Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

More shenanigans by a Clinton

March 31, 2009

Hillary Clinton is back in full force spreading venom as Secretary of State. While I suppose the Puma’s are proud most people are sane enough to see through this classic smoke screen that politicians are so fond of. Blame the rights of Americans for another nations built in problems. The only thing that this storm has as a silver lining is that many people are finally realizing the absolute futility of the failed War on Drugs. Yes, that’s right, the Democrats are looking to the Libertarians and Conservatives ideas about taking away the incentives that fuel the cartels. The best evaluation for this strategy that I ever found was written by no less than William F. Buckley Jr.

However, that particular bit of enlightenment is heavily outweighed by the methodology that the government is proceeding forward with.

Hillary Clinton praises ineffective 1994 semi-auto ban
“And there’s no doubt in my mind that the 10 years we had an assault weapons ban in America was one of the tools that helped to drive down the crime rate. And we’ve been really fortunate. We changed our policing techniques, which we’re sharing with the Mexicans. We put in more technology, which we’re advising the Mexicans about. But getting those assault weapons off the streets was really helpful.” – Hillary Clinton
Hillary, guns and drugs
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has received a minor flurry of criticism for acknowledging that the United States or at least some people in the United States bears some responsibility for the explosion of drug law related violence in Mexico that has left more than 7,000 Mexicans dead since January 2008. The trouble is that she doesn’t seem to be prepared to follow her comments to anything close to their logical implications.

Read About It: FOX News
U.S. freedoms not to blame for Mexico’s drug war
Nobody is surprised that Attorney General Eric Holder wants to make good on his promise to ban guns. We just didn’t know whose tragedy he’d seize to advance his agenda. Now we do. It’s the drug-driven death and violence in Mexico at the hands of ruthless criminal cartels.

Read About It: CNN
Mexico violence mustn’t affect U.S. policy
While it’s good to have more agents trying to interdict the southward flow of weapons into Mexico, the knee jerk response of tightening gun control must be avoided.

Read About It: The El Paso Times

The President and the Bill of Rights

March 23, 2009

Respect is shown in many different ways by people. Most often by being honest in your dealings with others through social compact, and in other situations it is earned. How we show disrespect usually manifests via dishonesty and or dishonor. The current occupier of the White House shows his respect for the nation, and the principles that it was founded upon is reflected on the official White House Web page. While I have some serious problems with the entire web page the Bill of Rights has clearly been adulterated. Lets examine them side by side. H/T The Liberty Sphere!

B.O.R. ;

Amendment I

Congress 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.

obamaspeak;

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

obamaspeak;

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

obamaspeak;

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

obamaspeak;

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

obamaspeak;

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

obamaspeak;

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

obamaspeak;

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

obamaspeak;

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

obamaspeak;

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

Amendment X

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.

obamaspeak;

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.

The imposter in chief taught law, but fails to respect the Bill of Rights. He didn’t even bother to post the entire section on the Whitehouse web page. Don’t worry, I have it all.

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

Senate Vote on D.C. ban a victory?

March 3, 2009

As always, the devil will be in the details. The much hailed Heller verses D.C. Supreme Court ruling was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as I posted about at the time. The last paragraph of the ruling has opened up more onerous attacks on the Second Amendment than has generally been seen in the past. The latest ruling utterly denied the ex post facto aspects of the non-felony Domestic Violence lifetime gun ban, and now the political shenanigans of Speaker Pelosi will again thwart the Constitutional protections granted to all Americans in the Bill of Rights.

Senate Repeals D.C. Gun Ban By Large Vote
— But the fight in the House is just beginning

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

Monday, March 2, 2009

By a resounding vote of 62 to 36 last week, the U.S. Senate has approved
an amendment, offered by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, to repeal the
D.C. gun ban.

Congratulations!

But the battle is not over.

This week, the House will take up the D.C. voting legislation. And
anti-gun Speaker Nancy Pelosi is angling to impose a “gag
rule” on the
House, so that D.C. gets its unconstitutional representative, while
continuing its draconian anti-gun laws (like microstamping).

So here’s the deal: The House will be asked to consider a
“rule” which
establishes the time for debate and provides for which amendments may be
considered — and which may not.

It is expected that the Pelosi rule will seek to deny the House any vote
on the D.C. gun ban and thereby strip the repeal of the ban from the
House bill.

So what we are asking you to do is to write and/or call your congressman
and demand that he oppose any rule that strips the D.C. gun ban repeal
from the D.C. voting bill.

Just to remind you of how draconian the D.C. gun law is:

* Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to
be unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

* Then, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun measures.
These include a requirement that most guns used for self-defense
“microstamp” fired casings in two places with a “unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
— including your state.

ACTION: Write your Representative and urge him or her in the strongest
terms to oppose any rule which will strip the gun ban repeal from the
D.C. voting bill.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
pre-written e-mail message below.

You can also call him or her toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

This week, when the House takes up the D.C. voting legislation, please
vote against any rule that strips the Senate’s pro-gun language and/or
imposes a “gag rule” on members of the House.

Just to remind you of how virulently anti-gun the D.C. gun law is:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to be
unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

But, in addition, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun
measures. These include a requirement that most guns used for
self-defense “microstamp” fired casings in two places with a
“unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
— including my state.

I urge you, in the strongest terms, to oppose any rule that makes it
impossible for you to vote on the D.C. gun ban repeal.

