Archive for May 2nd, 2009

Climate Change This Week: ‘Consensus’ Via Gag Rule

May 2, 2009

Earlier today I posted about Freedom of Speech what follows directly relates to that issue.

Climate Change This Week: ‘Consensus’ Via Gag Rule

Call it the Global Warming Gag Rule. Last week, House Democrats barred Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, from testifying along with former Vice President Al Gore at a global warming hearing on Capitol Hill. Monckton — a critic of global warming who was invited to testify by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee — learned upon arriving from London that Democrats had nixed Monckton’s appearance. “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton stated. “[They] have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution. Congress[man] Henry Waxman’s refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear.”

This came just days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, blamed the U.S. for contributing to climate change, claiming an international crisis and arguing, “The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenario models.” These “facts,” however, are hardly indisputable. Regardless of the facts, Democrats, as usual, have decided to follow the surest, safest path to “consensus” — silencing all opposition.

SOURCE

It’s a real shame when a blog is more accurate than our government…

Profiles of Valor: U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Rhyner

May 2, 2009

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Zachary Rhyner of the 21st Special Tactics Squadron was serving in Operation Enduring Freedom when his unit fell under attack on 6 April 2008. Rhyner’s mission included a team of 12 Special Forces Troops who were dropped from helicopters in Shok Valley, Afghanistan, in order to take out an insurgent group. The jihadis gained the high ground, however. During the six-hour battle that followed, Rhyner, despite being injured, fought hard and provided “suppressive fire with his M-4 rifle against enemy fire while fellow teammates were extracted from the line of fire,” according to his award citation. In addition to cover fire, Rhyner coordinated more than 50 aerial attacks on the enemy. His actions helped save the lives of many American and Afghan troops. In December, 10 soldiers received the Silver Star for their heroism in that battle — the largest such number for a single battle since the Vietnam War. Sgt. Rhyner recently received the Air Force Cross, the highest decoration awarded by the service and the first in six years.

Ohoo Rah Zoomie!

Liberty Alert: Colorado

May 2, 2009

I’m writing to request your help on a critical vote in the Senate.


The Senate will soon debate HB 1299, a proposal to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system for Presidential elections. This violates the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution, as the founders designed our electoral system as a republic, not a pure democracy.


This bill will shift Presidential campaigns and policy towards the leftist population centers on the coasts: New York, Florida, California, and possibly Michigan. Presidential candidates will no longer have any reason to campaign in Colorado, let alone listen to the concerns particular to our state.


If House Bill 1299 passes, Colorado will become a fly-over state in Presidential elections. Our Western principles of individual liberty and responsibility will be ignored in favor of the socialist ideas popular in the liberal coastal enclaves: high taxes, unchecked government intervention, and a complete re-write of our country’s basic moral values and constitutional principles.

The Democrats argue that a popular vote system will prevent another “stolen” election such as the 2000 Presidential election. What they mean is that a popular vote will give them a distinct partisan advantage in campaign season.


They ignore the fact that a popular vote will indeed repeat the 2000 election, but not in the way they imply: Americans will suffer through recounts not just in Florida, but in hundreds of counties across the nation. The results of the Presidential election will hinge not on the will of the people, but on the skill of attorneys and the partisan leanings of “nonpartisan” election judges.


If you want your Presidential vote to count, write the Senate and urge them to vote “no” on House Bill 1299, the Popular Vote bill.


I appreciate your help on this important matter. I will let you know how the Senate votes on HB 1299.


Sincerely,


Ted Harvey
State Senator, Douglas County


E-mail addresses of State Senators:


bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us, betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us, greg@gregbrophy.net, bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us, morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us, joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us, dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us, peter.groff.senate@state.co.us, ted.harvey.senate@state.co.usrollie.heath.senate@state.co.us, mary.hodge.senate@state.co.us, senatorhudak@gmail.com, moe.keller.senate@state.co.us, electkenkester@hotmail.comkeith@keithking.org, mike.kopp.senate@state.co.us, Kevin@kevinlundberg.com, shawnmitch@aol.com, john.morse.senate@state.co.us, joshpenry@gmail.com, scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us, chris.romer.senate@state.co.us, nwden34@yahoo.com, senatorschultheis@gmail.com, gail.schwartz.senate@state.co.usBrandon.shaffer.senate@state.co.us, nancyspence@qwest.net, abel.tapia.senate@state.co.us, lotochtrop@aol.com, Jennifer.veiga.senate@state.co.us, al.white.senate@state.co.us, Suzanne.williams.senate@state.co.us

=========================

Please forward this e-mail to friends and family who are concerned about defending our freedoms!

Urge others to sign up to receive these free alerts at:

http://lpcolorado.org/lpcolibertyalerts.aspx

You can read past “LPCO Liberty Alerts” at:

http://lpcolorado.org/lpcolibalertarchive.aspx

Sign-up to receive free e-mails from the National Libertarian Party at:

https://www.lp.org/signup

Support the Libertarian Party of Colorado by joining the 1776 Club:

http://lpcolorado.org/donate.aspx

My contact information:

David K. Williams, Jr.

Legislative Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

LegislativeDirector@LPColorado.org

cell 303-588-2731

Let freedom ring.


Fight the government DNA database of innocent citizens.

May 2, 2009

Colorado Libertarian PSA:

Colorado Senate Bill 09-241, which would mandate the use of government force to take DNA samples from innocent citizens, passed the second reading on the Senate floor Friday afternoon.

This gross expansion of state power is not a partisan issue. Both progressive Democratic Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora) and conservative Republican Bill Cadman (R-Colorado Springs) oppose the bill as an unconstitutional overreaching of state power over the rights of the individual.

Currently, the State collects DNA from everyone convicted of a felony. The bill mandates the collection of DNA samples from everyone merely arrested – not convicted – for a felony. Somewhere along the way, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is lost among the bill’s backers.

To many Colorado citizens, however, that fundamental American concept still means something. The Libertarian Party of Colorado, the Colorado ACLU, the Gadsden Society, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the Colorado Public Defenders Office, among others, all oppose this costly Orwellian expansion of government power over innocent citizens.

David K. Williams, Jr., Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party and President of the Gadsden Society is among those against the bill.

“The backers of this bill claim it will help law enforcement. Undoubtedly it would,” Williams said. “So would the repeal of the Fourth Amendment. So would micro chipping newborns so the government knows where they are all at times, from cradle to grave. So would putting video cameras in every house.

“The point is that helping law enforcement is not the only concern Americans should have. Protecting the Constitution and preventing government abuse of power should also be a concern of all Americans.”

According to the latest fiscal note attached to the bill, the DNA collection will cost the State over $2 million in the next fiscal year. There is no reason for this bill to pass, but to incur such an expense when the state is facing a budgetary crisis is madness.

To raise the money to implement this unconstitutional invasion of privacy, the bill imposes a $5 surcharge tacked on top of all traffic infractions. Republican Senator Ted Harvey (R- Highlands Ranch) opposes the bill because of this surcharge. “I do not believe there is a nexus,” he said.

Senator Harvey is correct. There is not.

The bill is set for a final vote in the Senate this week. Contact your Senator and let him know you oppose this Orwellian expansion of state power over innocent citizens.

You can find our State Senator by following these steps:

  1. From this link, choose “Which Districts Are You In?”
  2. Click the “Show Map” button.
  3. Click on the “Find/Change Location” link on the right side menu.
  4. A window will pop up. Type your address, city and zip code and hit the “Find” button.
  5. A map showing your location should appear. At the top of the page there will be your House District number and the name of your representative; your state Senate district number and the name of your state Senator; and your U.S. Congressional district number and the name of your U.S. Representative.

Once you get the name of your State Senator, you can find his/her contact information at this link.

The most recent Fiscal note

The Appropriations Committee Report.

OPPOSE THE ORWELLIAN EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT POWER.

