Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

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.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

The Tenth Amendment…

February 5, 2009

The Federal Government, as currently embodied by the Obama and friends appears to be running into a few roadblocks here and there. It seems that a few states are actually asserting their authority, or at least sending messages that they will do so, and based upon the Constitution of the United States no less.

Washington joins Montana, and Oklahoma now in seeking to bring the Federal Government into check. Tread carefully is my advice. The last time that states really did assert their power resulted in the bloodiest war this nation has ever known. Even Arizona is getting into the act now!

Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; to severe, seldom executed.
Benjamin Franklin
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

From RMGO: H.R. 45

February 5, 2009

H.R. 45 is Draconian Gun Control

What H.R. 45 Does

The legislation has three main components.

  1. Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.
  2. Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
  3. Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.

To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records — including mental heath records — to the Attorney General’s office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an “appropriate” fee of $25 per firearm.

Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.

In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.

Provisions of H.R. 45 include:

  • Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.
  • Releases medical records — including confidential mental health records — to the Attorney General for Government review.
  • Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.
  • Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.
  • Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.
  • A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.
  • Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.

    • You can read the full text of the bill here.Click here to sign the petition against H.R. 45!

    Who’s sponsoring H.R. 45

    H.R. 45 — President Obama’s National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act — was written by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush (D). It currently has no cosponsors.

    But will it pass Congress?
    Congressman Rush’s bill an outrageous destruction of Constitutional Rights, but it’s the compromises that are truly dangerous

    Though far-left gun-haters routinely sponsor pie-in-the-sky legislation (anyone remember the days of Sen. Moynihan’s annual 1000% tax on ammo?), H.R. 45 has set new lows for the depths to which hoplophobes will sink.

    Is H.R. 45 dangerous? Yes.  But is it likely to pass?  No, not in its current form…. it’s too far-reaching.

    What is likely to pass, though, is a compromise, a deal cut with the gun-grabbers and the group that ostensibly represents gun owners, the NRA.

    Think that can’t happen? Rewind to the summer of 2007, when arch gun-hater Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy sat down with NRA board member Congressman John Dingell to craft a deal to expand Brady Checks into new realms of mental health records. A few months later, H.R. 2640 passed…with the approval of the NRA and McCarthy.

    Congressman Rush’s gun control ideas are much, much more dangerous as amendments to legislation that is already advancing.

    Remember the Brady Bill? It didn’t pass as a stand-alone bill. It passed as an amendment.

    Even more frightening was that it passed with the approval of the NRA (click here for that full story)

    The same is true of the Lautenberg Domestic Abuse ban, the Assault Weapons ban, 1986 McClure-Volkmer (which bans the manufacture of transferable machine guns), the 1968 Gun Control Act, and numerous other examples (especially if you look at state legislation).

    Yes, we’re watching H.R. 45. , and we want everyone to sign our petition against it. But also beware the slight of hand — it’s often more dangerous.

    Click here to sign the petition against H.R. 45!

    Tags:, , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 21 Comments »

    Eric Holder Sworn In As Attorney General

    February 5, 2009

    Anti-gun Eric Holder Sworn In As Attorney General
    — See who stabbed you in the back

    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

    Wednesday, February 4, 2009

    GOA wants to thank all of you for your hard work in opposing the
    extremely anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General.

    While we lost the battle on Monday (by a vote of 75-21), you guys
    registered your opposition loud and clear.

    There is no doubt that your activism truly made gun rights THE issue in
    this nomination battle. Every Senator who spoke against Holder
    mentioned Second Amendment fears. And even among many of the Senators
    who voted for him, there was tremendous concern regarding Holder’s
    stance on gun rights.

    As stated by The Washington Post yesterday, “Holder overcame concerns by
    a small but vocal group of GOP lawmakers about his position on national
    security and GUN RIGHTS, as well as his recommendations in two
    controversial clemency decisions by President Bill Clinton.”

    This was truly a battle worth fighting. In fact, the man who was being
    deified two weeks ago is now the very same President who is widely seen
    as not being able to shoot straight in selecting cabinet members and is
    already starting to lose public support. The battle over Holder was
    certainly central to taking the bloom off this rose.

    So thank you for helping magnify our voice on Capitol Hill. GOA spent
    many hours lobbying against Holder, as we were the only gun rights group
    in Washington to tell Senators we would be rating this vote in our
    end-of-session grade report.

    With Holder in office, you can expect to see renewed efforts to drive
    gun dealers and manufacturers out of business — similar to the efforts
    he supported while in the Clinton administration.

    Expect also to see attempts to classify more guns as “not
    suitable” for
    sporting purposes. And don’t be surprised to see attempts to use the No
    Fly List to disqualify gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment
    rights. (Bureaucrats can add innocent Americans to the No Fly List —
    and have done so — without any due process of law being followed.)

    With Eric Holder at the helm, the list could easily become a No Gun
    List, as there are already discussions in Washington about doing this.

    All the above horror scenarios are policies that could conceivably occur
    without ANY legislation being passed in Congress. That is what makes
    Holder’s confirmation as Attorney General so dangerous. Through the use
    of Executive Orders or by prosecuting gun owners, Holder can inflict
    much damage upon the Second Amendment — even apart from lending his
    support for legislation, such as renewing the semi-auto ban.

    So what can we do now? Is the battle over Holder finished?

    No, not yet. There’s one more action item that needs to be taken.
    There are 75 Senators who ignored your pleas to vote against Holder.
    They need to hear from you and know that you’re upset.

    They need to be reminded again and again that voting for gun control is
    what cost Bill Clinton’s party the control of Congress in 1994… and Al
    Gore his election in 2000… and John Kerry the presidency in 2004.

    And don’t forget, there are the 21 Senators who voted right. They need
    to be thanked. So please don’t file this alert until you’ve taken the
    action item below.

    ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
    pre-written e-mail message. You will be prompted to input your zip
    code, which will then bring up the correct letter for your Senators.

    The pre-written letter will differ according to whether your Senator
    voted in favor or against Eric Holder. (Three Senators missed the vote
    entirely. GOA is treating their absence as an anti-gun action.)

    NOTE: GOA’s pre-written letters are usually editable by the sender. In
    this instance, they are not for the sake of avoiding confusion, so that
    Senators who voted wrong are not thanked (and vice versa).

    —————————————————————

    SENATORS WHO VOTED FOR ERIC HOLDER (AN ANTI-GUN VOTE):

    Akaka (D-HI)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Bond (R-MO)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Burris (D-IL)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kaufman (D-DE)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Voinovich (R-OH)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Webb (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    SENATORS WHO VOTED AGAINST HOLDER (A PRO-GUN VOTE)

    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Brownback (R-KS)
    Bunning (R-KY)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    SENATORS NOT VOTING

    Begich (D-AK)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Martinez (R-FL)

    Tags:, , , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

    Obama, the new “American way?”

    February 2, 2009

    Many times I have posted about the Obama. About this phenomenon and his ability to mesmerize audiences. About how our Constitutional Republic is turning into the pure democracy of mob rule. About how the Obama used amoral methods to get elected to an office that he does not deserve to be in simply based upon the requirements for the office laid out in the Constitution. Not to mention the foreign money. His promises to negotiate with those sworn to destroy America. Well, just take a look at his cabinet. What a bunch of misfits and outright traitors to their oaths to the Constitution. My prose though, is nothing compared to that of  Dr. Ali Sina. Read his work here.

    Tags:, , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Obama, the new “American way?”

    An individual right? CNN Poll

    January 29, 2009

    STOLEN FROM

    Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

    If you have seen this and voted, GREAT, if you haven’t, PLEASE vote!! I was a *no-brainer* for me, and should be for any thinking person, but we ALL know that there are many brainless moonbats out there. Here’s a chance to combat those moonbats!

    Please vote on this gun issue, 2nd Amendment question on USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time.

    Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

    First – vote on this one.

    Second – launch it to other folks and have THEM vote – then we will see if the results get published.

    Vote in the USA Today poll – click on the link below.

    The Question is:
    Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

    USATODAY.com – Quick Question- VOTE HERE

    my response;

    Here’s my take on it. The term “inalienable rights” is in the Declaration of Independence.

