Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Bloomberg follies Redux

October 30, 2010

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court indicated that a limited number of gun control restrictions are permissible under the Second Amendment — provisions such as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court said that its Heller ruling applied not just to Congress and federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C., but nationwide as well.

Nevertheless, earlier this year, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, proposed new regulations designed to give the NYPD the power to deny a firearm license to anyone, for reasons that most Americans would consider not nearly serious enough to warrant the suppression of a fundamental individual right.

These reasons — grouped under the heading “lack of good moral character or other good cause” — include an applicant’s “poor driving history,” termination from employment due to “lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character,” failure to pay debts, or having ever been arrested for anything more serious than a traffic offense, even if no charges had been filed, charges had been dropped, or the applicant had been found not guilty in court. For individuals whose license applications cannot be denied for those reasons, the proposal would also allow the police to deny a license to anyone about whom “information demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the law [or] a lack of candor toward lawful authorities,” or when there is “other good cause.”

Insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read the proposal, the mayor and commissioner announced it in a press release which focused on how their plan would streamline the gun license application process and reduce license fees — all of which will be meaningless to people whose license applications will be denied. Only in the next to last paragraph did the release note that “NYPD will add to its regulations to offer more detailed examples of eligibility standards for a permit,” without giving examples of what those “examples” might be.

With the public comment period on the proposed regulations having ended in mid-September, and city bureaucrats working out the new regulations’ final language, on October 19th Bloomberg appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” program, saying that it is the NRA that is “totally unreasonable.”

Bloomberg’s statement is absurd; probably the kind of thing the NYPD should take into account, if he ever applies for a license to possess a gun.

SOURCE

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake

October 30, 2010

Rights Endowed by Whom?

What is really at stake in this election?

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington

Buy this poster here

Next Tuesday’s 2010 midterm election marks the first major battle in a fired-up grassroots effort to restore constitutional integrity, one with a fervor not seen since the election of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

The stakes in this election and those to follow are much higher than a mere contest between competing political platforms and personas. These elections will determine who is this nation’s arbiter of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps unwittingly, Barack Hussein Obama, by way of omission in several recent speeches, has made it abundantly clear whom he and his comrades reject as the source of the rights of all men. On three separate occasions, when speaking at fundraisers for his Leftist comrades, Obama has referenced the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking at the Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When questioned about the omission of who, precisely, endowed those rights, the White House press office claimed that Obama went off script … unlikely for a man who has been glued and tattooed to his Teleprompters.

A few days later, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama said, “If we believe that … everybody is endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class…” For the record, that utterance was not “off script.” Rather, it was precisely how the White House posted his speech.

At the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser, he did it again, saying, “What makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights.'”

In each instance, Obama omitted the Declaration’s clear affirmation that the rights of all people are “endowed by their Creator,” not by some potentate or government.

Our Declaration of Independence was derived from inherent common law, and in its first sentence, our Declaration establishes the rights of man as “which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”

When asked again about Obama’s omission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

So, Obama “believes in the Declaration”? The Declaration is a piece of paper, one that expresses a self-evident Truth. Were it destroyed today, or had it never been written, the right of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” among other rights, would still be endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Gibbs’ assurances notwithstanding, Obama’s subtle but telling omissions expose the underbelly of the political beast that is intent on devouring Essential Liberty and replacing it with the rule of men.

With his omissions now a matter of public interest, Obama has now tossed “our Creator” into a stump speech before Election Day. But make no mistake: That would be subterfuge. Obama believes that the rights of men are subject to the rule of men, and the terminus of the unabated rule of men is always tyranny.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was the worst of insults to our nation’s heritage of Liberty, but in one important way, it has proven a blessing in disguise.

It has drawn millions of Americans to the frontlines of the eternal war for Liberty and Rule of Law, as enshrined in our national Constitution. Still, this midterm election cycle is different than the knee-jerk response to Bill Clinton that seated a Republican majority back in 1994.

There is a Great Awakening across our nation, one being spearheaded by Tea Party Patriots who are armed with, among other things, the right tools to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and who are willing to passionately fight for the former over the latter.

In the words of Thomas Paine, “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.

Our Declaration of Independence concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (I suspect Obama would omit “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)

I know that you have “pledged your sacred honor” for the defense of Liberty. I beseech you to help us muster millions of additional Patriots to the frontlines for the battle ahead.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

October 30, 2010

“Legal arguments for Obamacare’s individual mandate fail the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration’s legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat. Democrats took some solace from the first case, a challenge in Michigan, because Judge George C. Steeh ultimately ruled in favor of Obamacare. Yet even though that Clinton-appointed judge refused to declare the mandate unconstitutional, he undercut the administration’s key argument that the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a ‘tax,’ and that the mandate it enforces is allowable within the broad taxing power provided by the Constitution. ‘The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,’ Judge Steeh ruled. This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday’s preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress’ power is far less extensive. Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a ‘penalty,’ explicitly changing its description from a ‘tax’ that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice’s admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can’t ‘mean so many different things’ as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, ‘Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing … [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.’ Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it’s not a tax. His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck — and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it’s the Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce.” —The Washington Times

SOURCE

GOP RINO’s attack: Truth in politicing?

October 29, 2010

Seems that there are some behind the scenes activity going on in Wyoming politics. As usual, the mainstream GOP is attempting to co-op TEA Party people, and calling members of the movement out of touch, radicals, and all the usual garbage.

There are a number of letters circulating on the Internet telling people to Google Matt Mead — guns. When they do they are led to several websites (more than one of them designed by the same person giving the impression that there is a whole body of “evidence” regarding Matt’s position on gun control, when in fact just one person is pushing his own agenda). These phony sites are putting out erroneous information concerning Matt Mead’s record on gun issues.

Really? Have you bothered to notice all the comments? Or the fact that this blog certainly isn’t ran by that person?

A California transplant moved to Wyoming and started a blog about gun rights and gun issues. He published that Matt Mead was anti-gun and supported the BATF in lawsuits against Wyoming and Wyoming gun laws. These statements are not true and when confronted, said blogger refused to meet with Matt to correct his misrepresentations.

Sorry, but the facts are otherwise. Not to mention that he uses a website, not a blog… I’m also a California transplant just to let you know. I left there in 1978 because of the stupid anti freedom things that were going on. Now people are trying to pull the same sorts of insanity here..?

Matt Mead is a member of the NRA and has an A rating from them. He has not favored/does not favor gun control. People need to remember that the Internet is a tool which can be a very good source of information, but some who have an agenda can also use it to spread misinformation. Wyoming has seen its share of “dirty politics” but deliberate untruths which seek to malign a person’s character or present false information about him should be rejected.

One of Matt mead’s big campaign points is that he will stand up for Wyoming: FACT; He went after Wyoming as a U.S. Attorney. Just doing his job? Alright, I can understand that. That’s also what those folks said at Nuremberg, and things didn’t work out so well for them. Rightfully so I might add. So what if the NRA gave him a favorable rating? They gave favorable ratings to a lot of people that the membership, such as myself, deplore.

I have found Matt Mead to be very approachable and willing to sit down and rationally discuss any topic. I am certain that Matt will protect your Second Amendment rights as well as other constitutional rights and will be a good governor for Wyoming.

He may be, but if past behavior is any indicator of future actions then the people of Wyoming need to think long and hard about electing a RINO. Not that there is much out there to be had other than the lessor of evils, yet again.

SOURCE

 

Political Correctness, and getting laid; Talk about Big Brother / Sister!

October 27, 2010

What follows, is well? Beyond stupid in my not so humble opinion…

I am a Conservative Libertarian, hence the name of this blog. What follows, is either some really funny tounge in cheek. Or some serious Big Government Mysandry / Misogyny intrusion on personal liberty…

Seeking Promiscuous Heathen Female Roommate


Dear Fair Housing Center of West Michigan,

I am writing to express my concern over a recent civil rights complaint that has been filed against a woman who posted an advertisement at her church last July. Apparently, you were upset that she was seeking a Christian roommate. I came to that conclusion after reading the following in the complaint you recently filed against her: “(The ad) expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.”

As someone who is preparing to move to Grand Rapids, I am concerned about your complaint. I’m not concerned about the Christian woman. I’m concerned about myself. Let me explain.

Because of recent financial hardships I have had to take a job in Michigan and, for the same reasons, I am going to have to seek a roommate. I want to live with a woman. Not just any woman but, preferably, a really sexually promiscuous one. In order to increase the chances that she’ll be promiscuous I am specifically demanding that she be a practitioner of Heathenism, just like me.

But now I have read a Fox News story that quotes your Executive Director Nancy Haynes as saying “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” Director Haynes statement is incorrect because there is, in fact, an exemption for gender when there is a shared living space. I plan to take advantage of that by discriminating on the basis of gender. I’ll seek women only and, of course, demand that the woman I choose shares a bedroom with me throughout the duration of our relationship.

I am concerned that Director Haynes has said that, depending on the outcome of the case, the Christian woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and fair housing training to prevent it from happening again. I don’t want to face the same prospect.

Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, recently told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. And he made no distinction between an owner-placed ad and one placed by a prospective occupant.

Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is representing the Christian woman free of charge. He says this case is simply “outrageous.” So I plan to call the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to see if they will defend my right to live with a promiscuous heathen woman. I know they would not represent me if I were seeking a Christian roommate. Thank Government Almighty they aren’t morally consistent!

Okay folks, I couldn’t remove the “sign up” Button… Here is the source

Bad driver? In debt? Proposed NYC law would ban you from owning a gun…

October 27, 2010

This makes about as much sense as basing auto insurance ratings on your credit rating. Simply an agenda…

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills. Under proposed revisions to the police department’s handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons.

Read About It: Fox News

Flying J truck stops had better NOT check their customers sleepers!

October 27, 2010

Pilot / Flying J Travel centers will be in for a shock if they find out just what is on their property. Company policies are in place to deny fundamental rights to their employees, but? Their customers are different…

NASHVILLE – Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam‘s support for requiring businesses to allow their workers to store guns in vehicles parked on company property conflicts with the policy in place for the 20,000 employees at a chain of truck stops his family owns.

But his position is in sync with the approach followed by the city of Knoxville, where he is mayor.

Pilot spokeswoman Cynthia Moxley told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Knoxville-based Pilot Flying J prohibits workers from storing firearms in their vehicles at both its travel centers and corporate offices.

Haslam said after a speech in Nashville on Tuesday that he was unaware of the policy.

“The leadership of that company made a decision on that,” he said. “I never had a role in even talking to them about it. I didn’t even know what the rule was.”

Haslam was president of Pilot until he was elected Knoxville mayor in 2003. The company was founded by his father Jim Haslam and is now run by his brother Jimmy Haslam. The candidate maintains an unspecified stake in the company.

Efforts to repeal a state law that lets companies decide whether to forbid employees from keeping guns in their cars while they work has pitted advocates like the National Rifle Association and Tennessee Firearms Association against business interests like the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Memphis-based Fedex Corp., whose lobbyists in committee hearings have argued that the gun ban is a workplace safety issue.

Haslam caused some confusion on the campaign trail Monday when he first said it should be up to employers to decide about gun policies on their property, but later clarified that business owners’ rights shouldn’t extend to firearms stored in locked cars.

On Tuesday, Randy Kenner, spokesman for Haslam, deferred the question of whether city workers are allowed to bring guns to work and store them in their cars to the Public Building Authority, the landlord of the City County Building.

Dale Smith, CEO of PBA, said there is not a policy on the issue for the city and county garages, including the City County Building.

“There has never been a policy against having a gun in your vehicle,” Smith. “It would be unenforceable.”

That means employees can store guns in their vehicles, he said.

At the same time, “Even people with carry permits are not allowed to bring firearms in the buildings,” Smith said.

Haslam’s gun positions have come under closer scrutiny since he told the Tennessee Firearms Association last week he would sign into law efforts to end a requirement for people to obtain state-issued permits in order to carry handguns in public.

The Republican said his personal preference is to maintain the current requirements for the state’s approximate 300,000 permit holders, but that he would defer to the will of the Legislature on the matter.

Haslam, who does not own a gun, said he also supports a new state law allowing handgun carry permit holders to be armed in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The measure has been the subject of two overrides of gubernatorial vetoes in the last two years.

Democrat Mike McWherter has seized on Haslam’s positions on guns, calling it “irresponsible” because it will encourage sympathetic lawmakers to pass a bill to do away with handgun carry permits. He also argues for restoring a ban on handguns at late-night bars.

McWherter said it is the policy at his Jackson beer distributorship to allow workers to keep guns in their cars on company premises, but he wants to leave it up to each business to decide for itself.

“Bill Haslam is for letting anyone bring a gun to work unless they work for his oil company, in which case they can’t,” McWherter spokesman Shelby White said in an e-mail message. “He’s all over the map on a fundamental public safety issue.”

SOURCE

Behind the Scenes, Obama Continues Pushing UN Gun Control Treaty

October 26, 2010

The never ending attack on the United States of America by the epic fail obama administration continues unabated. Read on…

Voters can stop this global tyranny by electing an Obama-proof Congress
Friday, October 22, 2010

 

In late September, several dozen UN representatives met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to further discuss their plans for global gun control.

While our President may have a history of being absent for important events — missing over 300 votes while in the U.S. Senate, dissing important dignitaries who visit our country, etc. — he was sure to have his administration represented at this meeting.

The final report for the Boston Symposium on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is posted online and states that:

“In the end, we seek to achieve an ATT that will establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, in order to contribute effectively towards peace and stability. This Symposium has brought us one step closer to achieving that goal.”

So, they are one step closer to their goal.  What are there goals for our firearms?

Apart from using generic phrases like “highest possible common international standards” (aka, gun controls), the gun banners are very careful not to publicly post specific anti-gun proposals that would excite the American public against them.  But Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, who have attended these UN meetings, spell out what the proposed ATT will really entail.

Writing together with another noted firearms author of the Independence Institute, Dave Kopel, they say that an Arms Trade Treaty would impose:

* Microstamping on firearms, thus increasing the cost of each gun by about $200;

* Registration of all firearms, which is often a prelude to gun confiscation;

* Restrictions on gun sales, especially private transfers (thus, no more gun shows as we know them);

* Embargoes on firearms and materials (such as nickel and tungsten) that would limit access to many of the firearms which are sold in this country.

I’ll never submit to any stinkin’ gun control laws!

You might think:  “I don’t care what the UN imposes on us, I will never comply with their gun controls.”

Oh really?  So, you’ll never buy a new gun from a gun dealer?  Because if you do — and that gun has been manufactured according to UN treaty standards — then the microstamping technology on that gun will cost you a couple hundred dollars extra.

Not only that, the signature impressions that the firing pin leaves on your spent cartridge cases will be registered with the government under your name.

No problem, you say, you’re not a criminal — so who cares if the signature from your firing pin is registered with the government.

Well, do you ever take your guns to a shooting range and leave your spent brass?  According to Kopel, criminals could easily implicate innocent gun owners by going to gun ranges, collecting the empty casings and dumping them at crime scenes.  Moreover, the common practice of selling or giving away once-fired brass could disappear overnight.

Do you still think that a UN treaty won’t affect you?  The “master minds” at the UN plan to register every firearms sale that passes through a gun dealer and to cut off (make illegal) any private sale that you might attempt as a means of circumventing their controls.

But we can beat this travesty by electing an Obama-proof Senate this November!

Even if the President signs the Arms Trade Treaty — and he most certainly will when it’s completed — we can strangle this hideous creature in its cradle if he can’t get two-thirds of all the Senators to support him.

Help GOA stop UN gun control

That’s why GOA is here, fighting to make sure he can’t impose a UN gun ban on every American citizen.

GOA has published its 2010 Voter Guide which is available at the GOA website.

And the GOA Political Victory Fund has helped pushed several pro-gun candidates over the hump in their primaries and into the lead for the general election.  You can go to the GOA-PVF site to get more details on these races.

Finally, you can help Gun Owners of America continue to spread the word about pro-gun candidates by clicking here and contributing to the organization that is on the front lines defending your gun rights without compromising one inch.

This is crunch time.  We are less than two weeks away from one of the most important elections in our lifetimes.

Thank you so much for your support!

SOURCE

GOA In The Trenches

October 26, 2010
— Highlighting Records of Pro-gun Congressmen

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

 

GOA representatives are traveling coast-to-coast to discuss the differences between candidates running for office.

GOA’s Political Victory Fund has already issued scores of alerts, endorsements and contributions in important elections that will take place next week.  You can go to www.goapvf.org to see the highlights of these races.

GOA representatives are appearing at press conferences or rallies in several states.  While the following are just the tip of the iceberg, they represent the type of work that GOA is doing:

*
Arizona, Dist. 1 — Paul Gosar (A rated) vs. Ann Kirkpatrick (C rated)

*
Colorado, Dist. 3 — Scott Tipton (A rated) vs. John Salazar (D rated)

* Florida, Dist. 2 — Steve Southerland (A- rated) vs. Allen Boyd (D rated)

*
Georgia, Dist. 2 — Mike Keown (A- rated) vs. Sanford Bishop (C- rated)

*
Michigan, Dist. 7 — Tim Walberg (A rated) vs. Mark Schauer (D rated)

* Minnesota, Dist. 8 — Chip Cravaack (A rated) vs. Jim Oberstar (D rated)

* Missouri, Dist. 4 — Vicky Hartzler (A rated) vs. Ike Skelton (C rated)

* New Mexico, Dist. 1 — Jon Barela (A rated) vs. Martin Heinrich (D rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 2 — Steve Pearce (A rated) vs. Harry Teague (C rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 3 — Tom Mullins (A rated) vs. Ben Ray Lujan (F rated)

*
Pennsylvania, Dist. 11 — Lou Barletta (A rated) vs. Paul Kanjorski (D rated)
Pennsylvania, Dist. 12 — Tim Burns (A rated) vs. Mark Critz (NR)

* Virginia, Dist. 9 — Morgan Griffith (A rated) vs. Rick Boucher (C rated)

*
Washington, Dist. 2 — John Koster (A rated) vs. Rick Larsen (F rated)

Many of the above races involve Blue Dog Democrats who are trying to portray themselves as solid defenders of the Second Amendment, but their current grades seem to reveal they are nothing more than Pelosi puppets.

You can go to this link to see a bigger list of Blue Dogs who have been working to prop up Pelosi.

The GOA representatives who will be traveling this week include Vice-Chairman Tim Macy, Executive Director Larry Pratt, Director of Federal Affairs John Velleco, and Director of Communications Erich Pratt.

SOURCE

New England Journal of Medicine: Stuck on stupid, again…

October 25, 2010
Medical journals are not always the objective, purely scientific publications we might think that they are. Their editors have increasingly strayed into politics at the expense of scientific accuracy. For example, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has over the last few months published a number of extremely biased and poorly done studies on gun control.

Read About It: The National Review
SOURCE