Concealed Carry for Out-of-State Travel Fails -- Senate falls two votes short this week 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 "Gun Owners of America, another leading gun rights Second Amendment group, is a strong supporter of this amendment that's specifically pushing for passage and scoring member's votes." -- Louisiana Senator David Vitter, July 22, 2009 Friday, July 24, 2009 Well, there was good news and bad news this week. The good news is that a majority of the U.S. Senate (58 members) voted for an amendment to allow citizens who are already authorized to carry firearms concealed to do so when they travel out of state. The bad news is that the Senate still fell two votes short of the 60 votes needed to enact the amendment, which was sponsored by Republican Senators John Thune (SD) and David Vitter (LA). A prior Unanimous Consent agreement allowed the amendment to be offered in the first place, but as such, required that the legislation garner 60 votes (rather than a simple majority) in order to pass. The Thune-Vitter amendment was hotly debated on the Senate floor Wednesday. Senator Thune pointed out that, while 48 states have some form of concealed carry law, his measure would simply "extend that constitutional right across State lines," recognizing that the right to bear arms and defend oneself "does not end at State borders or State lines." One of the more comical arguments made by some Democrat Senators -- Chuck Schumer (NY), Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Dianne Feinstein (CA) -- is that this provision would compromise "states rights." Of course, these Senators have shown they care little about "states rights," as evidenced by federal gun control laws that bear their names: the ban on semi-automatic firearms (the so-called Feinstein assault weapons ban) and the lifetime gun ban on people who engage in pushing-and-shoving incidents in the home (the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban). And where was their adherence to states rights when they voted for the Brady bill, the Gun Free School Zones Ban and the Veterans Disarmament Act? Republican Senator Tom Coburn (OK) pointed out their hypocrisy when he said: "We had a vote in terms of honoring States rights in terms of the national park bill on guns. Twenty-nine of my colleagues, thirteen of whom now are 'defending States rights,' stepped all over States rights with their vote against the Coburn amendment when it came to allowing people to have supreme their State law in terms of national parks." Senator Thune noted that his provision would protect the rights of states by not applying any national standards. Rather, the text simply requires states to acknowledge the concealed carry permits from other states. In fact, the language of the text specifically states that nothing in the amendment "shall be construed to affect the permitting process for an individual... or preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms." Article IV of the U.S. Constitution allows for reciprocity-style legislation by the Congress. The Article allows Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state. Please go to the GOA website to see how your Senators voted: http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=237&chamber=S&congress=1111 Gun owners should take special notice of Republican Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and former-Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter (PA) -- both of whom voted against concealed carry. Had they voted pro-gun, the Thune-Vitter amendment would have passed. **************************** Internet Gun Rumor Recently, there have been a lot of emails and phone calls about SB 2099 -- a "new" bill that purportedly requires Americans to claim guns on their 1040 federal tax forms, provide fingerprints, and pay a $50 tax on each individual handgun they own. This is simply not true. There is no S. 2099 in the Congress right now. This is simply a case of taking a little bit of truth from an old bill that was shot down, and creating a hoax. For more information, please visit the Snopes website, which is an excellent resource for debunking internet rumors. The specific URL regarding SB 2099 is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp **************************** Defend The 2nd Amendment Through Creative Giving... As we confront the challenges of the future, we know that the generosity of those who assist us will make all the difference in our success. That's why GOA seeks your long-term support. Please call 703-321-8585 during regular business hours or e-mail goamail@gunowners.org to request information on how to keep control of your assets and make a gift at the same time through: * a bequest * a retirement plan * a will, living trust, or insurance policy Requests for information are confidential and do not represent an obligation.
Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category
Good News and Bad News: GOA Alert
July 25, 2009Second Amendment permits…
July 25, 2009I have posted several times about unalienable rights, and why in the world any permit or license should be needed. But, such is life these days in our not so United States…
Second Amendment Reciprocity?
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton
As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama’s “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called “economic recovery” act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO’s CO2 folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of “economic recovery” programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP “spending” had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.
All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of “Trickle-Up Poverty.”
Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by judicial diktat).
Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?
That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact — defense appropriations.
The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.
The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.
One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called “hate crimes” legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): “The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority … is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important … than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.”
Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.
However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune’s amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.
Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today’s milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)
Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune’s measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.
For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes — the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return…
Schumer protested, “This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we’ve had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted.”
There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune’s reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense — a tit-for-tat in response to McCain’s complaint about Reid’s “hate crimes” amendment.
However, I subscribe to the notion that “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.” That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Sidebar: For those who don’t know enough about American history to comprehend that “a well regulated Militia” refers to “the People,” stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don’t teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.
The Second Amendment’s assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from “enemies, domestic and abroad.”
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution’s principal author), wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
On that note, let’s take a closer look at Schumer’s complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.
“Each state,” says Schumer, “has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas.”
Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.
So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.
Ironically, the First Amendment notes, “Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)
Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining “speech” to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.
Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.
In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune’s reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders’ original intent.
The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.
Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of “the people,” as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”
In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both “declaratory and restrictive clauses” in order to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers” that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.
More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson’s “Despotic Branch”) began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.
The High Court construed the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 as support for incorporation: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property.”
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.
However, given the fact that our Founders’ intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.
So, in regard to Sen. Thune’s reciprocity amendment, I ask, “Reciprocity for what?” Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?
With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.
However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.
When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, “We’re able to breathe a sigh of relief,” in regard to the defeat of Thune’s amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to “Support and Defend.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Reciprocity or a States Rights Issue?
July 21, 2009National Concealed Carry? Is this a States Rights Issue or would this be a blessing for Americans that have been overwhelmed by crime in those places where the forces that are anti- freedom and liberty?
Could this also be an Interstate Compact issue? After all, if Gay Marriage is, and other licenses such as Drivers licenses are, then why not the fundamental right of self-defense? Or? Could this just be another example of just how divided these not so United States are these days? Could this be Federalism gone insane? Or could this in reality be something that could be used by haters of liberty to further restrict freedom via unforeseen circumstances? The devils are always in the details, and at least for now I am on the fence about this. My first question would be why any person that has not been adjudicated insane or convicted of a felony needs any sort of permit, or license issued by anyone, anywhere, to exercise an unalienable right.
First, from the Chicken Little’s of the world we have this. The usual list of suspects are prominent, and, if they had their way only the elites, including themselves, would be able to effectively defend themselves from the forces of evil.
Then, we have a more balanced approach here. Examining the issue based upon merits and not simple emotional hyperbole.
Then there is the problem of State Constitutions. Nearly all the States protect gun/ weapon rights. But not all of them, including California. This could go on and on into the never-land of circular argumentation that leads to nowhere, and accomplishes nothing.
OBAMA STILL NUMBER ONE!
July 19, 2009The impostor in chief is still number one! Yes, his polls are off, and he seems to be doing a rope a dope of sorts using distractions such as “health care reform.”
While it may be true that sales of semi auto pistols may be off a bit he still remains “Salesman of the year” because of the interrelationship of ammunition. Remain vigilant America because the anti freedom cabal of this administration are still there, and attempting to wreck havoc upon you.
High demand for bullets puts strain on manufacturers
Friday, July 17, 2009
By JEFF DUTE
Outdoors Editor
Sales of semi-automatic guns have fallen sharply, but now it’s the bullet manufacturers who can’t keep up with demand. In most cases locally, however, retailers are experiencing no long-term, across-the-board shortages.
“There are just more people that are panic-buying, and the manufacturers are going to keep smiling as long as they continue to do it,” said Joan Garrett, who has sold guns and ammo at Quint’s Sporting Goods in Saraland for 30 years.
Politics and the economy are both are work, according to manufacturer representatives who’ve spoken to Garrett.
National Concealed Carry Bill
July 18, 2009Someday I will figure out why a permit is needed for an unalienable right. But? This is certainly a step in the right direction.
Vote on Right to Carry Coming Soon -- Please urge your Senators to vote YES! 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 Friday, July 17, 2009 A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday! Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several states. Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647). This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV). The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state. This is important because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in other words, without a permit! ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote YES on the Thune/Vitter concealed carry reciprocity amendment that will be offered to the Department of Defense authorization bill and NO on any modifying amendments. This vote could come as early as Monday, so please act on this right away! You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator: Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment rights. A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the border of his state. I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment. Sincerely, **************************** Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination To The United States Supreme Court
July 17, 2009Can you say “holding back again?” Judge Sotomayor should fit right in on the Supreme Court. After all, she, like so many others appears to be a master of deception…
WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
AND
CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION – INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Time to put the heat on your Senators as Sotomayor hearings begin.
July 13, 2009Should We be Surprised by Sotomayor's Radical Views? -- Time to put the heat on your Senators as hearings begin 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 "I will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of foreign law and the question of [her] commitment to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.... President Obama, who nominated Judge Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second Amendment guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009 Monday, July 13, 2009 Today, the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. In many ways, Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American heritage and with the views of Americans in general. For example, Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and that rights are constantly changing with the times. But should we be surprised? The President who nominated her holds some of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House. His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular -- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum. Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years: * As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking industry and is now looking to do the same with health care. Even the Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we are going to end up to [Obama's] right." * As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 as the most liberal legislator in that chamber. Realize that such a ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). * Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme positions on gun control: supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more. Obama's brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as a ball of wax. In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme Courts for "never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of wealth.... It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she stated in 1996 that law is not "static and predictable," but "constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions." ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor nomination. Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on final passage). Please 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: Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American heritage and with the views of Americans in general. Not surprisingly, the Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans oppose her nomination than support her. Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and that rights are constantly changing with the times. But a majority of Americans disagree. Multiple polls have found that almost three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns. Not so for Judge Sotomayor: * She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." * And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on final passage). I would like to hear back from you on this. Although rest assured, Gun Owners of America will keep me up to date on any further developments. Sincerely, ---
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?
July 12, 2009For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.
Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.
Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…
Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”
Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.
$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies
By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009
Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.
When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.
According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf
How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.
And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!
I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”
Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.
Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.
Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”
Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications. So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:
1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)
2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)
3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)
4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper of all.)
5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)
These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. 
Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress
July 12, 2009Seems like there is an awful lot of misinformation going around the Internet lately concerning new gun laws that are, or are not on the table. This is a synopsis as of today from Gun Owners of America.
Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress
| Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills
House:H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family. H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established. H.R. 197 (Stearns): This bill would establish national standards for concealed carry reciprocity, but would not protect residents of pro-gun states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require paper permits. H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee): This bill would, among other things, impose a ten-year prison sentence (a life sentence if death or kidnapping results) for using a firearm to cause bodily injury on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. H.R. 257 (Jackson Lee): This bill would take the already Byzantine restrictions on teaching your kids the responsible use of firearms and extend them from handguns to semi-autos; increase the age of applicability from 18 to 21; and increase potential penalties to up to 10 years in prison. In addition, the bill prohibits unaccompanied minors from gun shows, and subjects parents to up to 3 years in prison for keeping an unloaded gun (with ammunition in the vicinity) if a jury finds that they disregarded a risk, that a kid (including a burglar) would get a hold of the gun and the unauthorized user causes injury. This provision effectively eliminates having guns available for self defense. H.R. 265 (Jackson-Lee): This bill is intended to remove the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by blacks) and powder cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by whites). The bill is, among other things, intended to relieve sentencing on the basis of the fact that crack cocaine was the drug involved, but increase sentencing on the basis of the fact that a weapon was “brandished.” H.R. 442 (Rehberg): This bill would provide amnesty for a veteran who acquired a “souvenir” (such as a machine gun) while serving overseas, so long as it is registered during a 90-day grace period. H.R. 455 (Welch): This bill would add the Missiquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, and commission a study on, among other things, the possession of weapons on lands adjacent to the area. H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes): This bill would authorize $15,000,000 for two years to the BATFE for the purpose of enhancing its project to thwart the transportation of firearms across the Mexican border. H.R. 510 (Kind et al.): This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly. H.R. 623 (Reyes): This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment. (See, also, H.R. 834 and H.R. 866.) H.R. 642 (Flake): This bill would provide that, except for overriding reasons such as national security or safety, public lands should be open to recreational shooting. It would generally require that withdrawal of lands from recreational shooting be offset, and would require congressional committees to be notified in writing before such a withdrawal. H.R. 673 (Filner, McHugh): This bill would make changes in the federal employee retirement system with respect to certain law enforcement personnel. H.R. 675 (Filner): This bill would provide police, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement personnel in the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. H.R. 808: This bill would create a Department of Peace, which would be tasked with, among other things, analyzing policies with respect to “tools of violence, including handguns.” H.R. 834 (Poe): This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment. (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 866.) H.R. 866 (Brady et al.): This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment. (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 834.) H.R. 1022 (Schiff and Bono Mack): This is the 111th Congress’ incarnation of the “gang bill.” It would, among other things, define a “criminal street gang” to include an informal group of five or more people (such as a family or business), each of whom has committed one or more “gang crimes” (such driving by a school with a gun in the car under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)), including a violent felony (such as defending your family against a criminal under circumstances in which a prosecutor feels you should have retreated). H.R. 1048 (Sires, Hare, Wilson, Frank, Meek): This bill would prohibit the HUD secretary from accepting any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement that requires registration of firearms or prohibits their possession for sport or self-defense. H.R. 1074 (Scalise): This bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, provided that the laws of the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee are complied with, in addition to federal law. H.R. 1448 (Rodriguez et al.): Like H.R. 495, this bill would authorize $15,000,000 a year to send BATF agents to the Mexican border and to Mexico in connection with “Project Gunrunner.” In addition, it would provide $9,500,000 a year to do things like trace firearms recovered in Mexico, presumably for the purpose of building a case for anti-gun legislation in the U.S. It also contains $150,000,000 a year for other border security operations and $15,000,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. H.R. 1620 (Boozman): This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states. Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms. H.R. 1684 (Hastings): This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks. H.R. 1913 (Conyers, Frank): This is the controversial House-passed Hate Crimes bill. It would impose a 10-year prison sentence for a simple “attempt” to cause bodily injury if a firearm was involved. H.R. 2159 (King of New York, Rangel, McCarthy, et al.): This bill would allow Eric Holder to declare any person a “prohibited person” (revoke licenses of, etc.) if he “suspects” that individual of aiding terrorism. Given recent disclosures that the government regards pro-lifers, pro-gun advocates, veterans, and other conservatives as potential terrorists, this has to be regarded with some alarm. This is particularly true because Holder is specifically authorized by the bill to withhold information concerning the basis for putting conservatives on his “enemies list.” H.R. 2296 (King, Space): This is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of the Judiciary Committee Chairman on the Senate version of the bill. The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately. While GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC). H.R. 2324 (Castle, McCarthy, et al.): This bill is a reincarnation of the year-after-year effort to effectively ban gun shows by allowing them to be regulated and inspected to an unlimited extent. In addition, any gun show sponsor would be subject to up to two years in prison if he failed to notify every single attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law. H.R. 2401 (McCarthy): This bill is a reincarnation of legislation to make “prohibited persons” of everyone on an administration “terrorist watch list.” Suffice it to say that:
Senate: S. 160: This is the Senate-passed bill to grant a voting representative for the District of Columbia in the House. As a result of an amendment added on the Senate floor by Senator John Ensign, it would repeal the gun registration and microstamping provisions of D.C. law, and would bar the District from passing new anti-gun statutes. S. 296 (Chambliss, Cornyn, Coburn, Isakson): This bill would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Although the language is a little muddy, it appears that the 1934 National Firearms Act is retained. S. 325 (Cochran): The bill would allow pest control pyrotechnics to be exempted from the explosives provisions of Title 18. S. 371 (Thune, Vitter): This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states. Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms. S. 556 (Vitter): Current law allows long guns to be purchased in a face-to-face transaction with a gun dealer in a state outside the purchaser’s state of residence. This bill: * extends that law to all firearms; * allows the gun to be purchased at a gun show; and * rescinds provisions that allow the state of residence to reach into another state and prohibit a transaction which has nothing to do with its jurisdiction. S. 632 (Baucus et al.): This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly. S. 669 (Burr): This bill would protect veterans by first requiring a finding by a judge or magistrate that an individual is mentally incompetent before his guns are taken away under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This would replace the current method, which has resulted in the disarmament of more than 100,000 veterans by government psychiatrists, who have issued opinions claiming that PTSD symptoms require a returning veteran to get help to manage his financial affairs. S. 816 (Crapo): This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks. S. 845 (Thune, Vitter): This is the GOA-supported “Vermont-friendly” concealed carry reciprocity bill. S. 941 (Crapo, Leahy): This is the Senate counterpart to H.R. 2296 and is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately — and it’s pretty clear (and GOA has in fact been told) that this anti-gun provision was added as an inducement for the support of Leahy and Obama. And, while GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC). S. 1317 (Lautenberg): This bill would allow the Attorney General to deny the purchase of a firearm pursuant to an Instantcheck (or a permit which would allow a person to by-pass the Instantcheck) if he “suspect[s]” that the person has been engaged in conduct “related to terrorism” and the Attorney General has a “reasonable belief” that the firearm might be used in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General is specifically permitted to withhold any information concerning his “reasonable belief.” Take into consideration, in evaluating the application of this bill, that DHS in 2009 circulated an advisory attempting to link mainline Second Amendment and pro-life groups to “terrorism” — and a number of recent newspaper commentaries have argued that groups like GOA and the NRA are, in some way, responsible for criminal acts recently committed in Pittsburgh and Wichita. |
A leash of sorts for thugs?
July 11, 2009Abuse by one particular government agency is legend. It would appear that finally some real reform might come to the folks that brought you the Ruby Ridge entrapment fiasco, and the American Holocaust known as Waco. During the Clinton era, explosives were added to the bureau’s name in an effort to legitimatize the mission that was at that time under the administration of the Internal Revenue Service. Explosives? As a tax issue? For some reason arson was also added to the sphere. While those things should come under the wing of the F.B.I. The changes made little if any difference in the day to day practice of Agents. It should be remembered that every single one of the people that work at B.A.T.F.E. have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that these very same people do their very best to deny people of their unalienable rights. That friends, is treason, defined.
Don’t get me wrong, not all agents are evil people. I have actually known one that was a decent person. One…
SPACE’S ATF REFORM LEGISLATION GAINS SUPPORT OF 100 DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
07/09/09
– Cosponsor List Crosses 100 in This Congress –
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hailing a major milestone in the effort to protect law-abiding gun dealers from excessive and overzealous actions on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Congressman Zack Space (OH-18) today announced that his BATFE reform legislation has gained the support of over 100 Members of Congress. While the size of a cosponsorship list does not guarantee a vote on the bill, gaining 100 bipartisan cosponsors shows widespread support and momentum.
“My colleagues are waking up to the assault on the Second Amendment being perpetrated by a culture within the ATF that rewards agents for denying gun licenses,” Space said. “I applaud their willingness to stand up to protect law-abiding citizens from overzealous federal agents.”
“Every day that goes by without action on this issue is another day of lost liberty. ATF reform cannot wait. Crossing this milestone will only redouble my efforts to show House leadership that we are serious about this bill,” Space continued.
The bipartisan BATFE Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009, which Space introduced with Rep. Steve King (IA-05), would replace the all-or-nothing rules for punishment with a graduated system, remove promotion guidelines that reward agents for the quantity of arrests and citations, and it would require the BATFE to establish intent behind minor violations. BATFE regulations now are so restrictive that if a person writes “y” instead of “yes” on a gun purchase form, the application is frequently rejected.
This legislation would:
- Create a system to provide more flexibility in punishing those who are found to have violated gun sales laws.
- Establish a solid legal requirement for determining the willful violation of the law.
- Create specific sentencing guidelines for dangerous felons convicted of a gun offense.
- Set limitations on the availability of electronic gun owner information to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
- Allow security companies and ammunition manufacturers to purchase machine guns for product testing and international security personnel training.
- Ease the restriction on the importation of replacement parts for semiautomatic rifles.
- Direct that a suspension or fine be vacated if a court determines a licensee did not willfully violate the law with attorney’s fees awarded to a cleared defendant.
- Direct that the number of warnings, amount of fines, or suspensions or revocations shall not be a factor in firing, promoting, or transferring agents.
Although not identical, this legislation is similar to a bill Congressmen Space and Steve King (IA-05) introduced during the 110th Congress.
Congressman Space has represented Ohio’s 18th Congressional District since 2007. He is working to restore integrity to the office and create the conditions to bring new industry and jobs to Ohio.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 