Contact your State Senator now.

Oppose SB 241

More on the first 100 days…

May 2, 2009

It’s no secret to regular readers of this blog that I think that the impostor in chief is the single biggest disaster this nation has encountered in my fifty-seven years. Beating out Jimmy Carter and the socialism of Lyndon Johnson takes some doing but, he has succeeded in doing so, and in a very short amount of time. Mark Alexander distills these first hundred days with class and style well beyond my meager skills.

The Peaceful Revolution’s First 100 Days

By Mark Alexander

Last fall, Barack Hussein Obama pledged that his administration would carry out a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” Today, as we reflect on the first 100 days of the Obama regime’s occupation of the executive branch, with Party allegiance in the legislative branch, it pains me to report that he has exceeded the wildest expectations of his Socialist constituencies.

In the wake of last year’s “October Surprise” (the catastrophic meltdown of the nation’s largest financial institutions), his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said of Obama’s strategy, “Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Indeed, Obama has done BIG things. In the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Obama’s first 100 days have been spectacularly successful. Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. … In just 100 days, Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.”

How did that happen?

Some political scientists argue that democracy is a conduit for “peaceful revolutions,” including radical shifts in political ideology, without a shot being fired.

I agree, except that our nation is not a “dumbocracy.” It is a republic, or at least it was before the once proud Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, who masterfully co-opted the education system along with the modern “opiate of the masses” (television and print media), and re-educated those masses.

So successful has this Leftist strategy been that their dumbed-down constituencies now follow their messianic leader like dullard lemmings.

Consequently, here is an account of a few notable events from the first 100 days of “hope and change.”

Under the aegis of “economic stimulus,” Obama promptly raided the Treasury and doled it out to his constituencies — at terrible expense to this and future generations. Asked how one might evaluate the effectiveness of his plan, Obama replied, “I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs.” Not even Bill Clinton had the hubris to suggest something as slick as “saving four million jobs.”

Remarkably, Obama managed to ram that one through Congress without a single Democrat claiming to have read it.

As for his cabinet, a long list of Obama nominees agreed to pay back taxes in return for rubber stamp appointments, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who, despite owing more than $40,000 now oversees the IRS.

Poor nominee Tom Daschle, who in a previous life as Demo Senate Majority Leader proclaimed, “Tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” He was all but confirmed as HHS Secretary until we learned that he had cheated us out of $130,000 in back taxes. Apparently even Obama’s hypocrisy knows some limits.

Obama last fall repeatedly promised to end the practice of special interest earmarks. Then, he signed an appropriations bill with more than 8,000 earmarks, including $2 billion for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s lobbyist son’s projects, $3.7 billion for contracts to Sen. Diane Feinstein’s husband’s company, and $4.19 billion for Obama’s favorite voter fraud outfit, ACORN.

When the pork-laden bill passed, Obama had the audacity to proclaim, “I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”

Obama also converted the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into instruments for nationalizing the banking system.

Under the pretense of responding to “global warming,” Obama has plans to impose almost $2 trillion in cap-and-tax energy taxes — this despite his oft-repeated pledge that 95 percent of Americans wouldn’t see their taxes increased.

Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2010 budget includes projections for more than $9 trillion in near-term increases of national debt. Feigning fiscal integrity, Obama demanded budget cuts of $100 million — which is to say that even while obscenely expanding the size of government, he targeted some spending that was out of line with his ideology. For the record, $100 million represents three one-thousandths of one percent of Obama’s FY 2010 budget, or approximately what the central government redistributes every 13 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of…

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw also offered some perspective on this $100 million spending cut, noting that it’s the equivalent of a family with a $100,000 income cutting a $3 latte from their budget.

Of Obama’s budget, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, “[F]or the first time in many, many years, we have a president’s budget … that is a statement of our national values. … It’s a very happy day for our country.”

Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, in February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the previous year, after a record 19 percent drop in January.

