Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Montana leads the way!

January 22, 2009

Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

NEW SECTION. Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4.  Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

– END –

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Charisma as a tool to tame the masses?

January 21, 2009

Charisma is a two edged sword to be sure. One thing about President Obama is his charismatic manner of speech. At least as long as there is a teleprompter or notes near at hand.

When I was still a sophomore in college I took a course in “Public Speaking” as I’m sure many of my readers also did. Having been a “Gavel Club” member and participant in High School I couldn’t help but note the differences that were taught in speaking methodology.

I certainly picked up on some of those things yesterday while listening to the new President. It was of course not laid out in debate format. But meant to be inspirational, especially to his followers. I was reminded of other inspirational speakers from the realm of politics, and religion for the most part.

Then today I wake up, and check the news. What sort of beast have we unleashed upon our nation? What sort of people put him there?

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

January 20, 2009

As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…
There is some good news for gun owners

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear….”

As our new President takes his oath of office today, the war against
our rights is soon to begin. In fact, it has already begun, as Obama’s
choice for Attorney General (Eric Holder) is one of the most anti-gun
picks that he could have made.

As we mentioned in last week’s alert, Holder supported policies —
during his tenure in the Clinton administration — that were aimed at
driving the nation’s gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. As
part of an Obama administration, he will have even more power to
continue his war against gun owners.

At lot has happened since you received our alert last week. GOA was
asked by the Judiciary Committee to testify at the Senate hearings on
Eric Holder, as we were the ONLY national gun group that has told
Senators we will rate their vote on confirming Holder.

We also “hammered” one of the Republican members of the
Judiciary Committee — Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah — in his home state
after he announced his support of the Holder nomination.

Last week, GOA issued a stinging alert and mobilized its members in the
state of Utah after The Hill reported on January 12 that Hatch
“will support Eric Holder’s nomination for attorney general,
giving him a major boost toward confirmation.”

GOA is never timid about putting the heat on faltering legislators, no
matter what their party affiliation. Strangely, GOA was disinvited
from appearing before the Judiciary Committee, and not allowed to
present testimony.

Well, the Committee might try to squelch our voice, but they cannot
squelch yours. Your Senators have to answer to you — and they need to
hear that an Attorney General who just argued (in the DC v. Heller
case) that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms does NOT
deserve to be confirmed.

Please take the recommended action suggested below, even if you have
already contacted your Senators. This is just too important.

And now for some good news… Bush commutes the sentences of Ramos and
Compean!

You might remember that, last month, GOA and its members issued a
strong plea to President Bush, urging him to pardon Ignacio Ramos and
Jose Antonio Compean — two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to
ten years in prison in 2007 for shooting a smuggler. Their conviction
was fraudulent, as there is no such crime as “using a gun in a
federal crime.”

Because this precedent could greatly impact all gun owners, GOA got
involved in this case and submitted amicus briefs in the courts. If
the feds can prosecute its own agents on trumped up charges for
“using” a gun in a crime, then why not also a mom or dad who
is driving their kids through a gun free school zone while armed?

Well, good news arrived yesterday when President Bush — as one of his
last acts in office — listened to GOA members and commuted the two
agents’ sentences! We wish a full pardon had been granted, erasing
their felony conviction, but at least they will be home soon with their
families.

ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Eric Holder for U.S. Attorney General.

Holder has been a long-time gun control activist. Most recently, he
joined 12 other former Justice Department officials in SUPPORTING the
DC gun ban and arguing the Second Amendment does NOT protect an
individual right.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled against Holder in the DC v. Heller
case. But this is a man who will try any means to enforce gun control.

Remember his attempts — as an official in the Clinton Administration
— to make an end-run around Congress and use the courts (through
litigation) to impose gun control? He strongly approved of the HUD
lawsuits against the gun industry, where through a system of extortion,
HUD only promised to drop the lawsuits if gun makers would impose
certain gun restrictions.

Eric Holder is tremendously out of step with the American people. In
February, 2008, a USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 73% of all
Americans support the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Eric
Holder is in the extreme minority. Please don’t vote to put him into a
position where he will be able to use the force of government to
discourage gun ownership in America.

Please vote NO on Eric Holder for Attorney General.

Sincerely,

****************************

What’s Your Current GOA Status?

Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights.
Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another
semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory
federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just
some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on.

It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why
we are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun
Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on
notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s
in the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of
resistance.

Now is a perfect time to come a Life Member. In addition to providing
GOA an infusion of much-needed funds, you can take advantage of a free
firearms inventory software promotion.

And if you aren’t a GOA member at all, isn’t it time you became one? Or
maybe you are a current member and can’t commit to Life at this time,
but could spare another small additional donation. In those instances,
the free software also applies… because GOA is doing all it can at
this time to line up the troops for the battles that surely must be
fought.

Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordercs.htm to upgrade your
participation in GOA.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on As A Rabidly Anti-gun Executive Takes His Oath Of Office…

Income Redistribution: Smooth-brained economics

January 18, 2009

Keynesians, the Left’s economic leper colony of choice, having been banished from planet Earth during the prosperous Reagan years, have de-orbited and once again control the nation’s economic levers. Readers may not remember their name, but they are certainly familiar with their otherworldly theories, such as the idea that rising unemployment will lower inflation. This pearl, tested during the Carter years, produced a brand-new dictionary term: “stagflation.” Unfortunately, as The Wall Street Journal’s George Melloan highlights, a related Paleozoic idea from the Left’s intellectual crypt is now being dragged out and dusted off — the notion that the government can “stimulate” an economy by shoveling massive amounts of paper into it.

The problem with Keynesian paper-pumping theories is that value doesn’t derive from money (i.e., paper), but rather, from the intrinsic worth of products or services exchanged. This worth is measured, in the aggregate, as a nation’s Gross Domestic Product. For a given GDP and a specified supply of money in circulation, an increase in money supply simply dilutes the value of the base currency — in this case, the U.S. dollar.

That dollar is about to become a lot weaker, too. Just this week President-elect Obama asked Congress to release the second half of the enormous $700 billion bailout package known as TRAP — er, TARP. Both houses quickly obliged, and Obama pledged to use as much as $100 billion to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Conservative estimates now put total bailout costs at roughly $2 trillion. Where does all that money come from? Well, it’s simply printed up — really. So how much is a trillion dollars? Well, one trillion dollars laid out end-to-end would stretch from the earth to the sun (roughly 93 million miles), with four million miles in spare change; a fighter flying at the speed of sound would take almost 15 years to span that distance. That’s a lot of paper.

All of this is to point out that we have been down this road before, and we should reflect on the costly lesson the Carter era taught us: “loose money,” while temporarily easing the pain, is nowhere near worth the ultimate suffering it brings.

~snip~

In alarming conjunction with recent headlines reporting that the global influence of the United States has slipped dramatically due to the dereliction of government regulators largely responsible for triggering the current recession, the 15th annual Index of Economic Freedom published jointly by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation reveals the U.S. saw a corresponding slip in its rankings to sixth place. Hong Kong is tops again, followed by Singapore, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand to round out the top five.

Evaluating numerous criteria relating to economic freedom, the study again shows an affirmative correlation between economic freedom and national income. Freer countries enjoy per capita incomes more than 10 times higher than those in “repressed” countries occupying the bottom of the rankings. In a chilling highlight, it was repressed nations that turned to deficit spending, government seizure of land and resources, and government support of favored enterprises, eventually devastating their economies even further with government mismanagement. Not to suggest that our government’s current bailout debacle bears a striking resemblance to government mismanagement that landed many of the repressed countries at the bottom of the rankings, but as Founding Father John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.”

When the engines of capitalism occasionally backfire, socialists sing their siren song that only government can save the economy. What these same 19th-century thinkers never can explain is how an entity responsible for today’s recession through sheer incompetence is supposed to solve the debacle by taking even more money away from the productive segment of society. Yet the audacity of big government arrogance will only grow worse beginning next week.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?

January 18, 2009

Who elected Obama?

By Mark Alexander

Last week we answered the question “Who is Barack Obama” by posing questions that Obama did not answer during the presidential campaign. This week, we take a look at who voted for him.

Police mugshots of Obama constituents

On 20 January, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of our United States, according to our Constitution. However, his largest constituencies tend to view this event as either the coronation of the “royal one” or the ordination of the “holy one.”

Before we further define those constituencies, here, for the record, is a recap of the survey data concerning the presidential election.

Some 136.6 million Americans voted — a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO’s support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO’s largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves “lonely or isolated,” 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in “a major way,” and 61 percent of those who claim they are “stressed out” supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats’ strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama’s election. Indeed, the Left’s political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi — “Divide-n-Conquer.” No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama’s largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of “disenfranchised victims,” those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty. They have fully bought into the “Politics of Disparity” or “class warfare.”

However, it is Obama’s small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the “king makers,” those who have funded and charted Obama’s course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of “easy money,” which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the “service sector” is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama’s academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as “Useful Idiots” for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a “Living Constitution”.

Among Obama’s Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama’s cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama’s supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive. Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview — for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, “Because I feel…”

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, “Because I think…”

So, the once great Democrat Party has now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday’s inaugural “historic.” Well, it’s not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration — historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect’s genetic heritage is African — and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first “black president.”

It is no small irony that the day before Obama’s inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should “ask what your country can do for you.”

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will take an oath “to support and defend the Constitution”, but he has no history of honoring our Constitution, even pledging that his Supreme Court nominees should comport with Leftist ideology and “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.”

Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office?

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

source

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 29 Comments »

Colorado Castle Doctrine to be voted on!

January 18, 2009

COLORADO: Important Castle Doctrine Reform Bill to be Considered on Wednesday, January 20! On Wednesday, January 20, the Colorado Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will vote on Senate Bill 8, a bill sponsored by State Senator Ted Harvey (R-30). This legislation seeks to expand Colorado’s Castle Doctrine law. SB 8 would amend Colorado’s current version of the Castle Doctrine to ensure that all citizens have a right to use force, including deadly force, against a violent attacker, not only within their own dwellings, but their places of business as well. SB 8 is critically important as it expands Coloradans’ right to self-defense and protects victims from frivolous civil lawsuits by criminals or their family. Please contact the members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to vote for SB 8. Contact information can be found by clicking here.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Obama re-treads Clinton choices for Administration

January 18, 2009

As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration’s policies on firearms rights.

Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder’s nomination. “I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder’s nomination,” said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). “At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He’s clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That’s deeply disturbing.”

NRA has also opposed Holder’s confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners’ rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

The Brady Bunch has a wish list… Again

January 18, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.

If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady “no,” because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That’s demonstrated by Brady’s statement that their current request “is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point.” It includes:

A California-style “assault weapons” ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California’s ban–which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004–as the “model” for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn’t say so, but it clearly supports–as does the Violence Policy Center–the California–like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as “assault weapons.” And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well.

A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them “high-capacity,” but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike.

Now’s as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, “Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence,” adding, “during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection.”

The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation’s violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office.

Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act’s waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as “Brady checks.”) And, contrary to Brady’s prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years.

Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms “would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges.” But as for Brady’s hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s.

Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment “restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement,” and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm.

Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won’t know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn.

Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it’s all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it.

Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a “no fly” list, for reasons that have not been made public.

Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart “large-volume” illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit.

Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady’s agenda isn’t about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration.

Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production.

We close with yet another Brady lie, “These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners.” Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for “the interests of gun owners,” we’ll follow the Supreme Court’s example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Gun Salesman of the year!

January 17, 2009

Outdoor Wire Names Obama “Gun Salesman of the Year” By Jim Shepherd Jan 14, 2009 – 7:22:08 AM In recognition of the unprece­dented demand for firearms by nervous consumers, The Outdoor Wire has named President-elect Barack Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year”. For me, it was a simple fact of recognizing that without President-elect Obama’s frightening consumers into action, the firearms industry might be suffering the same sort of business slumps that have befallen the automotive and housing industries. It’s credit where credit is due. Mr. Obama has consistently voted against individual rights to firearms, appointed a re-tread Clinton administration full of gun banners, and made it plain to anti-gun groups that despite what he might say to the contrary, he’s on their side That history, along with the unquestioned support of anti-gun organizations has spooked consumers into a buying frenzy for firearms that could be outlawed in another Assault Weapons Ban. Manufacturers are months behind on orders for semi-automatic pistols, AR-style rifles, and anything with so-called ‘high-capacity magazines, buyers we’ve surveyed across the country seem to have a single explanation for their rush to purchase firearms – Obama. The buying panic is not limited to people you might be described as aficionados or even ‘gun nuts’. Recently, I was in a gun store when a gentleman came and said he’d never wanted to own a gun before, but wanted to get one while he still could.” Since the November Presidential election, firearms sales have been at unprecedented levels. For December 2008 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded a twenty-four percent increase in background checks for 2008 (1,523,426) over December 2007 (1,230,525). This follows a forty-two percent (42%) increase in November 2008, the highest number of NICS checks in the system’s history. Those FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms retailers. In other words, gun sales have never been better. Sales are so good that on Tuesday, January 6, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a notice to all federal firearms licensees that “an unprecedented increase in demand for ATF Form 4473 had run supplies low enough that dealers were temporarily given permission to photocopy the form until supplies caught up with demand. Completion of a form 4473 is required whenever a federal firearms licensee sells a fire­arm.

Stolen From

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Gun Salesman of the year!

What kinds of people are for gun control?

January 16, 2009

source

H/T to BobF

Rep Bobby Rush was the founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. If his law were to pass, you know his constituents wouldn’t be following it.

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.

Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner’s address in America.

The bill claims its purpose is “to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth.”

Rush’s proposed bill, H.R. 45, is alternatively known as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” named after an Illinois teenager killed by a gunshot.

According the bill’s text, “On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”

The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” – defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a “Blair Holt” license.

To obtain a “Blair Holt” license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test, release of mental health records to the attorney general and a fee not to exceed $25.

Further, the bill makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes “between persons who are personally known to each other.”

The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general’s database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.

And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.

H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007’s H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama’s current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »