Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

An ENEMY of the people…

December 18, 2010

Nearly two years into his term, President Obama finally chose a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Mr. Obama will submit the name of Andrew Traver, the special agent in charge of the Bureau’s Chicago field division, to the Senate, the White House said. However, he will face a confirmation fight—if his nomination is not filibustered, eliminating him from consideration.

Why? He is an anti-gun zealot. This is preposterous!

I can’t—nor can most Americans—comprehend the idea of an anti-gun zealot being in charge of the ATF. Even worse, Mr. Obama appears to be waiting to appoint him during the Christmas holiday recess because he knows he will face a brutal confirmation hearing by Senate Republicans and gun-rights moderate Democrats—if not an outright boycott of his nomination…

Insiders tell me it this appointment could, and likely will, happen when no one is thinking about it. It could be the last Christmas present you unwrap on Christmas morning; or perhaps, it will be the throbbing headache you wake up with on January 1. The bottom line is this: Andrew Traver is an ENEMY of the people, like you and me, who understand the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of liberty and, without the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we would be no more secure, no more safe in our homes, than the least safe and least secure people in the most despotic nations on Earth. The Second Amendment is what safeguards the entire Bill of Rights. Weaken the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States will easily be breached.

Let me give you Andrew Traver’s philosophical resume:

  • He favors banning ALL gun shows.
  • He opposes civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
  • He opposes private firearm sales.
  • He wants the Center for Disease Control to have oversight of the firearms industry. Apparently Mr. Traver believes guns are a disease. Or, maybe it’s the gun owners he believes are diseased.

This is a DIRECT AFFRONT to those of us who own guns and use them properly and lawfully.

A frightening as it is, Mr. Obama can legally make a “recess appointment” and commission Mr. Traver is the TOP law enforcement official over the gun industry without a single Senator voting to confirm him. By confirming him on January 1, 2011, Traver would head the ATF for the balance of Obama’s term in office. Now, that’s scary, too.


The ATF hasn’t has a director for almost four years. Former director Carl Truscott’s reign was marked by numerous complaints about misappropriation of funds and poor treatment of employees. Following his resignation in 2006, the parameters were changed, and Senate confirmation is now required for a nominee.

Mr. Traver is NOT a friend of the people who whole-heartedly believe in the Second Amendment rights in the U. S. Constitution. Yes, that’s you and me!

What he is a “friend” of is the “Chicago Machine” that spawned so many of your favorite Chicago-Washington “elites” who use the word “Chicago” as a synonym for cronyism. Cronyism was voted OUT in the November elections; but the message has not yet resonated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama’s anti-gun friend will head the ATF if the American people don’t stop him. That’s why you and I must STOP this recess appointment.

The bottom line: We MUST let our voices and votes be heard. Traver is obviously NOT the man to head the most powerful firearms policing agency. His ANTI-GUN BIAS illustrates a clear conflict of interest on his part and his nomination proves that Barack Obama is openly hostile to your gun rights.

Anyone as clearly hostile to the Second Amendment as Mr. Traver is, has no business being allowed to head the powerful gun licensing and regulatory agency.

The nomination of the Naperville, Illinois native to be top gun cop is applauded by gun-control activists, who say the 5,000-employee ATF has lost ground in its regulation of the $28 Billion US firearms business, having labored under interim directors since 2006.

Quite frankly, Mr. Obama has chosen a very strong, anti-Second Amendment ATF head for an administrative job that has far more influence over the practical exercise of the Second Amendment rights than any other job in the country.

In spite of our economic uncertainty, Americans spent $11 BILLION MORE in 2009 than in 2008 to buy guns, ammo, and gear, etc. In an economy that needs every dollar in retail sales from every corner of the free enterprise system, killing $11 billion more in retail sales in a failing economy is not wise, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.

There are roughly 80,000,000 gun owners in our great country who, like you, must reject this presidential appointment. So we must GET INVOLVED NOW to fax every single Member of Congress to make sure that the appointment of Andrew Traver is TOTALLY BLOCKED.

Chris Cox, NRA spokesperson said this about Andrew Travers: “You might as well put an arsonist in charge of the fire department.”

The bottom line: Andrew Traver is an anti-gun zealot. His confirmation, recess or otherwise, MUST be blocked! Mr. Traver is clearly NOT the man to head the most powerful firearms policing agency in the world. His anti-gun bias illustrates a clear conflict of interest. Please help us at this very moment to block this travesty and adverse person who is AGAINST YOU and your ownership of a gun.

We must OPPOSE this confirmation right now.

This email from The Second Amendment Foundation has been modified in order to pass muster with spam filters. If you wish to donate to the cause, go HERE.

obamacare and the Courts…

December 14, 2010

Basic instinct as well as simple logic reveal that the mandated purchase of a product, any product, exceeds the power and authority of government. Yet, as expected, courts are issuing different rulings concerning this abominous assault on the personal liberty and freedom of all Americans.

I can already hear it though; you are just too stupid to be able to understand things like this. It’s just too complicated for you. To that I reply that when laws are beyond the ken of the common man then they are unenforceable, and violate the principles of natural and common law.

Within a fortnight of each other, two federal judges in Virginia, relying on identical precedents and hearing carbon-copy arguments, issued diametrically opposed decisions on the constitutionality of the federal health-care overhaul.

Read side by side, the two rulings reveal strikingly divergent views of what the case is about—and suggest that the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will rest on which depiction best satisfies the Supreme Court.

Full Story HERE

So what next..? A Supreme Court ruling that will treat all of us as wayward children that are incapable of making our own decisions about life and death matters? If so, then what of Juries, and our entire system of laws?

Related Story


Righting “wrongs” based on wrong interpretations of “rights”

December 1, 2010

Socialists,from President Obama on down, look at the government as the
creator and administrator of rights. That is why even some on the left
liked the Heller and the McDonald decisions which overturned gun bans
in Washington, DC and Chicago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that the Supreme Court ruled
against these the gun bans in these two cities. And I’d rather be in
our shoes today than in the Brady Campaign’s — as they saw their
arguments slapped down harshly by the Court.

So why then would some big-government types like these two decisions
— especially the McDonald case out of Chicago? Because in basing
their decision upon the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the
Justices perpetuated a false doctrine which has allowed the
Constitution to continue evolving.

The Due Process clause is the place where judges invent rights and
then decide how much the government can control them.

Gun Owners of America argued that the Court should have based its
decision on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Court would have then been using a definitive clause dealing with
rights of citizenship rather than the amorphous “substantive” Due
Process Clause where Courts have run wild and seldom come to
constitutionally-based conclusions.

Justices love the Due Process Clause because it has been interpreted
in such a way to allow judges to twist the Constitution to fit their
big-government world view. They love this approach because they love
righting “wrongs” based on what they THINK are “rights.”

President Obama complained on a Public Broadcasting radio interview,
when he was a state senator, that the Constitution only protects
negative rights and that such a limitation (in his view) must be
overcome. Obama made it quite clear that a constitutional republic
that is governed by our Constitution is antithetical to his socialism.
He talks of a right to health care, and a right to a comfortable
living, and, well, a right to anything the left thinks will help buy
votes.

Indeed, the role of government in the Founders’ Constitution is to
protect liberty, and no more. Socialists want government to provide
for everything, making the people dependent, even at the expense of
liberty.

The left is hoping to pit their understanding of the 14th Amendment
where courts create rights against the Tenth Amendment. They argue
that the Fourteenth Amendment, being enacted after the Tenth, trumps
the earlier amendment. That is why they are so eager to inject their
view of government-created rights into the 14th Amendment.

If the government is the creator of rights, then the government must
be protected from the people. That means they cannot allow any notion
that the Second Amendment is intended to be a check on the
unconstitutional exercise of federal power. The constitutional militia
was intended to be an instrument of the states to protect their
citizens from the federal government (by legal definition throughout
the colonies). All freemen were required to own military long arms.

Wyoming is on the right path. Wyoming has a Firearms Freedom Act which
“interposes” Wyoming against all federal laws involving a firearm
made in the state and which remains in the state. Unlike the other
seven states with identical laws, Wyoming makes violation of the act
by a federal official a state offense punishable by up to 365 days in
jail. Had they added one more day to the potential penalty, any
conviction would result in the loss of gun rights under 18 USC 922(g)
for any federal official who violates their law.

States and county sheriffs are going to need to take the militia
clauses of the Constitution seriously. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa
County (Phoenix), Arizona has a posse of 3,000. If Arizona were to
create a State Guard and encourage sheriffs to beef up their posse
strength to levels analogous to Maricopa County, and if other states
were to follow suit, the federal government would be less inclined to
assume that there are no limits to their powers.

Such an outcome will not come about until we understand that there is
no conflict between the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and that
rights come from God, not from government. Government-made
“rights” are the “wrong” rights.

SOURCE

A great night for the Second Amendment: Or was it really?

November 5, 2010

The Second Amendment had a great night on Tuesday. Across the nation, the right to arms is stronger than ever, and the stage has been set for constructive reforms in 2011.

U.S. Senate: The net result of Tuesday was a gain of +6 votes on Second Amendment issues.

In not a single U.S. Senate seat did the gun control lobby gain ground. Three open seats switched from anti-gun to pro-gun: Ohio (Rob Portman replacing George Voinovich), West Virginia (Joe Manchin taking the seat of the late Robert Byrd), North Dakota (John Hoeven replacing Byron Dorgan). In Arkansas, John Boozman’s victory over Blanche Lincoln is a significant gain.

Full Story

It just so happens that I agree with Dave Kopel about 99% of the time. Now, having said that..? Just how many of these new kids on the block will take on Lautenberg and Schumer. Two men devoted to the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How many will put forth legislation doing away with GCA 1968? Or the ex post facto law portion, if not the entire Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act? The abortion known as obamacare? With it’s hidden as well as blatant un Constitutional mandates..? I myself, am sick of hearing how this or that “D” is pro Second Amendment then all they do is pay lip service… Unless it’s election time, and that goes for RINO’s like McCain as well!

HERE is another good read that, especially if you read the comments. Shows to what extremes some people will go to for the sole purpose of “Lording it over” you and I.

Will the hoplophobia continue on. It is, after all, politically correct mental illness.

MFFA: Feds: States’ growing gun-rights movement a threat

May 21, 2010

It appears that the Federal government is worried about the various states that have decided that enough is enough. Federal oppression has been going on for decades, if not longer, and it is high time that something was done about it.

While MFFA is about firearms it is really about everything that the Federal government has been doing under the authority of a terribly warped interpretation of the Constitution, and simply ignoring the Bill of Rights.

The federal government is arguing in a gun-rights case pending in federal court in Montana that state plans to exempt in-state guns from various federal requirements themselves make the laws void, because the growing movement certainly would impact “interstate commerce.”

The government continues to argue to the court that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution should be the guiding rule for the coming decision. The argument plays down the significance of both the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 10th Amendment provision that reserves to states all prerogatives not specifically granted the federal government in the Constitution.

Full Story Here

Elene Kagan: A Scorecard

May 13, 2010

I’ll admit, when I first read that the impostor in chief had made a decision on who he would put before the senate for confirmation as the next Justice on the Supreme Court, and who it was, I was not all that alarmed. With the caveat that the devil is always in the details, and if details are not readily available? Then dig a little deeper… Thankfully, Anthony at The Liberty Sphere had more luck than I did… At least with all the power outages etc. that I have had recently do to the man made global warming. You know, that white fluffy stuff… Please follow the links for the entire story.

Is Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a self-avowed socialist?

It would appear to be the case. Then what can we expect from the current person running things at the White House?

Does America need an anti-military Supreme Court justice?

Stupidly, we are in a multi- front war, along with a rather serious asymmetrical warfare situation. The answer to the above question should be self evident. Unless of course you are hell bent on the destruction of these not so United States of America.

Explosive report shows Kagan supports censorship of TV, radio, posters, and pamphlets

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

That’s correct. The lady apparently believes that the government can tell you what you can say, print, think, and yes even blog about. And please, don’t anyone use the “Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” argument. If the damned place is in fact on fire it’s your civic and moral duty to let people know so that they can escape.

More controversy on the Kagan nomination casts doubts on her fitness for the Court

Controversy is putting it mildly. The lady is an obama clone from the way things appear. Oh, alright, unlike obama, she does still have her license to practice law.

Then we have her history on Gun Control, and it isn’t hitting your intended target…

obama care in the crosshairs

May 13, 2010

The government of epic fail obama has tried to claim that the wholly un-Constitutional obamacare does not violate the Constitution.

Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued in a 46-page brief filed in federal district court in Detroit. For the courts to overturn President Barack Obama’s signature domestic legislation would amount to unwarranted interference with the policymaking authority of Congress, they added.

When will the coronation begin? So the vulcan eared phony can ram anything down the throats of the people of America? If this monstrosity was so Constitutional and good for America then why the bribes? Why did getting it passed require so many back room deals?

The case could go all the way to the Supreme Court, since more than a dozen state attorneys general have also filed suit against the legislation on broadly similar grounds. Cases are pending in federal courts in Virginia and Florida, raising the possibility that different appeals courts could issue conflicting rulings that the Supreme Court would have to resolve.

So, we the people, will once again have to bend our collective knees and adhere to the law like good little Boy Scouts? Anyone with as much as mush between their ears saw what can be expected during the Town Hall Meetings. We, the people, are fed up with overbearing government! before of all you leftist get your panties all wadded up bear in mind that the above statement applies to Republicans as well as democrat / socialist’s. Two, or more wrongs do not make a right people. Further, who does them makes not a single iota of difference.

“Under the government’s theory, they could force anyone to purchase vitamins, join a health club, or buy a General Motors vehicle, for that matter,” said Robert Muise, a lead attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, the conservative group that filed the Michigan lawsuit March 23, the same day Obama signed the law.

This country simply cannot wait for this to go to the Supreme Court. This needs to be stopped in it’s tracks. Add in the Court stacking that the current regime is doing, and this is the sort of thing that we can look forward to for quite some time.

SOURCE for the quotations above.

Additional information

And the cost?

Let’s not forget about the hidden gun control, that was stripped out, and then sneaked back in like a Lautenberg in the night.

Elena Kagan: As more becomes known

May 12, 2010

Long before Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s April 9 announcement that he will retire this June, legal observers had already picked a front-runner for the seat Stevens has occupied for 34 years: former Harvard Law School dean and current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Kagan is seen as the politically wise choice for Democrats. Some legal and political observers say the moderate credentials that earned her quick congressional approval in 2009 for solicitor general — the government’s head lawyer and spokesperson before the Supreme Court — would translate into a relatively smooth Supreme Court confirmation. Having already approved her as SG, it would be difficult for congressional Republicans to oppose Kagan’s nomination and paint her as “outside the mainstream.”

But this focus on short-term political calculation obscures the most significant consideration. On matters of executive authority — where the judicial branch has been a vital bulwark against post-9/11 “war on terror” civil-liberties violations — Kagan’s record indicates an ideological departure from Justice Stevens, who authored watershed detainee-rights opinions and organized the five-justice majorities that struck down other Bush administration power grabs.

To be sure, attempting to assess a judicial philosophy, much less a justice’s evolution once on the bench, is difficult (see David Souter). And Kagan’s tight-lipped nature regarding her personal legal philosophy, coupled with a scant paper trail, doesn’t help. But if her record — the few clues she provided as an academic, and in her tenure thus far as SG — is any indication, she’s more likely to side with the conservative bloc on matters of executive power and war-time presidential authority.

Elene Kagan: The “short” unknown

May 10, 2010

Elena Kagan reportedly is the impostor in chiefs choice for the Supreme Court. So far, little really is known about the lady. What is known, is that she spent a lot of time in academia. Ivy league schools, and all that.

Considering the anti liberty leftist big government teachings and social activism that has been rampant at such places for so long? I for one am not all that sure that those things are in fact positives. The crotch card is also being played again, and I see that as a negative. Not the fact that she is female but the fact that it is even being touted.

What is the lady’s position on the Bill of Rights? The Constitution? Individual liberty verses Government power? Is she a constructionist or does she believe that a piece of paper breathes? Is she an obama boot licker or can she think for herself, and act on that rather than take marching orders?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Related links:

ONE

Two

Three

Then, after all is said and done? Could there be a queen bee conflict on the Court between her, and the “Wise Latina?”

Then later in the day there is THIS go figure!

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown

April 25, 2010

Stolen from Anthony Bouchard, with permission.

Articles related to Police State:

Sheridan Police harass gun rights activist, terrorize his family during swat style confrontation

City of Sheridan hires a police chief from Detroit that breaks the law and misplaces his gun

IRS purchases firearms and uses them for government greed


Danger Ahead, more power is being ordered up from Congress.

You say, “I know, I see this every day”. But this one fits right into the category- “the more I learn of my government, the more I love my guns”.

And now that I have said that, I guess this legislation could be used against me.

This should scare the hell out of you!

More cries of “there are terrorists out there”, but it’s the same old – take more rights away from you and me.

This legislation will allow the federal government to detain ANYONE, ANYWHERE (yes even you), bypassing constitutional judicial safeguards on the whim of the executive branch or agency designated thereof.

It’s as if federal legislation like Real ID (Dangerous ID) and the Patriot Act somehow doesn’t give them enough power. Are you getting the big picture?

In case you weren’t watching, Bush signed the Patriot Act into law and Obama extended it. This is how big government works, for it’s own goals.

Instead of repealing laws that stomp on our rights, once again the GOP is leading the way to further trample the Constitution.

S.3081 the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 – introduced by Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Tea Party pick Scott Brown, yes it didn’t take Brown long to show his true statist colors, did it?

This is why Wyoming Citizens must demand a backbone from our state legislature, to stand up and fight by passing state legislation that says NO MORE!

The State Legislature could very well be our real “last hope” to stop the power hungry oozing bile in D.C. from taking every last constitutional protection away from Citizens.

On a local level this Police State legislation is generally favored by Law Enforcement Officials like – Sheridan Police Chief Richard Adriaens and his cronies at the Police Union, to be specific Byron Oedekoven of the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police.

You may want to read this article – What Police State Legislation Looks Like, where it states this: “These politicians know that the public is angry. They also know that other politicians don’t like to speak against a bill that’s “tough on terrorists,” even when the bill’s language is absurdly broad”.

Open Carry Redefined?
In this legislation there is reference to the Geneva Convention and insurgents – “in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention” which points to artice 4 that states the following:“Volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions…that of carrying arms openly”.

Does that mean being at an open-carry rally or with a group of open-carriers consisting of two or more could label you as a “Enemy Belligerent”?

Here are a few excerpts from this DANGEROUS LEGISLATION:

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…may be detained without criminal charges and without trial…Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States…

…matters as the President considers appropriate…

The operations and activities of high-value detainee interrogation groups under this section shall be governed by such regulations and guidance as the President shall establish for purposes of implementing this section…

An individual who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent and who is initially captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States by an intelligence agency of the United States may be held, interrogated, or transported by the intelligence agency and placed into military custody for purposes of this Act if retained by the United States within a reasonable time after the capture or coming into the custody or effective control by the intelligence agency, giving due consideration to operational needs and requirements to avoid compromise or disclosure of an intelligence mission or intelligence sources or methods…

Each interagency team under this subsection shall be composed of such personnel of the Executive Branch having expertise in matters relating to national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation, or law enforcement as the President considers appropriate. The members of any particular interagency team may vary depending on the skills most relevant to a particular case…

Waiver of your Miranda Rights:

…shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona…

I have said this time and time again – “It’s going to take gun owners to take up the political fight”, we can no longer stand by and let them dismantle our country!



Anthony Bouchard
is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization.

SOURCE