In the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy contracted at a seasonally adjusted 6.1 percent annual rate, and Americans lost more than two million jobs. No doubt Obama’s bold and swift action saved four million other jobs.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the Obama policy shifts, however, is his framing of our foreign policy with atonement for America’s past, which he says has been “arrogant,” “dismissive” and “derisive.” In doing so, he lends credibility to the anti-American attitudes and actions of our enemies.

Some of the most telling examples of Obama’s ideology are apparent in the last few of his first hundred days. For example:

Day 97: Obama’s White House Military Office appointee, former Clintonista Louis Caldera, authorized a photo shoot of Air Force One over Manhattan, an event which involved the low flight of a large jet plane with two F-16s in pursuit over Ground Zero and points nearby. Because the public wasn’t told, many feared another 9/11 attack was in progress.

Indeed, an FAA memo prior to the flight warned of “the possibility of public concern regarding DoD aircraft flying at low altitudes.” To which Obama responded, “It, uh, was, uh, a mistake. It, uh, will never, uh, happen again.”

The Air Force reported that the flight of the VC-25 (customized Boeing 747) and its two attendant F-16s cost $328,835. However, the actual cost associated with the operation of VC-25 alone, when considering all support and planning for this photo folly, was closer to $775,000 (and who knows how many Al Gore carbon credits had to be purchased to offset this operation).

On the other hand, the one-time purchase of Adobe Photoshop costs around $600.

In January, Obama chastised private sector executives for using corporate jets to commute, most of which cost $3-$5 thousand per hour to operate. The plane we taxpayers fund for Obama costs $260,000 per hour to operate, and Monday, it was cruising around without him.

Day 98: Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, in an NPR interview about Obama’s Orwellian cap-and-tax policy, remarked, “The president has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people.”

The interviewer asks, “Is that the role of the government? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.”

Jackson, obviously in need of her ObamaPrompter, replied, “Well, it, it, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play then we might’ve when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Some might argue that “we are where we are” because government has played “a much larger role since Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Day 99: After the media fanned the flames about a “swine flu pandemic,” Obama warned, “This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions.” He then promptly applied his “Rule 1” and asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding.

Day 100: The Obamaprompter addressed the nation yesterday, and not only did he claim, “We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That wasn’t me,” but once again trotted this one out: “[My recovery act] has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

We checked, and Congress sets budgets, the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the last two years (which coincides with the housing and financial market collapses) and Obama was in the Senate for two of those years.

â?¨As for jobs, I am sure that Obama has “saved” all our jobs! Hail Obama! Let’s us all bow down to “The One.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly surmises, “The president’s first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing.”

Suffice it to say, the list is as long as it is absurd, and you can bask in a litany of examples we’ve compiled for your reading displeasure at “The First Hundred Days.”

As for “peaceful revolutions,” John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I would argue this case: “Those who undermine our republican rule of law make violent revolution inevitable.”

To that end, there is some good news on the “checks and balances” front, though some may find this a bit disconcerting.

There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

And the ranks of Patriots are growing.

In the last three months of 2008, Americans bought enough guns to arm the national armies of both China and India — a total of 12.7 million guns last year. Gun sales in the first three months of 2009 were 27 percent higher year-over-year than the first three months of 2008 (which also recorded record sales).

Perhaps all these gun purchases are coincidental, not consequential. But I doubt it. As Americans begin to awaken to the reality of Obama’s Socialist agenda, it will be interesting to see how his next 1,361 days unfold.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates had formed a republic or a monarchy. “A republic,” he responded, “if you can keep it.”

We will see.

