Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Matt Mead: Rumor Control..?

April 3, 2010

The State of Wyoming deserves better than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Matt Mead appears to be attempting to be something that he isn’t. Being a member of the N.R.A. does not mean that you do, in fact, support gun owners. What is Matt mead’s position on the abhorrent and immoral unconstitutional  Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act that made ex post facto law the law of the land? Does it mirror the N.R.A. position? That’s just one example of the N.R.A. playing politics with the rights of Americans. I myself will need to look more deeply into Matt Mead before I will cast any vote for him. At this juncture though, it appears that I will be casting my vote for someone else… What follows is posted with the authors permission, please follow the link for the entire story.

Bridge for sale call Matt Mead
Image – A.Bouchard

Related Articles:

Matt Mead for Governor, wolf in sheep’s clothing

Matt Mead – rejected for governor by Wyoming Gun Owners


It appears Matt Mead has been deceptive while attempting to combat his anti-gun record as a U.S Attorney. In a recent email from the Mead campaign there was as stated a “little ditty” called “Killing the Rumor Mill” in which it states the following-

“We have added this little ditty to our email updates and will have a similar feature up on our website soon. It will be used to answer questions that come up or to kill strange email rumors. Just because you read it on the internet does not mean it is true. If you believe everything you get in an email then I have a bridge to sell you. ”.

It goes on with in Q&A format with this :

Rumor: Matt Mead does not like guns.

Fact: Matt Mead is a member of the NRA, a lifelong hunter, with a lifetime small game license. Matt is also an avid gun collector.

Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a “bridge”, because I don’t believe anyone ever said that “Mead does not like guns”, and lets be real here, being an NRA member, hunter and avid collector doesn’t make one a gun rights supporter does it?

“Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a bridge”

The NRA could be considered as a “strike” against Matt Mead. Just look at what this NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson said in support of the Clinton Gun Ban. How do you spell “elitist” gun owner?

Or, look at this state level NRA group the Wyoming State Shooting Association (WSSA) and their take on things- Wyoming’s – NRA little brother the WSSA exposes its true colors.

REAL LIFE FACT- there is documented proof that Mead has fought on the side of the BATF and against gun owners of Wyoming, PERIOD.

ANOTHER REAL LIFE FACT- Matt Mead and his VENOMOUS ANTI-GUN past will haunt him in his campaign for governor.

Full Story HERE

Attenion G-Mart Shoppers!

April 2, 2010

Today’s green light specials are hand grenades, and Fully Automatic Rifles. We also have a limited supply of RPG launchers, and a six pack of  high explosive rockets in a money saving package that will certainly make you the talk of the block!

Well, we all know that what is above is nothing but satire, and that would be fine if certain people didn’t insist on continually telling lies. Read on…

Heavily-Armed Cartel Attacks Mexican Army;
Weapons Used Show U.S. Gun Laws Not To Blame
Friday, April 02, 2010
At the end of March, troops of a major drug cartel launched a series of attacks on military personnel and installations in a half dozen cities in the northern Mexican states of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas. Fortunately, things did not work out as the narco-thugs had hoped. At least 18 of them are now taking the kind of siesta from which there is no awakening and, at last count, only one Mexican soldier was injured.

Contrary to the notion that the cartels depend on semi-automatic rifles bought illegally in the United States, the cartel conducted its attacks with a variety of weapons that cannot be legally bought anywhere in our country. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “In coordinated attacks, gunmen in armored cars and equipped with grenade launchers fought army troops this week. . . . The army said it confiscated armored cars, grenade launchers, about 100 military-grade grenades, [and] explosive devices” in addition to a large quantity of ammunition.

Contrast that reality with the fiction perpetuated by politicians on both sides of the border. NRA members certainly recall that soon after President Obama took office last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stated his support for an “assault weapon” ban as the solution to Mexico’s drug violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), the sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” ban in 1993, soon called upon President Obama to support the Inter-American Convention Against Illegal Arms Trafficking, claiming, “According to the Mexican government, about 90 percent of the weapons they seize from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.” Newspapers around the country fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, parroting the 90 percent claim, as well as the utterly absurd, mathematically impossible claim that 2,000 guns cross from the U.S. into Mexico each day.

Apoplectic anti-gun members of Congress held dozens of hearings on the Mexico situation, including field hearings along the border. At one dog and pony show in El Paso, former Democrat Party presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) obligatorily called for a ban on the importation of “assault weapons,” a ban already imposed in 1989 by the BATF (as it was then known), apparently without Sen. Kerry’s knowledge. In fact, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Feinstein nearly burst a blood vessel when a witness refused to support her belief that 2,000 guns crossed the border every day.

U.S. politicians have since maintained a low profile on the issue, fearful of the potential for a backlash at the polls in November. Last month, however, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, complained that “there are more than 10,000 gun stores along the American border with Mexico. . . . So, the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons to Mexico.”

The claim is no more true today than when it was first floated a year ago. As we have noted, most of the guns that Mexico has seized from the cartels and asked the BATFE to trace (because markings on those particular firearms indicated that they came from the U.S.) represent only a small percentage of guns that Mexico has seized.

This was stated, though not clearly, in a Government Accountability Office report last summer (see document pages 14-15). However, lest anyone be misled by GAO’s lack of thoroughness on this point, the Department of Homeland Security, in an appendix to the GAO’s report (see page 69), set the record straight.

“DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO,” DHS said. “GAO asserts that, ‘Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.’ and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

In the early part of the 20th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is certainly the case in this story. As the vast scope of the Mexican drug cartels’ multi-million dollar arsenals is incrementally uncovered, the attempt by opponents of the right to arms to use Mexico’s problem as the excuse for restricting Second Amendment rights has fallen flat.

And to Mexico’s soldiers who obliterated the cartels’ punks and thugs last week, we say “buen tiro” (translation: “Good shooting”).

SOURCE

Black John McCaffery: USMC

April 1, 2010

Seems that things in the P.I. are not what one would think. For several years various insurgent groups have been decimating the Islands of the Philippines…

John McCaffery, called “Black John” by the Marines that he served with would not be happy with what the current Philippine Government is proposing. No, not at all… When all hell broke loose in the P.I. at the beginning of World War Two? He was there. He spent months in the jungle fighting the Japanese. United States Marines are like that. Simple statement of fact folks…

And now? The Government of the Philippines? Have decided that the people there are to damned stupid to properly and effectively  defend themselves!

John McCaffery, wasted his, and Americas time…

Read on…

PNP wants permanent total firearm ban

By AARON B. RECUENCO
March 28, 2010, 4:31pm

The Philippine National Police (PNP) wants the implementation of the total gun ban to become permanent after it noted positive results not only in the campaign against election-related violence incidents (ERVI) but also in criminal activities nationwide.

Director General Jesus Verzosa, PNP chief, said that they have been receiving positive feedbacks from various sectors regarding the improvement of peace and order situation even in areas included in the election hot spots, including the usual troubled areas in Luzon like Masbate and in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

“Maganda ang resulta (it has produced good results),” said Verzosa when asked why they are planning to implement the total gun ban beyond this year’s election period.

“But we cannot decide on this matter on our own, we still have to coordinate with proper government agencies regarding this (proposal to make total gun ban permanent),” he added.

Right now, Verzosa said that they still have to wait for the after-operation results of all the security measures they proposed since the start of the election period on January 10 such as setting up of checkpoints and suspension of all permits to carry firearms outside residence.

“We still have to come up with the asessment which will serve as our basis in convincing concerned government agencies to agree on our proposal,” said Verzosa.

SOURCE

The “Golden State” of my birth…

April 1, 2010

Said State of Gold…? Is broke. As a direct result of socialist policy’s that have been going on for decades. It is broke morally as well as financially. Don’t get me wrong on this. There are still quite a few people in California that are decent, strong, and smarter than your average hoplophobe from San Fransisco. But..? Why, in the name of God, or any of the early Californios, are these things even an issue..?

Some things are right, and? Some things are wrong. Granted, some things are a bit gray. However? What follows clearly isn’t. Not at all. You see, these things are already granted…

Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license.  Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun.  AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
(916) 319-2024
Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

SOURCE

Playing the Race card: A dead mans hand…

April 1, 2010

When people on the left simply cannot come up with rational arguments to use against their opponents it is inevitable that they play the race card. Often in conjunction with the “it’s for the children” card.  Sorry, but that just does not cut it anymore, we are  on to you, and those things just don’t work any longer.  But? You just keep on playing those ace’s and eights.

Racist, or just tired of too much government?

“Democrats last week began a well-orchestrated campaign to change the subject from Obamacare by declaring Republicans the newest terrorist threat. House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer claimed that Democrats faced threats of violence in their home districts. He demanded that Republicans take a stand against it. ‘Silence gives consent,’ added Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, who accused Republicans of ‘aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism.’ Democrats promptly exploited their own fear-mongering by rushing out a fundraising letter. Meanwhile, a shot was fired through the window of Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s Richmond office. Instead of attempting to fill his campaign coffers over the incident, Mr. Cantor denounced Democratic recklessness in creating ‘media vehicles for political gain.’ To hear Mr. Clyburn talk, you’d think the Capitol had been bombed — like President Obama’s spiritual mentor Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground did in 1971 or the communist Revolutionary Fighting Group did in 1983. We don’t recall Republicans placing the blame on Democrats for those bona fide terror attacks committed by the Democrats’ ideological cousins. For the party’s leaders to make such insinuations now rings hollow. The Democrats and their supporters have consistently demeaned and mischaracterized the broad, nationwide, nonviolent grass-roots movement that arose in opposition to their radical agenda. A willing press establishment relays baseless claims that these protesters are violent uncritically and without investigation. … Any leftist thug is now free to toss a brick through a Democratic congressional district office window secure in the knowledge that the act of vandalism will be blamed automatically on Tea Partiers or Republicans. Such hoaxes are tickets to instant press coverage. … This victimization sideshow is meant to hide the fact that Democrats are pursuing policies that the American people oppose, and they are beginning to face a political price.” —The Washington Times

Anger, venom and bile: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” –Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy

That’s racist! “[T]he current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. … If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.” –New York Times columnist Frank Rich with a tired refrain

“[W]hat are the tea partiers really angry about? Health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?” –MSNBC host Chris Matthews

Which one of these is not like the other? “[The ‘Don’t Tread on Me‘ flags are] the same imagery that was on [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh, you know? I mean, this is the kind of thing that’s worrisome to me. I don’t see how you can get away from it.” –Fox News contributor Juan Williams, trying desperately to make a connection between the Tea Parties and terrorism

Non Compos Mentis: “Because I think there’s been very consistent strategy from the right to racialize public policies so that poor white people who are often most vulnerable or most in need of those policies will vote against it to align themselves with a certain kind of whiteness, whiteness of property. So the poor white guy in Mississippi who needs welfare votes against welfare because he thinks he’s voting against a poor black woman in Harlem.” –CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill

It’s not fair: “[M]aybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience. … I think that, you know, hell, if we’re going to be socialist, let’s be socialist all across the board.” –MSNBC radio host Ed Schultz, advocating for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” simply because Rush Limbaugh has far more listeners than he does

SOURCE

Payola: Epic Fail obama style

March 31, 2010

One has to admit grudgingly, that the impostor in chief does things with style, Chicago politics style…

Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench

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

“Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views… using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.” — Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

Monday, March 29, 2010

Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama’s transition team.

If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.  Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA’s standards for a judge.

But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism.  In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change… as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

Got it?  Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.  The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

In Liu’s world, there would be no gun rights

Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu’s where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did “damage” to civil rights and “upset settled understandings of congressional power.”  What?!  Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights?  Well, let’s be clear:  the Court did upset someone’s “settled” understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL’S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton… which should tell us all we need to know about Liu’s liberal, anti-gun views!

Rights evolve over time?

The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.

“It becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ and ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense,” Liu said in an interview promoting his book. “The Framers deliberately chose… broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time.”

No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:

I am very disappointed by President Obama’s nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit….

Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.  Professor Liu believes that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama’s appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn’t even meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.

Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving… which is why I’m very concerned about his Second Amendment views.  He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today.  I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions’ critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution.

I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn’t stand strong on the Bill of Rights.

Please oppose Goodwin Liu.

Sincerely,

Establishing a “Ready Reserve Corps” : Epic fail obama’s private army

March 31, 2010

And you thought that obamacare was all about give away’s to special interests, and the destruction of the economy? Nope, as reported here some time back the impostor in chief has indeed slipped in a few things that have nothing at all to do with health care, and yes, obama’s private army is enshrined in it. That would be the one that I blogged here almost in real time as I had a streaming video in Colorado Springs when he announced his plan during the run up to the election. Here’s just a bit from the monstrosity that the Congress and Senate passed in bald faced defiance of the American people. Can you say “Left Wing Militia?”

H/T fauxcajun via Texas Fred’s

SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of
1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the
Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United
States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the
Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section
(as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)
and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the
Regular Corps.

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist
regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and
emergency response missions.

(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and
domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of
the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds
appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training
of Commissioned Corps Officers

MULTIPLE SOURCES

Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…

March 28, 2010

Yet another Federal Judge chooses to ignore the facts… Read on.

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA’s case challenging D.C.’s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller’s assertion that D.C.’s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court “did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court’s upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.’s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a “reasonableness test,” which would “require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had ‘articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,’ and the measure did ‘not interfere with the “core right” the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'”

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.’s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an “intermediate scrutiny” level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws “implicate the core Second Amendment right” and, if they do, whether they are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”

Urbina agreed that D.C.’s firearm registration scheme implicates the “core Second Amendment right,” which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court “suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter,” and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the “factual” claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are in “common use,” the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina’s decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.

SOURCE

David Frum: So what!

March 25, 2010

David Frum, another has been neo-conservative has been getting an awful lot of press the last couple of days. So much so that I don’t even think any citation is needed. Defeatism, apparently, is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Oh, alright, HERE is one example.

Taking on the socialist’s / communist’s  at every opportunity is what we, the people, wanted our elected representatives to do.  Not work with them, no not at all. We, the people, call us The Tea Party or whatever, don’t want, or need your type of RINO faux conservatism.

You, and your phony blue bloods do not represent what we want, nor what we need. Nor are we quitters that would rather “compromise” away our beliefs.

If indeed we do take it on the chin come this November we will at least know that we took the fight to them, and never surrendered.

No compromise Mister Frum, none, none at all. Not when it comes to our rights as stated under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not when it comes to our Natural Rights or our shared Common Law Rights.

Your choice Republican’s. You can do what is moral and correct. Or you can continue to prostitute yourselves by “working with” the Democrat machine. You need us. We do not have any need, or desire for you to get on board if you and yours are still not willing to take a stand, and boldly hold to the shared values of the American people.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

March 23, 2010

Once in a while someone comes up with some very good ideas what follows was commentary over at Texas Fred’s blog. Enjoy!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 .

BZ