Sincerely,

Cowards of the Court: Mysandry and the Constitution

February 28, 2009

The Supreme Court did in fact fail to address the actual issue this past week regarding the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Law. They approved ex post facto law, and, the taking of rights based upon less than felony behaviors.

Anyone that has the temerity to think that the current make up of the Supreme Court will, in practice and fact defend the Constitution and it’s base principles is quite simply delusional. They are a bunch of politically correct kiss asses.

Since I am more than aware some will view this as a rant against women I need to state unequivocally that I believe that Domestic violence is a very real problem. My problem is with how it is addressed, and dealt with. Men are overwhelmingly brought up on charges of domestic violence more often as compared to women. Further, that when women are charged, the implication in nearly all cases is changed and they are ordered into “parenting classes” or some other such nonsense. Thereby allowing them to continue to be full citizens, as opposed to men convicted for the same crimes. Note please, that I am throughout this op/ed  addressing non-felony domestic violence convictions. When women are in fact charged in the very same situations that men are, probation, and restoration of rights is common. When it is a man? Probation is de facto only an available alternative if the man is a celebrity, or related to powerful individuals. That is called sexism for those that are incapable of rational thought.

The issue of ex post facto law strikes at the very basis of Anglo American jurisprudence. Changing the rules after the game has already been played is immoral. Approving such a thing is also immoral, and that is precisely what our Supreme Court did. Utilitarianism has no place in a republic where people are protected from the tyranny of the majority. At least in theory that is the presumption.

I have no faith whatsoever in the Supreme Court when it comes to protecting the people of our nation. Our alternative then appears to be seeking redress through our locally elected representatives at the state level, and or through the affirmative action by state Governors, as in commuting sentences or the more difficult pardon process.

What then is needed to rectify the situation? Stay tuned folks, because this is getting too long winded as is.

S22 yet another assault on YOUR rights

February 24, 2009

Anti-gun Land Bill Moving Again
— Gun control should be stripped from the legislation

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

Monday, February 23, 2009

An alert last week asked you to urge your representative to oppose a
massive land bill that was scheduled to come before the full House at
any time.

The good news is that opposition to the bill grew so loud that the
leadership pulled it from the calendar so they would have more time to
muster enough votes to pass it.

Well, that also gives you another chance to contact your own
representative to tell him to OPPOSE the anti-Second Amendment Omnibus
Land Act. The bill, S. 22, is now scheduled to be voted on this week.

S.22 is a mammoth bill comprised of over 190 separate pieces of
legislation and will come to the floor with a rule that will not allow
pro-gun representatives to offer amendments.

There are serious Second Amendment concerns with this legislation. S.
22 will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National
Park Service (NPS). Because the rights of lawful gun owners are
restricted on NPS land, the bill will create even more
“anti-Second Amendment” zones.

In contrast to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service, which allow State and local laws to govern firearms
possession, NPS land was until recently subject to a complete gun ban.

In the waning days of his administration, President Bush partially
reversed the ban, but that half-way measure still leaves a significant
portion of the gun prohibition in place. Gun Owners of America has
fought for several years to fully repeal the NPS regulations, but those
efforts have been hampered by the anti-gun leadership of both the House
and Senate.

GOA opposes many parts of the bill that are controversial and have not
been debated on their individual merits.

Consider just a few provisions of the 1,294-page bill:

* Section 2002 codifies the National Landscape Conservation System,
which groups together 26 million acres of federal land and places it
under one umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton
administration and run administratively since that time. S. 22 will
make the system permanent, raising concerns for hunters and sportsmen.
Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service,
which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is
unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun
owners’ rights will be protected at all.

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route
as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and
travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Virginia. The trail includes parts of
major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US
Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land
adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by
the NPS, and thus be subject to the agencies’ anti-gun regulations.

* Section 7002 makes the birthplace of William Jefferson Clinton a
National Historic Site. Well, perhaps it’s fitting that the legacy of
former President Clinton, who was responsible for so many anti-Second
Amendment laws, will include yet another “gun free” zone.

In all, the bill designates over 2 million acres of wilderness,
establishes three new national parks, a new national monument, three
new national conservation areas, and four new national trails.

If there are parts of the bill that could stand on their own, they
should be brought up separately and dealt with in an open and fair
process — and not used as bargaining chips in exchange for compromises
of your Second Amendment rights.

Some people on Capitol Hill contend that all of these bills already
passed the House anyway. In fact, no they haven’t. More than 70 of
these bills now before the House were only passed by the Senate. The
House of Representatives never even held hearings or open debate on
these measures.

Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) has indicated that he wants to at
least have the opportunity to offer an amendment to ensure that the
Second Amendment rights of all Americans are protected.

However, right now it looks as though the anti-gun House leadership
will refuse to allow any amendments to the bill, in order to ensure
that it goes straight to President Obama’s desk.

There is a possibility that an amendment to protect only hunting and
recreational shooting on federal land would be allowed. Such an
amendment by itself is not sufficient and is clearly designed as a
“cover” vote for gun rights compromisers.

Please contact your representative and urge him or her to insist that
an amendment be allowed to protect ALL of your Second Amendment rights
— not just hunting and recreational shooting.

ACTION: Please urge your Representative oppose S. 22. You can go to
the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose S. 22. Among the many problems with this
1,294-page bill are the following concerns gun owners have:

* Section 2002 codifies the National Landscape Conservation System,
which groups together 26 million acres of federal land and places it
under one umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton
administration and run administratively since that time. S. 22 will
make the system permanent, raising concerns for hunters and sportsmen.
Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service,
which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is
unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun
owners’ rights will be protected at all.

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route
as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and
travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Virginia. The trail includes parts of
major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US
Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land
adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by
the NPS, and thus be subject to the agencies’ anti-gun regulations.

Since it appears that amendments will not be allowed to this bill —
thus prohibiting any attempt to remove these troubling provisions — I
would urge you to vote against S. 22.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Important Gun Vote In The Senate

February 24, 2009

An amendment to repeal the onerous gun ban in the District of Columbia
may come to the floor of the Senate as early as tomorrow, Wednesday,
February 25.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) plans to file the amendment to the so-called
D.C. Voting Rights Act.

After the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Heller striking down
Washington’s gun ban as unconstitutional, the city council passed a gun
control law that was almost as restrictive as the old one.

To simply possess a firearm in the nation’s Capitol City, a resident
must:

* Take a five hour training course
* Re-register any firearms every three years
* Undergo an invasive background check every six years
* Pass a 20 question multiple choice test designed by bureaucrats based
on the city’s convoluted law
* Pay a registration fee
* Have all handguns undergo a ballistics test

In addition to protecting Second Amendment rights in the District of
Columbia, a vote on the Ensign amendment is an important test for your
two Senators. Many of the provisions in the existing D.C. gun law are
also on the wish list of the anti-gunners.

A vote on repealing the D.C. gun ban will be a good indication of how
the Senate will vote on other gun-related issues.

Ensign’s measure will be offered as an amendment to S. 160, the D.C.
Voting Rights Act. The bill is designed to give Washington, D.C., full
voting privileges in the House of Representatives, as well as increasing
the total number of representatives from 435 to 437.

While there are many constitutional concerns with the underlying
measure, the gun ban repeal simply comes down to a vote for or against
the Second Amendment.

It is vital that you contact your Senators in support of the Ensign
amendment because GOA is the only group that has announced it will score
this vote.

ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to support
the Ensign amendment to repeal the D.C. gun ban. Ask them to encourage
Senate leadership to make it a priority for consideration on S. 160. You
can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

Senator John Ensign has an amendment to repeal the onerous D.C. gun ban.

After the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Heller striking down
Washington’s gun ban as unconstitutional, the city council passed a gun
control law that was almost as restrictive as the old one.

To simply possess a firearm in the nation’s Capitol City, a resident
must:

* Take a five hour training course
* Re-register any firearms every three years
* Undergo an invasive background check every six years
* Pass a 20 question multiple choice test designed by bureaucrats based
on the city’s convoluted law
* Pay a registration fee
* Have all handguns undergo a ballistics test

Please vote FOR the Ensign amendment and ask Senate leadership to make
this a priority consideration on S. 160. Gun Owners of America will
score this vote and will also let me know how you voted.

Sincerely,

****************************

What’s Your Current GOA Status?

Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights.
Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another
semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory
federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just
some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on.
Meanwhile, we’ll take every opportunity to go on offense and advance the
Second Amendment.

It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why we
are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun
Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on
notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s in
the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of resistance.

Now is a perfect time to come a Life Member. And if you aren’t a GOA
member at all, isn’t it time you became one?

Please go to http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to upgrade your
participation in GOA.

A Republic Lost

February 24, 2009

The times they are a changing. Or so the song goes. Change can be a good thing. Forgetting the lessons of history are yet another thing though. I am stealing this work from Tracy at No Compromise because we have different readers, and it sends a message that needs to get out. Enjoy!



A Republic Lost – U.S. Constitution a Dead Letter


My blog buddy and co host Jefferson Paine has posted an important piece you must read and act on today!

“It has become akin to beating a dead horse, but we here at No Compromise feel it necessary to reveal the truth, even when it’s ugly.  Lately, it has become more than obvious, with a bona fide Usurper now occupying the Oval Office, and all branches of the U.S. Government running roughshod over the carcass of our once-sacred Constitution, that this miraculous document is now merely a dead letter.  Never, in my lifetime, would I think that I would be reporting on the following Unconstitutional mischief now cooked up by our esteemed apparatchiks in Washington.

“Through bill S. 160, Congress is poised to “grant” full voting and Representative power to the Federal seat of power – the liberal stronghold of Washington which fills the District of Columbia!!! (purposefully created as a ‘non-State’)  Not only is this power-move by the Democrat-controlled Capitol blatantly Unconstitutional, but is one more naked act of mob rule which our Constitution was designed to prevent – that is, if we decided to obey the supreme law of the land.  There is very scant time to stop this if we call our Congress-people immediately and demand that they cease this farce.  Isn’t it high time to start talking about exercising our moral and legal, God-given Right to peacefully secede from this corrupt federal circus??”

Read more here and PLEASE pass onto your lists

Contact your reps here >>
Contact your Senators here >>

Finally, REMEMBER THEY ARE ROUND FILING YOUR EMAILS.  CALL OR FAX ONLY

Bumper Sticker Politics and the First Amendment

February 20, 2009

The first salvo against the right to free expression was recently fired in Oklahoma of all places. Although this worked out it never should have happened in the first place.

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service “could construe this as a threat against President Obama,” according to the incident report released this morning.

Full Story here

Second Amendment Update, and a few other items

February 11, 2009

Dave Kopal is probably the smartest person that I have ever been privileged to meet. Albeit quite briefly. Dave’s newsletter is incredible and I would urge anyone interested in freedom, liberty, and law to subscribe. Here is the latest.

From: Kopel Newsletter [kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com]
Sent:
To:
Subject:

h4 { /* Section Headings */ font-weight: bold; color: black; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } h3 { /* Item Titles */ font-weight: bold; color: black; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } h2 { /* Item Titles */ font-weight: bold; color: black; text-align: center; /*font-size: 1.2em;*/ } p { /* Default text */ font-weight: normal; color: black; font-size: 1em; } a { /* Default links */ } a:hover { /* Link hover */ }

Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter

February 10, 2009
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence Institute,
a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado.
http://www.independenceinstitute.org


The Independence Institute publishes several newsletters on other topics, plus a weekly newsletter containing our most recent op-eds and news of our activities. E-mail subscription to any of these newsletters is free.


Delivery of this newsletter comes courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation, in Bellevue, Washington.
http://www.saf.org
This email was sent to psperry1@aceweb.com


Please visit Dave Kopel’s website, containing articles on the Second Amendment and other freedom topics.
http://www.davekopel.org


To subscribe to this free e-mail newsletter, please send a request to:
kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com

Table of Contents

  1. New by Kopel: Amicus brief in Oak Park Case; Law Review Articles on the Relationship between Guns and Freedom; Magazine articles and short essays on the new administration, ‘BEWARE THE RAHM!,’ Eric Holder, The Sword & the Tome, the SHOT Show, Kmiec v. Kmiec, IANSA Strikes Again, a new Podcast Series, one on Holder, one on Hillary Clinton, and… Twitter!
  2. Online Video: Satirical ‘Gun Free Zones,’ NRANews video archive
  3. International: Armed Nepalese; Pakistani Self-Defense; Uruguayan Gun Control
  4. Anti-Rights Movement: Obama’s Anti-RKBA Plans Surface; Brady Wish List; Philadelphia Protest; Regulatory Czar Stealth Agenda; Heller’s Lack of Effect; NRA on the Holder Nomination; Another SHOT Forecast
  5. Pro-Rights Movement: Firearms Retailer Defense Fund; Halbrook on Holder; Winnetka Caves in Illinois; Massachusetts Police Chief Charged; Minnesota Concealed Carry
  6. States and Failed States: Colorado Won’t Pre-Empt ‘Safe Storage’ or Castle; DC Busts USMC Amputee; NJ Gun Rationing; New York Loopholes and Legal Horrors
  7. Law: Federal Courts on Chambers and Heller, No OSHA Pre-Emption, SF Housing Authority Caves, National Parks Carry Suit; State Courts on Haney, Gary Suit Back On, Nebraska Locales can’t forbid Concealed Carry
  8. Research: Hardy on ‘Popular Understanding’ and St. George Tucker; The ‘Remainder Problem’ in Gun Control; Lund on Originalist Jurisprudence; Volokh vs. Brady Campaign in Fed. Soc Debate

New by Kopel

Legal Brief

Amicus brief in Chicago and Oak Park Handgun Ban Cases

David B. Kopel, Maureen Martin and James W. Ozog
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
February 4, 2009
http://davekopel.org/Briefs/ILEETA-Chicago-amicus.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Dave’s brief in the 7th Circuit appeal of the SAF and NRA challenges to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The brief is filed on behalf of the Independence Institute, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, The Heartland Institute, Prof. David J. Bordua, Prof. William R. Tonso, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. The brief explains the social science evidence showing the public safety benefits of guns in law-abiding hands, and provides data showing the failure of the Chicago handgun ban.


Law Review Articles

The Second Amendment in the Tenth Circuit: Three Decades of (Mostly) Harmless Error

David B. Kopel
Denver University Law Review
Vol. 86, No. 3, 2009, forthcoming
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1327473

This is Lead article in their annual Tenth Circuit Survey. It provides a detailed analysis of all Second Amendment cases which have been decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The article examines the Circuit’s superficial reasoning in its claims that the Second Amendment protects only militiamen, and the Circuit’s refusal even to address important sources of authority which took a different view.

Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations

David B. Kopel
Texas Review of Law and Politics
Vol. 13, 2009, Forthcoming
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090441

The near-final version of this forthcoming article from the Texas Review of Law & Politics is now available on SSRN. Dave wrote the article with Carl Moody and Howard Nemerov. Here’s the abstract: There are 59 nations for which data about per capita gun ownership are available. This Article examines the relationship between gun density and several measures of freedom and prosperity: the Freedom House ratings of political rights and civil liberty, the Transparency International Perceived Corruption Index, the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity ratings, and the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. The data suggest that the relationships between gun ownership rates and these other measures are complex. The data show that (although exceptions can be found) the nations with the highest rates of gun ownership tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nations. The relationship only exists for high-ownership countries. Countries with medium rates of gun density generally scored no better or worse than countries with the lowest levels of per capita gun ownership.


Magazine Articles and Short Essays

Gun Control

David B. Kopel
Change in Command Issue 24
January, 2009
http://changeincommand.com/issues/gun-control

Dave here examines how Americans should view the inauguration of President Obama from a 2nd Amendment perspective.

BEWARE THE RAHM

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
January, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/beware-the-rahm.htm

“After pledging his support for the Second Amendment during the campaign, President-elect Barack Obama appoints devout gun-ban supporter Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.”

STRIKE TWO!

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
February, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Strike-Two.htm

On the heels of naming gun-banner Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, Barack Obama once again puts the lie to his supposed support of the Second Amendment by selecting former Clintonite and gun-hater Eric Holder as attorney general.

The Sword & the Tome

Dave Kopel
America’s First Freedom
February, 2009
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Sword-and-Tome.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

With a new presidential administration that is hostile to private firearm ownership now in office, we’ll likely be hearing a renewed torrent of anti-gun rhetoric coming from all directions. As we prepare for these challenges and arguments, it’s a good time to recall some important quotes that provide a long-term perspective.

SHOT Show Report

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 17, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1232226470

Retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers were happy that they had been making lots of money (because of concerns about the administration) but there was also great trepidation about the future.

Kmiec v. Kmiec regarding Heller

Dave Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 6, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_04-2009_01_10.shtml#1231289178

“It seems odd for a legal scholar to reverse his view of a major constitutional issue so completely and so vehemently in a such a short period of time, especially without an expalanation of how he came to the conclusion that his former view was so utterly mistaken–or without even an acknowledgement that he recently held his former view so firmly that he urged the Supreme Court to adopt it.”

Arms Trade Treaty’s Purpose: Block Arms Sales to Israel

Dave Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 30, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233368908

“A recent statement by the International Action Network on Small Arms, the world’s leading gun prohibition lobby, states that the Arms Trade Treaty, currently being drafted in the United Nations, would prohibit arms sales to Israel and to Hamas.”


New Podcast Series

Attorney General Eric Holder

Dave Kopel
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
Jan. 23, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast252.mp3

This is the first installment of a new series of weekly podcasts, to be published every Friday. The Feb. 6 topic will the the Seventh Circuit cases on the Chicago handgun ban.

Hillary Clinton

Dave Kopel
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
January 29, 2009
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast228.mp3

Hillary Clinton will be a strong Secretary of State, but her hostility to civillian ownership of firearms continues unabated.


Ongoing Dave Updates

Twitter/davekopel

Dave Kopel
Twitter.com

https://twitter.com/davekopel

Check in on Dave on Twitter. For the yet-unschooled, “Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?” Dave provides hyperlinks and other data related to his ongoing activities. The service lends itself to small, handheld internet devices.


Online Video

Gun Free Zones

The Half Hour News Hour
YouTube Video
July 16, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

A rather funny short from the canceled Fox satirical series about the concept of protecting oneself within the putative safety of a ‘gun free zone.’

NRANews.Com

Informational Web Site
The National Rifle Association

http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx

The NRA has produced weekly professional internet videos on subjects of interest to supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This site offers access to the current week’s broadcast and an archive of past video.


International

Nepal

All Nepalese should carry weapons, says Maoist Minister

Press Trust Of India
January 11, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/b85snp

“All Nepali citizens should be given the right to carry arms for protecting themselves from ‘colonial powers’, a controversial Maoist Minister said. Gopal Kiranti did not elaborate on the “colonial powers”, but the statement comes a day after media quoted a yet-to-be released Maoist political document as saying that ‘American colonialism is moving ahead through Indian expansionism with the intention of increasing its hegemony in South Asia.’ “


Pakistan

For Middle-Class Pakistanis, a Gun Is a Must-Have Accessory: With Kidnappings and Violence on the Rise, Demand for Weapons Permits Grows

Peter Wonacott
The Wall Street Journal
January 6, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120431026355961.html

After escaping kidnappers who chained him to a bed for 25 days, Mohammad Javed Afridi pressed Pakistani law enforcement for swift justice. The police offered him something else: temporary permits for four automatic assault rifles.


Uruguay

Discussing an Agenda for Gun Control

Comunidad Segura: Network of Ideas and Practicies in Citizen Security
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
January 16, 2009
http://www.comunidadesegura.org/?q=en/STORY-Uruguay-Discussing-agenda-for-gun-control

“Congresswoman Daisy Tournİ, one of the main champions of gun control in the Uruguayan Parliament is also currently head of the nation’s Ministry of Interior. Since she took office however, progress on the nation’s gun control agenda has been postponed by issues related to violence and insecurity, as well as social demands.”


The Anti-Rights Movement

Urban Policy

Informational Web Page
The White House
January 21, 2009
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

On this website, posted the day after the inaguration, the Obama/Biden administration lists its objectives in this area: repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which they claim restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and which they say would give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor ‘commonsense measures’ that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the ‘gun show loophole’ and making guns in this country childproof, the term is undefined. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Gun Violence in America: Proposals for the Obama Administration

Press Release
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
December 28, 2008
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The Brady Campaign here makes its own case for ‘common sense’ gun laws to the impending Obma Administration. The document treats the need for immediate gun control as part of the President’s health care agenda.

5 Activists Arrested at Gun Shop Protest

Dafney Tales
The Philadelphia Daily News
January 15, 2009
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090115_5_activists_arrested_at_gun_shop_protest.html

Five activists were arrested by Philadelphia Police after refusing to leave Colosimo’s Gun Center, despite multiple warnings.

Obama ‘Regulatory Czar’ has Secret Animal-Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group

Press Release
Center for Consumer Freedom
January 15, 2009
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/Cass-Sunstein/Animal-Rights/prweb1868134.htm

“The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.”

Letter on the Eric Holder Nomination for Attorney General of the United States

Wayne LePierre and Chris W. Cox
The National Rifle Association
January 9, 2009
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The Executive Vice-President of the NRA and the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote an open letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter on their grave misgivings over President Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General. Holder opposed Heller, declared that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and supported restrictive fierarms control legislation.

The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse than Its Right

Adam Winkler
The Huffington Post
January 2, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-new-second-amendment_b_154783.html

“To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing “straw” purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws. Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.” Winkler is a law professor at the UCLA School of Law.

Post-SHOT Recovery

Michael Bane
The Michael Bane Blog
January 25, 2009
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/01/post-shot-recovery.html

Dave made reference to this summary of the firearms scene at the SHOT Show and in the political environment in Washington.


The Pro-Rights Movement

Firearms Retailer Defense Fund Launched

GunReports
January 13, 2009
http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Firearms-Retailer-Defense-Fund-SHOT-Show_1071-1.html

“The Firearms Retailer Defense Fund is a new non-profit corporation created to assist independent retailers with legal expenses should they need to defend themselves against industry-altering litigation.”

FRDF: Firearms Retailer Defense Fund, LLC.

Informational Web Page

http://www.frdf.org/

“The Firearms Retailer Defense Fund (FRDF) has been created to assist firearms retailers should they find themselves involved in litigation filed by politicians, municipalities or anti-gun orgnanizations that scrutinize your business practices. As independent firearms retailers, you need not feel alone in your battle to defend your business and your rights to keep and bear arms.”

Halbrook to Testify in Hearings on Eric Holder for Attorney General

David Theroux
The Beacon Blog
January 16, 2009
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=914

Here is Theroux’s blog posting of the testimony of Stephen P. Halbrook on the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States, with comments and links.

Testimony of Stephen P. Halbrook on the Nomination of Eric H. Holder, Jr., For Attorney General of the United States

Stephen P. Halbrook
The Senate Judiciary Committee
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/d6tnn6

Here is the verbatim transcript of Halbrook’s testimony.


Outdoor Sports

Ark. Lawmaker Seeks Amendment to Protect Hunting

AP (Arkansas)
5NewsOnline
January 12, 2009
http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9661050

“State Sen. Steve Faris is trying again for an amendment creating a constitutional right for Arkansans to hunt and fish.”

PETA wants to Rename Fish “sea kittens”

Lindsay Barnett
The Los Angeles Times
January 12, 2009
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/sea-kitten-peta.html

PETA has come up with an interesting tactic to discourage human consumption and sporting pursuit of fish.

Proposed Rule Clarifies Hunting Rule Changes at National Wildlife Refuges

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Register
January 13, 2009
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-287.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

This document describes proposed changes in policy and regulations regarding U.S. Wildlife refuges.


States and Failed States

Colorado

Brophy bill to Protect Homeowners Killed in Committee

Colorado State Senate News
January 26, 2009
http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/899/26/

Dave testified in favor of a bill to forestall municipalities from passing ‘safe storage’ laws that render firearms useless for immediate home defense. Democrats killed the bill in a strict party-line vote in the Senate Committee on State, Veteran, and Military Affairs.

Committee Dems Refuse to ‘Make My Day Better’

Colorado State Senate News
January 28, 2009
http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/903/26/

“Republican efforts to extend to the workplace the same rights Colorado citizens already have to protect their homes from violent intruders were stymied by ruling Democrats today.” The Democrats of the committee voted unanimously against the bill.


District of Columbia

Marine Amputee Acquitted On Gun Possession Charges

Keith L. Alexander
The Washington Post
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/an6g9o

“After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.”


New Jersey

N.J. Fight on “Straw” Gun Buys Heats Up

Jonathan Tamari
The Philadelphia Inquirer
January 4, 2009
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/37053659.html

“New Jersey could soon become the fourth state to limit handgun purchases to one a month, a move aimed at fighting “straw” gun buyers who purchase weapons legally and pass them to criminals.”


New York

Old Firearms Given New Life by Restrictive New York Gun Control Laws

J.D. Tuccille
Examiner.com
January 19, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m1d19-How-New-York-City-gave-new-life-to-old-guns

With criminals ignoring New York City’s gun restrictions, citizens are purchasing exempted black powder muzzle-loading revolvers in an effort to protect themselves.

Does Nassau County D.A.’s No-Handgun-Possession Policy Violate New York Law?

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 13, 2009
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1231876639

Nassau County prohibits its assistant D.A.’s from applying for a handgun permit or owning a handgun while in office. Gene Volokh isn’t certain that New York state law allows an employer to do that.

My Time in a NYC Jail

‘Kwais’
grylliade.org
January 21, 2009
http://www.grylliade.org/node/3169

A retired Marine and a current Defense contractor spent two days and one night in a New York City jail after being improperly arrested in violation of federal law while trying to transport an unloaded firearm required for his work overseas.

NYC Jailhouse Blues

Brian Doherty
Reason Magazine
January 23, 2009
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131241.html

Here’s a notice and further comment upon the account above.


Law

Federal Courts

CHAMBERS v. UNITED STATES

Associate Justice David Breyer
January 13, 2009
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/6-11206.html

In Chambers v. US, the Court clarified the potential impact of failing to report for penal confinement if you are later convicted of being a felon with a firearm. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, an individual convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm gets a mandatory 15 year sentence if they have three prior convictions for serious drug offenses, violent felonies, or both. Federal prosecutors wanted to use a previous conviction for failing to show up to jail as one of Mr. Chambers “violent felonies.” The Supreme Court said no in an opinion by Justice Breyer, Justice Alito concurred.

Oral Argument on the Nordyke Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case

Case No. 07-15763
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
January 15, 2009
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000002641

Here is the actual audio of the oral arguments presented in the Nordyke vs. King case, the suit contesting an Alameda County law prohibiting gun shows on county property.

Federal Act Does Not Pre-empt Oklahoma Gun Law

Marie Price
The Journal Record (Oklahoma City)
January 21, 2009
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=95327

“The federal agency in charge of workplace safety does not believe the Occupational Safety and Health Act pre-empts an Oklahoma law prohibiting employers from forbidding the storing of firearms in workers’ cars, according to a letter filed in an appeal with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Housing Authority Settles Gun Lawsuit

Bob Egelko
The San Francisco Chronicle
January 14, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/BALM15A1SG.DTL

The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

Settlement Agreement in Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority

Trutanich-Michel LLP and Henry Alvarez, Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Authority
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
January 12, 2009
http://volokh.com/files/sfpublichousingguns.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Here is the actual agreement in facsimile.

New National Parks Rule Allowing Loaded Guns Challenged by Lawsuit

Michael Sangiacomo
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
January 7, 2009

“The National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees filed suit this week in U.S. District Court to stop enforcement of a new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, including the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.”

The First (?) Post-Heller Case Holding a Gun Control Law Unconstitutional

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 12, 2009
http://volokh.com/posts/1231712651.shtml

“That’s U.S. v. Arzberger. The gun control law is the part of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) that requires that when someone is charged with possessing child pornography (among other crimes) and is freed on bail, he be ordered not to possess any firearm.” Dr. Volokh provides some commentary by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV.

United States of America vs. Jason Arzberger

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
December 31, 2008
http://www.volokh.com/files/arzberger.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Here is the actual decision.


State Law and Cases

Interesting Georgia Case

David Hardy
Arms and the Law
January 19, 2009
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/01/interesting_geo.php

“The gun owner was convicted of a drug offense in 1969, and received a full pardon in 1995. When he tried to purchase a firearm, the NICS staff called a local judge and asked him to revoke the fellow’s pistol permit (which I suspect is a BIG violation of the Privacy Act). Basis was a Georgia statute that says persons convicted of a drug offense are forever ineligible to get a pistol permit.Initially he surrendered his permit, then got new counsel, John Monroe and Douglas King, and they put up a fight. The judge ultimately rules for them. A pardon is an executive act, authorized by the state Constitution. The Legislature cannot change its effect. He then sued for an injunction against Federal authorities stopping his purchase and seeking an injunction against them prosecuting him. Here’s the GeorgiaPacking.org webpage on the pleadings. Word is that the government caved in, and provided him with a certification that he is not prohibited to purchase and possess.”

In Re Haney

Probate Court of Forsyth County
State of Georgia
December 23, 2008
http://www.georgiapacking.org/docs/haney_pardon_gfl/Order_Granting_GFL.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The actual order of the court In Re Haney is here.

Indiana Supreme Court Green-lights Lawsuit that Blames Gun Makers for Gary’s Crime Problems: Case Alleges Gun Makers, Dealers Knew Weapons Would Go to Criminals

Jon Murray
The Indianapolis
January 13, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090113/NEWS02/901130359

“The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling, ending the second round of appeals since the case was filed in 1999. Gary’s suit alleges that 16 gun makers, including Smith & Wesson and Beretta, and six Northern Indiana gun dealers sold handguns they knew would get into the hands of criminals barred from owning them.”

Authority of Local Political Subdivisions to Prohibit the Carrying of Concealed Handguns by Permit Holders under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act

Jon Bruning
Attorney General, State of Nebraska
January 14, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/djrozv

The Nebraska Attorney General opinion explains that cities and towns may not ban the licensed carrying of handguns, because such a ban is preempted by state law. Localities may ban licensed carry in places (e.g., schools) were the mere possession of handguns is prohibited.


Research

Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment as Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68

David T. Hardy
Working Paper
January 1, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1322323

Hardy argues that the decision in Heller arose from a belief that is not the intent of the body that proposed an amendment, but the understanding of the people at large who ratified it that matters in understanding a constitutional right. In that context, he analyzes the 14th Amemendment, arguing that the Slaughterhouse decisions invalidated what was understood by the mass of the people supporting its ratification to be that amendment’s expansion of the Bill of Rights to preclude its abrogation by the states.

The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker: A Framing Era View of the Bill of Rights

David T. Hardy
Northwestern University Law Review: Colloquy
December 22, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/bdg79c

“Given contemporary adherence to originalist interpretation, and the likelihood of future conflict—as demonstrated in Heller—between varieties of originalist analysis, dissemination of Tucker’s hitherto unpublished lecture notes may offer an important contextualization of the Bill of Rights during the Founding period. It is my hope that working to democratize, as it were, the availability of these documents will assist future historical and legal analysis.”

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem

Nicholas J. Johnson
Wake Forest Law Review
January 13, 2009
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

“Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust ourgun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.”

The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence

Nelson Lund
UCLA Law Review
2009 Forthcoming
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

While Lund agrees with the majority’s conclusion, he is disappointed in, for example, its dicta regarding how certain laws would still pass muster, which is given without any explanation derived from original understanding.

Gun Policy Debate Podcast

Charlie Blek and Eugene Volokh
Los Angeles chapter of Federalist Society and the Libertarian Law Society
December 5, 2008
http://www.losangelesfedsoc.org/GunPolicyDebate.mp3

Here is the audio of a fifty-one minute debate, moderated by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, between Mr. Charlie Blek of the Brady Campaign and Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School on the subject of firearms policy.


This newsletter is compiled with help from Dr. Rob S. Rice. For more on this hyperenervated, yet volitional individual, see here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rrice/rrice_hd.html. Dr. Rice also labors assiduously on his non-fiction, for examples of which see here: http://tinyurl.com/dhx7vx

Al Qaeda delenda est!

Committee recommends gun rights resolution

February 9, 2009

Mostly those fly over states, the ones with square sides? They have been quietly  telling the Federal Government to take a hike. From unfunded mandates to inalienable rights we the people are telling the big-shots in Washington D.C. to back off. The constant and continual effort to wax fat from the backs of those that they attempt to laird it over is becoming more than can be bared. Not since prohibition has there been such a flare up of resistance against Federal tyranny. Soon, it will reach proportions that lead to the bloodiest conflict the United States has ever known. Latest of the rebellion is Wyoming:

CHEYENNE — A state legislative committee backed a resolution Friday that seeks to reinforce Wyoming’s right to bear arms.

The House Judiciary Committee endorsed the resolution unanimously. The resolution would instruct Congress to stop trying to pass federal legislation that restricts firearm ownership.

Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, the legislation’s sponsor, said Wyoming citizens are concerned that Washington might begin imposing stricter gun control laws.

“A resolution like this isn’t going to change much,” Zwonitzer said, but added that the resolution would send the federal government a message.

The resolution mentions the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, a federal bill Zwonitzer said is gaining strength in Congress.

He said the bill would impose more stringent government licensing measures on gun owners and place increased restrictions on guns in homes with children under 18.

Zwonitzer said the resolution has wide support among Wyoming citizens. He said the bill would “strengthen the bond between us all.”

SOURCE

For too long the Federal government has used the interstate commerce clause as an excuse for wielding power that is in fact reserved to the states by the Constitution. Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are very clear about this, and no, you don’t need to be educated as a high powered attorney to understand the meanings. The Bill of Rights isn’t about what rights you, or the states have, it is about the limits of the Federal government. Over you as a person, and you as a state when combined with others in your locale.

Now, these very same people are attempting to pull a fast one on we, the people, that will have generational effects upon the ability of Americans to live a normal life:

“On page 151 of this legislative pork-fest [the ‘stimulus’ bill] is one of the clandestine nuggets of social policy manipulation that are peppered throughout the bill. Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the ‘Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.’ This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will ‘coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research.’ Sounds benign enough, but the man behind the Coordinating Council, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate [since withdrawn] (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, was kind enough to explain the goal of this organization. It is to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don’t meet their standards for cost effectiveness. In his 2008 book on health care, he explained that such a council would, ‘lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective-and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags.’ Once a panel of government experts decides what is and what is not cost-effective by their definition, the government will stop paying for treatments, medicines, therapies or devices that fall into the latter category. … Mind you, they are not simply looking to exclude treatments that don’t work, but to exclude treatments that are effective, but whose cost, in their opinion, does not justify their use. You, the patient, and your physician don’t get a vote. This would make the federal government the single most important decision-maker regarding health care for every patient in America.” –public affairs consultant Douglas O’Brien

Things like the above are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s not simply about firearms rights, or abortion, it is about the fundamental rights of Americans to be free of oppression from government. Be that Federal, State, or local.

How so..?

“The so-called stimulus bill may not do much for the economy, but it’s certainly stimulating a lot of laughter, as its supporters are reduced to arguing essentially that it would be irresponsible not to waste boatloads of taxpayer money. We do not exaggerate. Consider this article by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek: ‘Obama’s desire to begin a “post-partisan” era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that’s supposed to be “temporary” and “targeted” — among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts that will prompt immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There’s no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply.’ Who is this Michael Hirsh, who has elevated unrestrained spending of the people’s money to a high principle? Here’s his bio: ‘Michael Hirsh covers international affairs for Newsweek, reporting on a range of topics from Homeland Security to postwar Iraq. He co-authored the November 3, 2003 cover story, “Bush’s $87 Billion Mess,” about the Iraq reconstruction plan. The issue was one of three that won the 2004 National Magazine Award for General Excellence.’ The bill for ‘Bush’s mess’ is less than the margin of error in reckoning the cost of the ’emergency’ legislation about which Hirsh now chides lawmakers for ‘nitpicking over efficiency.'” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

What I am suggesting, is that the Federal government, at least the vast majority in the Congress, Senate, and Executive branches, are, in fact working day and night to change the Untied States into some socialist utopia, and that the several states, are rebelling.