Quote of the Week

“There’s something very curious — even laughable — about watching the media assemble to offer President Obama a grade after the first 100 days. They weren’t exactly a team of dispassionate scientists in a lab. They continue to be what they’ve been all along — a rolling gaggle of Obama cheerleaders — only before it was a campaign, and now it’s an administration. So now they’re assessing whether their awe-inspiring historic candidate still glows with the luster of victory. Hmm … let’s see. They applied the luster, they boasted of the luster, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll continue doing both. … After 100 days, the media still look more like the president’s advertising team than the people’s watchdog.” –Media Research Center president Brent Bozell

On Cross-Examination

“Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous ‘Vero Possumus’ (‘Yes, we can’ in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things. Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessaule — the Victory Column — a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

Open Query

“Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive. Why? You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy. The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover. His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land. His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.” –political analyst Dick Morris


Freedom of speech, for some at least…

May 2, 2009

Freedom of speech or expression is an enshrined right placed within the Bill of Rights. That said, recently there have been way to many occurrences by those that see it as an anachronism. A simple web search will turn up more instances than I can possibly cite for reference but you are free to do so if you wish.

Having said that, I believe that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is a complete package. You can’t pick and choose which parts you will support, and those which you will not. They, each right, support one another. Bust the package, and you break the whole thing.

Does this mean that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater? Well, if the place is in fact on fire then I would submit that giving warning about it is in fact a civic duty. Does it mean that members of, by example the Ku Klux Klan or the New Black Panthers can spread what they consider to be legitimate ideology? Yes, it does, like it or not.

If we as a people allow one group to be silenced then any group can be subjected to the same treatment. Think about it.

Free Speech for some:

Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo was recently invited to the University of North Carolina to share his views on U.S. immigration policy and tuition subsidies. Even before he began his talk in a UNC classroom on April 14, protesters stood with signs and banners, shouted obscenities and otherwise behaved rudely.

Just a few minutes into his speech, when Tancredo made a reference to illegal immigrants, demonstrators moved to the front of the room, blocking the audience’s view of Tancredo with a banner that read: “No one is illegal.” Seconds later, one of the protesters broke a window. University security officers, standing by, shut down the event.

That was it. The speech was vetoed by uncivil, violent dissenters intent on denying Tancredo’s willing audience their right to hear his message.

An angry, chanting mob at UNC labeled Tancredo a racist and a radical. He’s most certainly neither. He’s opposed to illegal immigration, regardless of race. And there’s hardly anything radical about securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. What is radical in this instance is the behavior of these student demonstrators and their implicit notion that the U.S. should have open borders.

Their beef that “no one is illegal” is an offense to liberal, politically correct phraseology. So let’s rephrase it. The immigration status of people who cross our borders or remain in this country without the permission of our government is illegal. There, is that better?

If you treasure our Constitution’s guarantee of your individual right to freedom of speech, you must necessarily extend that protection to others — including those with whom you disagree. You must also take the risk that other people will listen to them, just as you want people to listen to you. If you refuse to make such allowances, your hypocrisy undermines the fundamental principle of free speech and endangers its very existence.

The First Amendment is not absolute in any of its applications, from speech to religion to assembly. Libelous speech is not protected; religious freedom does not extend to human sacrifice; and freedom of assembly doesn’t give you license to trespass on someone else’s property. But one’s free speech cannot legally be muzzled simply because someone else disapproves of it.

How ironic that left-wing college activism was launched at the University of California- Berkeley in the 1960s as the “Free Speech Movement.”

For today’s college lefties, free speech is a one-way street. They justify this double standard with an arrogant, self-absorbed, self- righteous belief that the ends justify the means, that they alone have a monopoly on truth, and that heretics cannot be tolerated. The broken glass that halted Tancredo’s speech is a symbolic flashback to the forebears of these UNC student thugs: the SS and Hitler Youth gangs that terrorized Jews. The violence is only different in degree. Student lefties have pushed pies in the faces of conservative speakers on campus. On principle, that is no less an affront to the First Amendment than clubs or guns.

These militant brats childishly call others “fascists” without understanding the meaning of the term while behaving like fascists themselves. But even more inexcusable is the complicity of grownups, those feckless university administrators responsible for protecting dialog and inquiry at centers of higher learning who allow students to stifle free speech.

SOURCE

Tom Tancredo: We should stop flu at our borders

Silent protest at PC marks Tancredo talk in contrast to the pure thuggery above.

