeda surrounded themselves with civilians to shield against attacks…..

%d bloggers like this: