Archive for September 14th, 2009

Cass Sunstein: Liberal Nutcase in a position of power!

September 14, 2009

Something tells me that this elitist known as Cass Sunstein is going to become an ongoing theme here. Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. He stands for just about everything everyday Americans dislike, and he appears to hate the things that those same Americans love. Maybe I should add a new category? Czar Wars?

Sales of firearms in the United States have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008.   It’s no secret the election of Barrack Obama to the highest office in the free world caused grave concern among gun owners.

Liberals scoff at the notion that Obama would attempt to disarm the United States population.   However, this is the man who can be heard in an address to a group in San Francisco on a clandestine recording say, in reference to rural America, “…they cling to their guns and their religion.”

Perhaps Obama isn’t making any speeches about disrupting the lifestyle of rural America these days, but he’s certainly putting people in place to do it for him.    The number one candidate for that kind of hit work on sportsmen in the United States is Cass Sunstein.   Sunstein is a professor from Harvard University, who formerly worked with Obama at the University of Chicago.  He’s now tapped to become head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein’s nomination raises the hackles of sportsmen’s groups nationwide.    He’s widely known for a blatant disdain for the Second Amendment.   He’s even more passionate about animal rights, so much so, he advocates the rights of animals to be granted protected status in the nation’s courts.   More to the point, he believes animals should have the right to sue people.   He’s on the record in favor of an end to all hunting.

A few short years ago, people like Sunstein existed, but rarely were in positions of power.  They were people who took such amazingly over the top positions, but were generally regarded as freakish and weird.  Such is the danger of the Obama appointment.  If confirmed as “Regulatory Czar” to the White House, Sunstein would become the gatekeeper for White House policy for the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.   A man who’s an avowed hater of hunting and guns would be writing the fine print in the Obama Administration’s policies for how those federal agencies would create rules and restrictions.

Wondering how that affects you?

The FBI and ATF are the key agencies who deal with albeit limited regulation of firearms ownership.  There is still the Second Amendment.  However, they conduct the instant background checks and make the decision on whether you are of legal status to buy a gun—or not.

Moreover, the oversight with Department of the Interior is vast.  The agency controls millions of acres of public lands now open for hunting.  How long it will last under such leadership is a mystery.   The National Park Service falls under Interior’s purview.  Already, the Obama Administration has moved toward removing all lead bullets and fishing tackle from Park Service property.   Presently regulation covers Park Service employees only, but there’s a clear desire by higher ups to extend such restrictions to public users.

Where does this end?    Coalitions of sportsmen and conservation groups have teamed to battle Sunstein’s confirmation in the Senate.  The US Sportsman’s Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation are leading the charge and lobbying heavily on the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to close ranks and oppose the nomination.  Those two groups are backed by a host of other organizations who convinced one Senator, Republican Johnny Isackson of Georgia, to push for a “hold” on the nomination.

The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus is a coalition of Congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, who align themselves in defense of issues threatening hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and other such activities.  Sadly, the CSC’s clout appears to be withering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a vote, over the objections of those constituency groups, to end debate of Sunstein’s nomination.    Twenty-two of the 63 Senators who voted in favor of cutting off debate were members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, including U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.   Senator Robert Byrd is not a member of the CSC, but also voted in favor of ending debate and moving the nomination forward.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of tonight’s vote, especially that so many members of the Senate claiming to be pro-sportsman voted in favor of a nominee who has expressed that recreational hunting could be banned,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon through a press release.  “Nonetheless, the USSA and our partners had an obligation to fight this appointment. Sportsmen all across America will clearly be able to see which senators, along with Sen. Isakson, were willing to stand up for them.”

Sunstein doesn’t have the job yet, but this week’s vote was a strong indication he’s looking more and more likely to be the man wielding power over rules governing hunting, fishing, and firearms ownership in the near future.  If confirmed, he would answer only to his boss, President Obama and not to the millions of sportsmen and women across the United States.

Still wondering why the firearms industry has been thriving while the rest of nation’s industries have been stalled amid the recession?

source

update to the story; I believe that this whack job was in fact confirmed.

Justice Stevens and the NRA

September 14, 2009

When is half a glass is better than no glass? McCain Feingold was, and remains, a constitutional nightmare irrespective of how this case turns out. Read on…

During Wednesday’s extraordinary Supreme Court oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, some of the more remarkable moments came when Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly referred, with approval, to a brief filed in the case by the National Rifle Association. Not a pairing you might expect, but Stevens saw in the brief a possible way to rule on the case narrowly, without totally upending major Court precedents on corporate and union spending in election campaigns.

The NRA brief, authored by Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk in D.C., joined the opponents of spending restrictions by agreeing with Citizens United that the precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and a section of McConnell v. FEC, should be overturned. But Cooper also suggested a more limited alternative that caught Stevens’ eye: reversing those precedents only to the extent that they permit the government to restrict campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups — like the NRA, he said — that use individual donations to fund political speech. That would have the effect of striking down the so-called Wellstone Amendment in the McCain-Feingold law, which included such non-profit groups in the ban on campaign spending. Cooper says the amendment was specifically aimed at keeping the NRA from using its treasury funds in campaigns, and sticks out like an “unconstitutional sore thumb.” By excising the Wellstone Amendment from the law, Cooper said, the Court would strike a blow for the First Amendment and allow “non-profit groups like the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, to speak to their hearts’ content” during campaigns.

“I’m delighted that the points we made got Justice Stevens’ attention, or any other members of the Court,” said Cooper. Asked in jest if the NRA would welcome the liberal Stevens as a member, Cooper laughed and said, “With open arms, I am sure.”

Stevens first cited the NRA solution just as Citizens United’s lawyer Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was ending his time at the podium. “No one has commented” on the NRA brief, Stevens said, but he was bringing it up in response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion earlier that “there are narrow ways of resolving the problem before us.” Stevens asked Olson if he would comment on the brief during his rebuttal, and after some back and forth, Olson said he would do so.

Next, Stevens raised the NRA brief in a question to Olson’s adversary Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In response, she allowed that Citizens United is “an atypical plaintiff” as an ideological non-profit corporation, but the discussion took another turn before she fully answered Stevens’ question. Stevens came back to it again, and ultimately Kagan acknowledged that striking down the Wellstone Amendment would be “certainly a narrower and I think better solution” than invalidating the entire statute that pertains to corporate and union spending.

When Olson rose again for his rebuttal, Stevens soon asked him again about the NRA brief. Earlier in the case Olson had shifted the case into high gear by explicitly asking the Court to overturn the Austin and McConnell precedents. The oral argument to that point had clearly put that goal within reach, so Olson was not, it appeared, settling for a half- or quarter-loaf.

“It would not solve the problem,” said Olson, adding that even without the Wellstone Amendment his client might still be covered by the law. To nail down the point, Stevens persisted: “You do not endorse the NRA’s position?” To which Olson replied, “No we don’t.”

In an interview Cooper stressed that his preference, like Olson’s, would be to overturn Austin and McConnell broadly. “That’s an argument we have made robustly,” Cooper said. But the narrower solution, he said, would serve his client’s interest, as well as that of other non-profit advocacy groups, without disturbing the restrictions on the main target of campaign legislation: business corporations. “With a group like ours, our purpose is advocacy,” said Cooper. “It’s not the cash register, it’s the ballot box.” The First Amendment, he said, should not stifle such speech.

Footnote: Cooper did not attend the argument Wednesday. He was in California at the time, working with his clients, supporters of Proposition 8 which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriage. One of his adversaries in the litigation over the proposition: Ted Olson.

SOURCE

DOW TO OFFER HUNTING MARKSMANSHIP CLASS SEPT. 26-27

September 14, 2009

If you are new to hunting a course like this can save you years of frustration. Hat tip to the Colorado Division of Wildlife!

MONTE VISTA, Colo.–The Colorado Division of Wildlife will host a Hunting Marksmanship Class in Monte Vista on Sept.  26-27. The class will take place at the Division of Wildlife Monte Vista Service Center, 0722 South Road 1 East.

The purpose of the class is to teach adult big game hunters how to refine and apply their basic marksmanship skills to become better hunters.  Topics include proper zeroing and marksmanship techniques, range estimation, shot placement and equipment.  This class will include a shooting session at the Rio Grande Sportsman’s Range.  Hunters of all skill levels are welcome to attend.

Participants must bring their own centerfire rifle (preferably the rifle used to hunt big game) and ammunition with a minimum of 30 to 40 rounds. This class will be limited to 20 participants and filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

There will be three sessions: morning classroom on the 26th for all participants, a range session during the afternoon of the 26th for half of the class, and a range session on the morning of the 27th for the remaining participants.

To register, please call the DOW Monte Vista Service Center at (719) 587-6900.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU MOUNTAIN LION RESEARCH AREA MEETINGS

September 14, 2009

In addition to this there is a very good course at the DOW about Mountain Lions. See link at the end;

MONTROSE, Colo.– The Colorado Division of Wildlife will be holding meetings to discuss the upcoming lion hunting season in the research area on the south end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in portions of Game Management Units (GMUs) 61, 62, and 70.

Discussion will include quotas, season dates, a permit system for the research area and how hunters can participate in the research effort.  As time allows, biologists will discuss lion management outside of the research area.

The meetings are aimed at mountain lion hunters.  General lion information will not be discussed.  Mountain lion hunters are invited to ask questions and discuss issues with DOW staff.

The first meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 16 at the Delta Montrose Electric Association building in Montrose, 11925 6300 Rd.  The second meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 17 at the Redvale Community Center in Redvale.

For more information, especially if you cannot attend the meeting, contact Brad Banulis or Ken Logan at the Montrose DOW office at (970)252-6000.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Clearing up a misconception

September 14, 2009

Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

SOURCE