Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Playing the Race Card: militia groups on the rise

August 15, 2009

As reported here earlier militia groups never went away. They just started playing the game a little smarter.

“Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends,” the Associated Press reports. The story is headlined, “Officials see rise in militia groups across US,” but the “officials” turn out to be just those researchers for the far-left race-baiting Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.” Oh, and there’s the one guy from the ATF, whose lone quote about the growing movement is, “All it’s lacking is a spark.” Like the one at Waco?

The CBS Early Show joined in the fun, as co-host Russ Mitchell also cited the SPLC. “A report out this morning says anti-government and white racist militias are regrouping around the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center says it is in part a reaction to the election of America’s first black president.” Early Show correspondent Bob Orr expounded: “The report says 50 new militia training groups have popped up in just the last two years. Gun and ammunition sales are skyrocketing, and right-wing extremists, historically motivated by a distrust of government, are now especially angry about the election of America’s first black president.” Granted, conservatives are angry about a lot of things Obama is doing, but his race has nothing to do with it.

And as columnist Ann Coulter notes, “Throughout the presidential campaign last year, liberals were champing at the bit to accuse Americans of racism for not supporting Barack Obama. That was a tough argument on account of the obvious facts that: (1) for every vote he lost because he’s black, Obama picked up another 20 votes for being black; (2) Obama won the election in (3) a country that’s 87 percent non-black. So the accusations of racism had to be put on hold until … the first note of dissent from his agenda was sounded.”

SOURCE

The Rage continues: obamacare, it’s only the beginning

August 15, 2009

Outrage continues over the various pogroms being instituted by the current administration. The claim that these people that just are not going to put up with the seemingly never ending destruction of life as we know it are mere puppets with strings being pulled by nefarious others just refuses to cease. Nor does the rhetoric centered around so called “dialogue” have any effect. The simple truth being that talking to the various Lairds already failed, and now that those same people are being forced to listen it is somehow un-American not to allow them to continue controlling the “debate.”

I hate to tell these elected representatives, but they work for us. They are there to give voice to our wants not for the purpose of political correctness or to gain the acceptance of those that are entrenched in the halls of power. Are there those that have other ideas about how the nation should proceed? Certainly, and the war of ideas is alive and well. However, when only one side is listened to or acted on? There will be trouble. All the charismatic leaders in the world will not change that simple fact, and it doesn’t matter whether it is in America or wherever.

Figure it out. It’s really not all that difficult. Stay away from our guns; stay away from our sons and daughters birthrights, and for the love of God, figure out that we are Taxed Enough Already. It’s called philosophical libertarianism. Remember that? Personal responsibility, accountability, and dealing with others as you would yourself be dealt with? Where governments only duty is that of protecting the rights of the individuals that it presides over? Oh, and don’t forget about that pesky thing called The Bill of Rights. It was placed there for the sole purpose of protecting minorities from the mob rule known as democracy.

Militia Groups and others on the rise, oh my!

August 13, 2009

Supposedly various militia groups are on the rise according to the hate mongers at the Southern Poverty Law center. Be that as it may, why, I ask, would the American people feel the need to form such groups? Which, by the way, are allowed by the Constitution. Could it be a result of the oppression that many view as the de facto mission of the current administration? Or could there be more? This excerpt is from The Liberty Alerts Newsletter; H/T to Texas Fred

U.S. Preparing a Military Response
to Coming Social Chaos

As the shocking confidential information contained in this briefing shows, the threat of social meltdown and chaos is so large a domestic law-enforcement arm of the U.S. military (referred to by The Army Times as the “Consequence Management Response Force”) has been created to deal with what U.S. officials believe to be a coming, unprecedented wave of massive social chaos.

Later I’ll show you why many Washington insiders (including officials directly involved in homeland security) are personally making emergency preparations for social chaos. In addition, outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Brad Sherman that so much financial mayhem lies ahead U.S. troops may have to impose martial law to deal with social unrest.

Yes, U.S. Officials Are Quietly Preparing
for BIG Trouble Ahead

A new report by the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute states flatly the U.S. military must prepare for “a violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

Late last year, The Washington Post noted the incoming Obama Administration is going to “earmark” at least 20,000 troops returning from Iraq to deal with “domestic emergencies.” Since then, the Army Times has broken the story that the domestic emergency army unit has been increased to 80,000 troops, who are being trained right now in Georgia.

In short, U.S. officials expect big trouble ahead — but they are not warning the general public about the danger (much less urge the unsuspecting masses to make basic preparations).

A rare critic of the government’s keep-the-public-in-the-dark mentality is former head of the U.S. Commission on National Security, Stephen Flynn.  He noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “Too many officials believe telling the truth to Americans about the risk would set off a nationwide panic. Thus, they keep us sheep in the dark for our own good.”

New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders

August 12, 2009

The Examiners are turning out to be a very decent group. Even the ones that I don’t agree with. Now, if they would just let me have a general outdoors column… In any case, this reminds me a lot of a blogger that used to hang out at The Liberty News Forum. He is well stated, and backs up what he says.

SOURCE

Bigotry assumes many forms, hides behind many facades, but always it is the same; the social demonization of entire groups, classes or races of people in an effort to make them appear inferior and detrimental by their very existence.

In the wake of a nasty multiple shooting at a Pittsburgh, PA-area fitness club by a not-so-clearly psychotic man identified as George Sodini, America’s gun prohibitionists – led by the Violence Policy Center and Freedom States Alliance – are clamoring for restrictions or repeal of concealed carry statutes.
In the case against legally-armed citizens, the VPC has even manufactured an innuendo-riddled “study” to support their prejudices. My colleague, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White, writes about the shooting here.
Their hardly subliminal argument appears to be that citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection are a threat to the community. This contention is based on six shooting incidents over the past couple of years in which the gunman had, or apparently had, a carry permit.

A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience in the Lebanese army to stop an alleged bank robber.

Meanwhile, proponents of public disarmament haven’t said a thing about the estimated five million other citizens who are licensed to carry, and haven’t harmed anybody. There hasn’t been a peep from the gun prohibition lobby about the armed citizen who shot a convenience store robber in Virginia recently, heading off a bloodbath.
Nor have the gun grabbers mentioned the incident a week ago in Topeka, KS in which a legally-armed store clerk fended off two robbers at closing time. Self-defense Examiner Eric Puryear wrote about that incident here.
And you never heard applause from the hoplophobes – about whom I wrote the other day – after an Ypsilanti, MI man named Nabil Fawzi last year intervened in a bank robbery, did you?
An employee with a concealed carry license used his handgun to defend himself and stop a pair of criminals who tried to rob his shop.
Instead, what we get from the gun prohibitionists is a steady diet of fear mongering with but one purpose: The stripping of a fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms so that we lose our ability to exercise that most basic of human rights, that of self-preservation.
Nowadays, about the only form of acceptable overt social bigotry is against gun owners. The gun bigots argue that when one person with a gun does something heinous, all gun owners are expected to bear responsibility, and surrender their rights as though it would undo the crime.
Before the armed citizen, it was the owners of .50-caliber rifles who were likened to terrorists and cop-killers. Next week or next month, who will the prohibitionists smear in their effort to promote public hatred of fellow citizens whose only “crime” is that they exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right?
The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.
While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
David Codrea
Ed Stone
Paul Valone
Howard Nemerov
Dan Bidstrup
Daniel White
Don Gwinn
Kurt Hofmann
John Longenecker
Ron Bokleman
John Pierce
Candace Dainty
Gene German
Mike Stollenwerk
And don’t forget to visit these forums:
GunVoter.org
TheHighRoad.us
OpenCarry.org
More About: gunrights · Crime · Gun Control · Second Amendment · Self-Defense · Supreme Court · Personal Protection · D.C. · Constitution · Liberty · Gun safety · Open Carry · National concealed carry · Gun bans · Homicide data · Hoplophobia
ShareThis

Guns in School? : Front Sight Newsletter

August 12, 2009

Front Sight was the very first thing that I put on my sidebar. Read this from the newsletter, and you will understand why.

Packing for school: Guns on campus one year later

Ann Work Times Record News
Thursday, August 6, 2009
David ThweattWICHITA FALLS — One year ago, David Thweatt made a decision so controversial and groundbreaking the story about it sped around the world.The superintendent of the isolated Harrold Independent School District, about 30 miles northwest of here, made history last August when he and his school board decided to allow select teachers and staff members at the 110-student school to carry guns on campus — a first for Texas and the nation.

For Thweatt and his board, the decision was pure mathematics.

The school, which sits in the middle of a prairie, was too far from law enforcement for police to come in time to fend off would-be attackers. The students and staff would be safer if on-site, trained staff members were equipped to handle a crisis at a moment’s notice, they decided.

Thweatt had already installed a $100,000 state-of-the-art security system in the school. Now, arming certain unnamed school staff members by allowing them to strap a firearm under their clothing was the final flourish.

In the year since that historic decision, a gun was never brandished or fired at the school. There were no problems, Thweatt said.

However, one week after school began, police busted a methamphetamine lab set up in an abandoned house that sat 50 feet from the school property.

A deputy had peered inside and “saw something in the walls and windows and called for backup,” Thweatt said. “They made it to the abandoned house in 15 minutes. We had figured it would take 18 to 20 minutes in a typical situation.”

Had that been an armed intruder at his school, response time would have been too slow.

“We’re the first responders. We have to be,” Thweatt said. “We don’t have 5 minutes. We don’t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell” if attackers had targeted the school.

Harrold students, who grew up on ranches and in the middle of the North Texas gun culture, were unperturbed by the school district’s new gun policy.

“The kids just laughed about it,” Thweatt said.

Thweatt himself is the son of a retired minister/missionary/teacher in Abilene and a 1978 graduate of Abilene High School and Hardin-Simmons University.

Too small for athletics, Thweatt spent his time at Abilene High focused on his studies, particularly interested in journalism.

He wrote music and played guitar in a Christian band on weekends and was active in his father’s nondenominational Abilene Fellowship ministry.

Thweatt drove a school bus for the Abilene ISD and occasionally worked as a substitute teacher to help fund his education, graduating in 1983.

In Harrold, media attention was fierce all year. He talked to reporters from as far away as Ireland and New Zealand; he participated on more than a dozen talk shows. The story continues to spread; recently he saw a write-up in a Jerusalem newspaper. Only Finland and Switzerland reporters ignored the story; they already have high gun ownership rates, he said.

“I had a lot of interviews from kids and college kids,” he said. “They needed to learn. I’m an educator,” said Thweatt, who is opinionated but patient in interviews.

“Would you stick a sign at a school that says, ‘No guns on this property’? Why wouldn’t you? It invites nasty people to come,” he said. “That’s what you’ve done to every public school in the nation. That’s why there were no shootings until Columbine. It’s turned into a dad-gum shoot fest.”

Thweatt took calls from “just a handful” of Texas districts considering the same policy, but he wouldn’t say if any other districts had modeled Harrold’s M.O.

According to Barbara Williams with the Texas Association of School Boards, Harrold remains the only Texas school district with a guns-on-campus policy.

“We’re not aware of any others,” she said.

However, when Harrold made its groundbreaking decision one year ago, she watched the story go as far as Malaysia. She was even called by the Dr. Phil show, who asked her to help plan a show on the topic because they were so fascinated by it. She refused.

To her, it was so obvious as to be a non-issue. Dr. Phil, who claims to be a Texan, should know that, she said.

“This is Texas. I have a magnet on my refrigerator of the state with a plastic gun glued to it that says, ‘We don’t call 9-1-1.’ We find that funny in Texas,” she said.

When a London reporter asked Thweatt to explain why so many kooks go into schools looking for a body count, Thweatt said he couldn’t explain such a devolution of society, but he did know a simple way to stop it — the same solution he chose for Harrold ISD.

“Good guys with guns — good,” he said. “Bad guys with guns — bad.”

This is a story you won’t see in the main stream media so please forward this blog to everyone you know so it spreads across the Internet like wild fire as an example of the right solution for law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, their communities, schools and families.

To show my personal thanks and respect for Superintendent David Thweatt’s outstanding actions, I have placed a Front Sight Legacy Lifetime Membership in his name and look forward to seeing him at Front Sight in the future.

I will be posting a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.

If you have an interesting photo, story or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:

info@frontsight.com or

Ignatius@frontsight.com

If you want to take advantage of the Greatest Course, Gun, and CCW Permit Offer in the firearms training industry see this link:

https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

See you next week.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

//

Bookmark and Share

Entry Filed under: Front Sight, Handgun Training, Monday Blog Posts, Self Defense, second amendment

Wet Dreams and Hopolophobes: No cure in sight!

August 10, 2009

The hopolophobes in my home state are sad. At least it surely appears that way. They thought that they had a dead sure thing in their never ending quest to stifle liberty and freedom. Never mind that this will do nothing at all to deter the gangsters, rapist, and other assorted criminal ilk that roam among them.

It could though, make the Police unable to stay up to date on the weaponry that gives the good guys any edge at all. One major manufacturer has already refused to honor warranty’s to any California Agency because of the draconian laws the state has passed. Not to mention what is sometimes the back bone that is the first responder when there is that hated airing over the radio “Officer down.” The common citizen…

Having been a “Tactical Paramedic” the one thing I never wanted was to have to use my weapon. The only thing that could have been worse would be having to use it, and the damned thing refusing to go BANG!

I’ve been in no less than five shit or get off the pot situations in non-military situations, and I can assure anyone on earth or in heaven that I want my weapons safe and reliable as they possibly can be.

As I read the blogs and the MSM  I see, as clear as day, that distraction is in place. Health care is a decoy friends… These big government people really want to shut down your Second Amendment UNALIENABLE RIGHTS so that they can do the same to your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

Read about the California model for the destruction of Liberty

HERE

States Rights: 10th Amendment Primer

August 10, 2009

Not since the rebellion in America was quashed in 1865 with the surrender of Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant has so much attention been paid to state sovereignty as is being paid today.

More than 35 states have passed or are considering state sovereignty amendments, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Just before leaving office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed a bill declaring that state’s sovereignty, joining Tennessee Gov. Phil Bresdesen in that regard.

States are finally becoming fed up with the increasingly dangerous non-Constitutional overreach of the Federal Government, and State Legislatures are working to stop it.

Unfortunately, many of today’s voting-age Americans have never even read the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, most civics classes in public schools today dwell on other things. So far too many people have no clue how far their government has overreached and taken away their liberty.

But here’s the truth: the Constitution gives the three branches of government certain enumerated powers. Those not enumerated are reserved to the states, and to the people.

The 10th Amendment describes it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Yet despite that, since the Southern states were prohibited from removing themselves from an alliance that no longer worked in their favor—an alliance they entered into voluntarily—the U.S. government has grown increasingly more powerful. It could do so because the last remaining restraints on its power—the option that states had to leave the union—had been eliminated.

Here’s what has transpired since: During reconstruction the Republican Party centralized government, subsidized railroads, raised taxes on Southern property and businesses—then confiscated the property when taxes couldn’t be paid—and established an education system that taught a revisionist history of the run-up to and causes of the war (and the government-run education system continues this today). Congress also continued the first income tax—an unconstitutional act—that had been implemented by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.

In 1917 Congress established the Federal Reserve, a non-Constitutional entity with the power to control the U.S. money supply. In the 1930s, in response to The Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through New Deal provisions that further empowered the Federal Government while enriching certain constituencies. And now, in response to the global financial crisis, first President George W. Bush then President Barack Obama pushed through extra-constitutional spending bills. Obama then compounded the problems by nationalizing the financial and automobile markets; an action, again, that benefitted certain constituencies.

And now the Federal Government is proposing an even further overreach by attempting to enact legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions and tax energy companies that exceed arbitrarily set limits of the element, and to restrict your access to adequate healthcare.

It seems from the mood of many in our country we may have reached a tipping point as a result of these latest actions. Radio talk shows are alive with voices proposing—demanding even—that America return to the Constitutional roots. Protests denouncing the growing government are increasing in frequency and support.

Unfortunately, many in America still don’t understand what all the hubbub is about. So, to help them understand, here are 10 talking points from the Tenth Amendment Center:

  1. The People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
  2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the Federal Government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the State Governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
  3. The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
  4. If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?
  5. James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
  6. The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the Federal Government. With this in mind, any Federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a(n) usurpation of state sovereignty—and unconstitutional.
  7. Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states—not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything—including local colonies from across an ocean.
  8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.
  9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
  10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

If you want to first halt then reverse the tide of government overreach, pass these points around to your friends and send them to your state and U.S. representatives.

SOURCE

90% Myth: Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?

August 8, 2009

Where Are All Those Guns Coming From?

by Larry Pratt

The government of Colombia has been fighting the Marxist-oriented drug traffickers known by their Spanish acronym FARC for decades.  They have been trying to trace guns and other weapons coming from some twenty-seven different countries.

The guns turned up in various FARC encampments that have been busted by an increasingly successful counterattack by the Colombian military.

In an August 2 article in the Panamanian newspaper, Panamá América, it was reported that Columbia has made numerous inquiries to Interpol to find out where all the weapons are coming from.

In view of the Obama administration’s claims that privately owned guns in our country are migrating into Mexico and fueling violence down there, one might think that American gun owners are the cause of all foreign violence.  However, the truth is quite the opposite, it turns out.

The article summarizes the Colombian queries to Interpol as follows: rifles from Russia, Bulgaria, Communist China and Korea; pistols and revolvers from Central Europe and Brazil; explosives from Ecuador; munitions (a term that includes machine guns and other weapons such as grenades, mortars, cannons, rockets, etc.) from Brazil, Russia and Venezuela and anti-tank rockets from Russia, Rumania, Communist China, Sweden and the U.S.

Did you just hear the dog that did not bark?  In the above list, did you see any weapons that could be obtained at a U.S. gun store or show?  The only mention of the U.S. in the list is as a supplier of anti-tank rockets.  If anybody can tell me where us average citizens can buy rockets at a store or show, please let me know right away.

Where would anti-tank rockets enter the world market?  How about theft from domestic or foreign military arsenals?  By the way, the article reports that some of the weaponry mentioned above has been traced to Colombia’s own military industry.

The article also pointed out that the FARC are known to fly guns into Colombia on return flights that take drugs out.

You don’t suppose those same planes could sneak into Mexico, too, do you?

SOURCE

Southern Neighbor Goes Right

August 8, 2009

While we head toward fascism and internal imperialism…

Southern Neighbor Goes Right

By Larry Pratt
July 22, 2009

For at least two years, Panamanian gun owners had to live with the threat that the socialist government of Martin Torrijos (son of the late dictator) was going to impose a George Soros-inspired backdoor gun ban.

The Soros gun ban comes advertised as a licensing scheme which means that gun ownership is illegal unless you get special permission from the government.  Getting that permission is the problem.  By simply delaying processing of applications and renewals, the clock runs out and before long, nobody has a legal gun.

This kind of law can be very effective at disarming the public.  I first saw a law like this on the books and in use in South Africa.

Panamanian shooters actively opposed the measure.  At one point I addressed a forum they organized to dramatize the problems with the bill and the threat to safety that it presented.  Happily, the Chavez-backed candidate (to succeed Torrijos) in the elections last May got her clock cleaned, and the threat of the bill ended with the socialist government.

The winner, Ricardo Martinelli, is a wealthy businessman — as is his vice president Juan Carlos Varela.  To set the anti-graft tone of their administration, Martinelli announced at his inauguration that they would be donating their salary to a charity that would be building a medical clinic in the interior of the country.  “We might stick our foot in our mouth in my administration,” he said, “but we will not be sticking our hand in the till.”

The two official inaugural celebrations that feted some 10,000 people combined were paid completely from private funds, starting with those from Martinelli’s own pocket.

Martinelli also announced a truly transformational reform.  As in a great deal of the world, many rural landholdings have no clear titles, hence loans are unavailable for the owners.  I have seen this reform carried out in Guatemala and in El Salvador, and the result is a fiercely anti-socialist group of rural voters.  Memo to Chavez: in Panama, many of those voters already own guns.

During the administration’s first day, the education minister announced that she would not allow an association of professors to be recognized as a union.  The same day, Martinelli announced that a bankrupt banana-workers’ cooperative that had been getting subsidies from the socialist government would now be on their own.  Sink or swim — in the private sector.

At an inaugural mass specially called for by Martinelli, the sermon was preached by the Bishop of Panama.  It sounded like one of our colonial election sermons.  The bishop urged the people to pray for their new leaders that there might be peace in the land.  He then challenged the politicians who were present to never separate their Christian values from their politics lest the country lose its culture of respect for life and protection of the family.

With the legally deposed thug from Honduras (former President Mel Zelaya, a Chavez ally) sitting some twenty feet from him on the stage, Martinelli announced that his election represented a challenge to the far left wing in Latin America.  He added that he intends to make Panama the best place in Latin America to do business.

That is change that I can believe in.

SOURCE

Ninth Circuit to Hear Gun Case

August 8, 2009

Second Amendment: Ninth Circuit to Hear Gun Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed this week to review en banc (by the full court) a panel ruling from earlier this year which held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The idea of such incorporation has long been a question regarding the Second Amendment, though no one would seriously question that the First Amendment, for example, applies to state and local governments. And the First Amendment contains the far more specific provision of “Congress shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The Second is far broader: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Still, we were rather surprised to see even a panel of the Ninth Circuit find that the Second Amendment means what it says.

Furthermore, Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s ruling in favor of gun rights is at odds with rulings by other Courts of Appeal — including a ruling penned by Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court deliberately left the issue for another day in its Heller ruling last year, because the District of Columbia is not a state. Expect that silence to be broken in the not-too-distant future.

SOURCE