H.R. 2153 The Second amendment restoration act

May 2, 2009

The NRA backs this well intentioned, but flawed act. The fact remains that taking away unalienable rights based upon less than felony behavior without any chance of restoration of the persons rights forever is immoral. This is most especially true when it is an ex post facto application of the law.

All to often the forces of political correctness prevail and mysandry is the order of the day. During my career as a Paramedic I went on so many Domestic Violence calls that it is mind staggering. In ninety percent of the cases there was no visible trauma, and in fact care and transport were refused by the “victim.” Yet, the “offender” was taken to jail and charged with a multitude of various offences.

Most often these people would take the carrot offered by the courts, and plead guilty. Then serve thirty six weeks, three times a week, of so called counseling where they learned that women are incapable of doing any wrong whatsoever. Further, that all men are evil, period. Not to mention the three days that they are required to spend in jail as a “cooling off” period.

Too be honest, women do get arrested for non felony Domestic Violence. The statistics at least at my last perusal reveal that this happens a whopping three percent of the time, and that when that does happen, the male is also taken to jail at least half the time too! He get the treatment noted above while she gets sent to “parenting classes” for twelve sessions, and that is in the very few cases where the charges are not dropped completely. I quit checking those statistics a few years ago because they just never changed more than a point or two over several years time.

Face it, domestic violence is something that should never happen irrespective of who initiates it male or female. However, the cure is worse than the problem. (I’m speaking of non felony situations here, not felony.) In addition to the clear fact that women are using this law as a weapon, along with the police and court system to get revenge for whatever reason without a crime having actually happened.

This new proposed legislation is a step in the correct direction but to be blunt, does not go anywhere near far enough. Read on…

WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) has introduced legislation to restore the gun rights of individuals convicted of minor, non-violent crimes.  H.R. 2153, the Second Amendment Restoration Act, ensures states have the discretion to restore individuals’ gun rights after conviction of minor crimes.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) has endorsed the legislation.

“The Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms and individuals should not forfeit that right due to convictions for minor crimes,” Stupak said.  “I appreciate the support of the NRA as I attempt to clarify that individuals convicted of minor crimes decades ago should not be subject to lifetime bans on gun ownership.”

Federal law prohibits individuals convicted of felonies from owning guns.  Federal law also gives states the discretion to determine which state crimes are treated as felonies.  Due to the way the courts have interpreted some of the most antiquated state laws, some individuals who were convicted of minor misdemeanors at the state level are treated as felons for the purposes of gun ownership, prohibiting them from owning a gun.

The Second Amendment Restoration Act would make it clear that a person with a conviction for a minor, non-violent crime, whose civil rights were never taken away, should not be treated any more harshly than a convicted felon whose rights were restored.  It would also allow states to give individuals limited restoration of rights.  Federal law currently allows for states to restore all or none of an individual’s gun rights but nothing in between.

The issue was brought to Stupak’s attention by a constituent who, now in his mid-50s, was convicted in 1971 of entering a non-occupied building.  He was 18 at the time and the building was a deer camp.  He completed his probation in 1972.  In 2003, he applied to the county gun board to have his right to own a firearm restored.  But because the 1971 crime he was convicted of was a minor, non-violent crime, he is still denied the right to own a handgun under Michigan law and therefore no gun rights can be afforded to him.

“To be absolutely clear, the NRA believes it is both constitutional and appropriate to disarm convicted felons,” NRA Director of Federal Affairs Chuck Cunningham wrote in a letter of support for the bill.  “However, we also believe that no person should lose the right to arms due to convictions for minor, non-violent crimes, especially those that occurred many years in the past.”

“I am a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights,” Stupak said.  “The vast majority of gun owners are responsible sportsmen and women who like to hunt and shoot for sport.  These activities are essential parts of our economy and our cultural heritage.  I have consistently urged my colleagues to work for effective ways to curtail violent crime in America, but not by simply passing gun laws that unfairly penalize responsible gun owners.”

The NRA’s letter of support is available at: http://www.house.gov/stupak/NRAletterHR2153.pdf.

SOURCE