“Our Founders intended the Senate to be a body where legislation was slowed down and subject to improvement through extended debate and amendment. [Harry] Reid’s proposed ‘reforms’ would remove two of the most fundamental rights traditionally reserved to all Senators — to freely debate and amend legislation. I shall not stand for that.” — Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
On Election Day last November, several Democrat Senators were campaigning for reelection in pro-gun states. And in order to get their constituents’ votes, they promised fealty to the Second Amendment.
Patrick, on November 6, Democrat Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Bob Casey (PA) and Jon Tester (MT) all won their respective elections. These seats, among others, were crucial to helping Harry Reid return to the top post in the Senate.
But only a month after the election returns were tallied, the Senate — under Majority Leader Harry Reid’s control — is now crusading to implement:
* Gun bans on semiautomatic firearms and magazines;
* An effective ban on gun shows;
* A ban on private gun sales, without going through a gun dealer; and,
* Changes in the Senate rules which would allow them to ban guns with a mere 50 Senate votes.
This last proposal is particularly insidious. Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control. But, with the help of fake “pro-gun” Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50.
So the question of whether Senate Democrats will need 50 votes or 60 votes will determine whether gun control -– and much of Obama’s agenda -– will be slammed through and passed into law.
This brings us to the “nuclear option.”
This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control.
Your senator’s vote on the “nuclear option” may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.
Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the Senate is just following its precedents.
But that’s a bald-faced lie. As Democrats made clear during the Bush administration when the Republicans were contemplating the “nuclear option,” the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.
Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the “nuclear option” can only be invoked on the first day.
That’s a lie. Senate Rule 5, Paragraph 2, provides that the Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, unless changed by 67 votes (needed to break a filibuster of rules changes). If the Senate can use brute force to obliterate Rule 5 by 50 votes, it can use brute force to obliterate any rule at any time by 50 votes.
This is a major vote that will have huge ramifications for our republic. Our gun rights are just one of the many freedoms that are on the chopping block right now. And if Harry Reid can squelch his opposition by nuking the filibuster, it will be the first step towards completely obliterating our Constitution.
ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and tell them that the vote on the “nuclear option” will be the most important gun control vote of the 113th Congress. Urge them to vote AGAINST changing the Senate rules. Tell them to vote AGAINST the “nuclear option.”
You may also phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
People like this author need their butts kicked! Period!
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
What “observers?” The jerks that support taking people’s property by the government simply to increase tax revenue? The cretins that are all for freedom of expression just so long as that speech agrees with what they agree with? The mentally ill that seek to spread their Hoplophobia and turn us all into victims in a nationwide free fire zone? Perhaps the author is referring to those that engage in legalized theft from those that labored and took risks to become better off than their neighbor’s? Maybe those that are fighting sexism in our society, just so long as the sexism isn’t being perpetrated by a female. Or by the racist’s that abound in America, but only those that are not of northern european decent?
Perhaps all of them?
I would suggest that we give up on people such as the author, and send them packing.
Most elected officials would love nothing more than to take gun owners’ votes and then never hear from them again until the next election rolls around.
They think they’re MORE than capable of running our lives for us, after all. Voters like you and me just “get in the way.”
. . . which is why I’ve joined with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners to sponsor the Colorado Constitutional Carry Act in the upcoming Legislative Session.
I believe it’s time for you and me to send a loud and clear message to the General Assembly that the days of demanding gun owners’ votes and then doing nothing in return are OVER.
As you know, if passed, Constitutional Carry would restore the right of every law-abiding Colorado citizen to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families — WITHOUT going through a bunch of bureaucratic rigmarole!
In short, if you’re legally able to own a firearm, you’re legally able to carry it concealed for self-defense. Period.
This is the way it’s done in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.
And despite the hand-wringing of the gun-grabbers, the news media and government bureaucrats, those states have not seen a rise in shoot-outs and vigilante justice since passing Constitutional Carry.
I know you’re not surprised.
When law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves, criminals soon realize they had better start looking for another line of work.
After all, attacking a “victim” armed with a concealed firearm can often result in early “retirement!”
The fact is, the gun-grabbers’ overbearing and UNCONSTITUTIONAL “regulations” and “requirements” are meant to do nothing more than undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens just like you and me.
After all, do CRIMINALS ask for government permission before they carry a concealed weapon?
Do CRIMINALS have to pay fees or take training classes?
All they have to do is claim they’re worried you MIGHT commit a crime in the future -– a power which will almost certainly be abused in certain areas.
*** Military veterans can be STRIPPED of the right to carry a concealed weapon;
Simply acknowledging mental stress to an anti-gun government psychologist upon returning from war could trigger the ban.
*** Colorado gun owners must pay a fee every five years, or have their “training renewed,” just to keep their permits;
Some estimates show these regulations cost law-abiding Colorado gun owners up to $3 million every year, which is why some “pro-gun” organizations (of whom many are firearms instructors) supported this provision in the past.
Then, using mail, email and phone banks, I plan to recruit an additional 50,000 Second Amendment supporters all across Colorado to help join in this fight.
And when the fight really begins to heat up, my hope is to run targeted newspaper and radio ads to help us get the votes to put us over the top.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid even all this won’t be enough.
If you and I want to DEFEAT the gun-grabbers’ anti-gun lobby, we must be prepared to push on every front.
None of these tactics will be cheap. So I must ask for your generous financial support, as well.
Well, the Black Crows have finally stepped up and released their decision having to do with Arizona’s attempt to protect it’s people from a quite literal invasion by people that do not belong there. As usual, they did what at best might be called a half-assed job.
I find it ironic at best that the courts, and government in general, expect we the unwashed, follow the various laws of our nation or face numerous penalties including fines and imprisonment. But do not do the same when political expediency, or correctness enter into the fray, and it involves themselves.
Sexism is all fine and dandy as long as it is the context of misandry. Immigration enforcement is held in high esteem so long as it does not apply to anyone from south of our borders. Lifetime bans on firearm ownership for less than felony behavior is cool. Even though the ability to properly and effectively defend oneself, friends, and family are God given, and enshrined within the Bill of Rights. Private property is nothing more than a pipe dream if the local, state, special district, or federal government can make a few dollars based upon eminent domain. Rights and freedom and liberty can be brushed aside by juries of less than twelve. Yet urinating on our nations flag is indeed a form of protected speech…
The seemingly never ending grab for power by the big government insatiable authoritarian types is an ongoing and never ending situation. Now, we have this to deal with…
URGENT: A new bill before Congress proposes authority to strip any American of their citizenship – and God-given rights – if they are merely suspected of a hostile attitude toward the state.
Pundits and politicians keep repeating the same mantra, “no rights for terrorists,” but ask yourself, who defines terrorist and why should that opinion strip any American of their God-given Constitutional rights? What happens when the government decides the enemy is YOU?
Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown are joined by Representatives Dent, Altmier and Latta in proposing the “Enemy Expatriation Act.” This proposed act, (HR 3166 and SB 1698), seeks to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, (8 USC 1481), to add the following text “To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”
To many, this language seems benign. First of all, the use of the word “national” seems to give the impression that the proposed punishment would only apply to American citizens who were “nationalized,” i.e. not citizens by birth. However, when we examine the language of 8 USC 1481, we find the law defines a ‘national’ as “A person who is a national of the United States whether BY BIRTH or naturalization.”
Now for the term “hostilities.” What exactly constitutes a “hostility” and/or a “hostile action”? After all, 8 USC 1481 already quite clearly defines who should have their citizenship stripped – anyone who commits actual formal treason and/or who takes up arms against the US. Why the need to add a single undefined word to this age old section of the US Code?
It appears, as with so many other things, this Congress chooses to simply leave the term “hostilities” open to interpretation. And herein lies the danger.
Ambiguity in the law is always dangerous. Considering the fact that Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security has already defined returning veterans, 10th Amendment supporters, pro-lifers and anyone with a 2 week supply of food as potential “rightwing terrorists,” this new ambiguous language leads directly to the likelihood of stifling our Constitutional right of free speech by labeling such speech and action as “hostile” and therefore punishable as “terrorist” and treason. As George Orwell famously penned, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Indeed, it appears that Senator Liebermann and his fellow conspirators agree.
Finally, let’s take a look at the proposed placement of the new language to be added to the existing US Code. While the existing US Code mentioned above does require a conviction of treason before citizenship is removed, the manner in which this new language is added means that the necessity of a conviction does not apply, in statutory terms, to the new language. In other words, if this new bill passes, no conviction will be necessary to strip Americans of their citizenship. Rather, all that will be required is an accusation of “hostility” by a Federal Government agent and voila, your citizenship is gone. The Government is then at liberty to treat you in any way they so choose in accordance with the laws of war. Waterboarding for praying in front of an abortion clinic, anyone?
This unconscionable landslide removing our civil liberty in exchange for the false lie of security must be stopped. This so called “Enemy Expatriation Act” is nothing more than NDAA Part II, when a tyrannical Government doubles down on shredding any concept of Habeas Corpus and the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution – civil liberties paid for with the blood of our forefathers.
Benjamin Franklin warned us not to trade our liberty for the false promise of security. Yet the power mongers in Congress just keep trying.
We are rapidly approaching a time when the culmination of unconstitutional laws can and will be used against us. Under a pro-abortion president will we be rounded up and incarcerated for sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics? Under a “hawk” president, will antiwar protestors be locked in Guantanamo for merely holding picket signs and shouting their objections? This sounds extreme, but such legislation and seemingly benign rulings are exactly what have imprisoned legions of political dissidents throughout history and across the globe. Why should we imagine that we are immune to such tyranny? THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED! HABEAS CORPUS MUST BE RESTORED NOW!
Richard Mack is well known as the first of eventually six sheriffs to take on the Brady Law. And, much to the delight of pro-gunners around the country, the Supreme Court agreed with Mack in 1995 that the federal government did not have constitutional authority to force state officials to conduct background checks.
Mack is no longer in office, but that has not stopped him from staying involved in promoting constitutional issues. He is now taking the lead in informing sheriffs of the authority they have as the chief law enforcement officer in their counties. While this has come as a surprise to many federal officials, the Constitution is quite specific in terms of what they are allowed to do. Almost all the powers which “We the People” have delegated to the federal government are listed in the 18 clauses found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Sheriffs find that when they warn the feds not to conduct an unconstitutional police action against one of their citizens, the feds back down. Sometimes the feds threaten to arrest them, but when the sheriff’s response is “game on,” the stalemate ends with the feds backing down.
I recently attended the first conference of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Nearly 100 sheriffs attended, in addition to many police chiefs and some county councilmen. One of the encouraging things about the conference was that while many of the sheriffs there were not initially willing to risk a confrontation with the feds, they are now willing to do so after hearing the testimonies from many of their fellow constables. It was very educational for them to hear how different sheriffs have “faced down” the feds.
For example, Tony DeMeo is a former Jersey City cop who ended up getting elected as Sheriff in Nye County, Nevada. He became a pivotal player in his county by protecting citizens from an outrageous abuse of power that was perpetrated by the Bureau of Land Management.
Pro-gun activists will remember the stalwart Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho who served in the 1990s. Well her husband, Wayne Hage leased acreage for his ranch from the BLM. Hage had ownership of the water rights — as long as he used the water at least once during the year.
Later, the BLM decided that Hage did not belong on the land, and so they began to confiscate his cattle. After the second theft, Hage enlisted DeMeo’s assistance, which helped him deal with the BLM when they arrived a third time to confiscate even more cattle. Sheriff DeMeo confronted the BLM agents and backed them down to the point where Hage no longer had to worry about the BLM’s larceny anymore.
After Hage’s death, his son won a lawsuit begun by his dad against the federales, and now a court ruling has established that the Hage family can live without fear of their government stealing their property.
It is clear that there are many sheriffs who are willing to protect their counties, but do not know what they can — and should — do. The Gun Owners online book store carries Richard Mack’s little book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope (http://gunowners.org/store/books). If your sheriff is not aware of his powers – and his responsibility – please give him a copy of this book.
We can put the federal Jeanie back in the bottle, one sheriff at a time.
We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.
One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.
So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.
In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.
And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.
At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.
“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.
But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]
Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]
Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.
Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.
[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate. Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:
[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.
Newt Gingrich
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]
Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”
[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.
[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).
Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…
The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously sided with Gun Owners of America in finding that the placement of a Global Positioning Device on an automobile constitutes a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and follows GOA’s reasoning to throw out the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test which has been thought to be the dominant Fourth Amendment standard in recent years.
The Obama Administration argued that because the police could theoretically follow Antoine Jones’ car, he had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and thus, placing a GPS device on his car was justified. GOA argued, however, that this constituted an “unreasonable search and seizure” which violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
This decision will have dramatic ramifications for gun owners. Indeed, the Court looked to the Founders’ intentions with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which, until the latter part of the 20th Century, was understood to restrict the ability of police to “trespass” upon the persons or property of Americans.
“This is no less than a fundamental transformation of American jurisprudence concerning searches and seizures,” according to GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt. “And it is a transformation which throws out fake modern jurisprudence and restores the Founders’ intent.”
The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test flowed from a Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Gun Owners of America had argued that the Supreme Court should jettison that decision by an activist court, and a majority of the justices agreed.
“The ‘expectation of privacy’ test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government,” argued GOA.
Four members of the court — led by Samuel Alito, and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan — argued for the continuation of the “reasonable expectation of privacy test,” but concluded that planting a GPS device on a car for 28 days constituted a Fourth Amendment “search” under that standard as well.
The Obama administration, which had argued that planting a GPS device on a car was not a “search” under the Harlan standard, was unanimously repudiated by the High Court. And the case is being cited by the mainstream media as a defeat for Obama and his Justice Department, which is led by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Said Pratt: “This is yet another failure by Eric Holder, the most corrupt and incompetent Attorney General in the history of the Republic.”
Gun Owners would like to thank its activists for their support. Your contributions helps GOA to assist in future cases like this at the Supreme Court.
It is seldom that I actually endorse products or services. That said there is a new book being offered by The Second Amendment Foundation that deals primarily with the Second Amendment but really exposes the methodology used by big government authoritarians and other assorted hate America First types.
Called Shooting Blanks, it is a must read for anyone that rejects the politically correct game that is being force fed to us all on a regular basis. Libertarians, Conservatives and any others that are concerned with Freedom, Liberty, the Constitution and Bill of Rights can find a wealth of information and ammunition to use when confronting those that would destroy America, our deepest values, and beliefs.
Pundits and politicians keep repeating the same mantra, “no rights for terrorists,” but ask yourself, who defines terrorist and why should that opinion strip any American of their God-given Constitutional rights? What happens when the government decides the enemy is YOU?
This unconscionable landslide removing our civil liberty in exchange for the false lie of security must be stopped. This so called “Enemy Expatriation Act” is nothing more than NDAA Part II, when a tyrannical Government doubles down on shredding any concept of Habeas Corpus and the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution – civil liberties paid for with the blood of our forefathers.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 