    The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are an expression of the Declaration. At least that is how I was taught.

    Before our Founders rebelled, and the United States was formed there was what was called the “Rights of Englishmen.” Those rights had been in place since the Magna Carta had been written, and there, it is stated as a God given right, to possess arms for the common and personal defense. Those were “individual rights.” Granted, the belief was “God given” but the King didn’t see it that way. So it was written down in the common language of the times.

    Our entire Bill of Rights is based upon those very same beliefs. Those are individual rights belonging to everyone, and are not granted by any king, government, or authority.

    And please, don’t come back with the “limited rights” argument expressed as by shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime. If the damned thing is in fact on fire it’s your civic duty to warn others of the danger.

    Tags:, , , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

    Montana leads the way!

    January 22, 2009

    Hat tip to The Liberty Sphere!

    The federal government has for years had the idea that it is in fact omniscient. Built in safeguards from the Bill of Rights are largely ignored and from were I sit things do not appear to be changing at all. However, Montana is taking the bull by the horns and challenging the Federal choke hold that the states have been enduring for more years than I care to remember.

    2009 Montana Legislature

    Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)

    HOUSE BILL NO. 246

    INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

    A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

    NEW SECTION. Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

    NEW SECTION. Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

    (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

    (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

    (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

    (4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

    (5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

    NEW SECTION. Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

    (1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

    (2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

    (3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

    (4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

    NEW SECTION. Section 4.  Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

    NEW SECTION. Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

    (1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

    (2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

    (3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

    (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

    NEW SECTION. Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

    NEW SECTION. Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

    (2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

    NEW SECTION. Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

    NEW SECTION. Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

    – END –

    source

    Tags:, , , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

    The Brady Bunch and the NRA just more hypocrisy

    December 8, 2008

    The Brady Bunch once again shows it’s colors with it’s latest press release. The usual ballyhoo of self aggrandizement as well as hypocrisy. The National Rifle Association jumped right on it as might be expected. What the NRA failed to recognize as usual, is their own failings when it comes to really supporting the Constitution of the United States. In any case enjoy the dog and pony show that follows.

    source


    It is a simple matter of fact, beyond dispute, that for years prior to passage of the Brady Act, the organization now known as the Brady Campaign called for a waiting period on handgun sales and vigorously opposed the establishment of the National Instant Check System (NICS). The anti-gun group, when known as Handgun Control, Inc., ranted and raved against instant check legislation proposed by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) in the late 1980s, and by Rep. Harley O. Staggers (D-W. Va.) in 1991.

    While NRA strongly opposed the Brady Act because of its five-day waiting period, when Congress passed the Brady Act in 1993, it contained a provision authorizing its waiting period on dealer handgun sales only until a NICS could be established (applicable to all dealer firearm sales). The final bill required that the NICS become operational within five years. As it turned out, Brady’s prized waiting period, which Brady claimed could reduce so-called “crimes of passion” (though by the group’s own admission no data existed to support such a theory) was abolished after only four years and nine months, having taken effect in February 1994, and having been replaced by the NICS in November 1998.

    President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act in November 1993, however, so in November 2008 the Brady Campaign released a 15-year anniversary propaganda paper praising itself and–you guessed it–calling for a federal law prohibiting private sales of firearms, not just those at gun shows, but all private sales. What they don’t say, of course, is that if private sales are prohibited, they will immediately call for the FBI to retain records on all firearm transactions run through the NICS.

    The title of Brady’s anniversary propaganda? Get this: “Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives.” Brady checks? These are the same instant checks that Brady has opposed for 20 years, and which have been conducted for the last 10 years, instead of the waiting period that was in place for less than five years before! Barack Obama is not the only one who has “audacity.”

    Adding to their lie, Brady claims “the National Rifle Association (NRA) fought long and hard to block Brady background checks.” While NRA opposes waiting periods, it supported NICS, and Brady worked hard to block it. And in the end, NRA’s proposal carried the day.

    Adding further to the lie, is Brady’s pretense that the Brady Act is the reason that violent crime has declined in recent years. The Act “has been a resounding success by stopping more than 1.6 million potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer,” the group claims.

    The reality is something much different. First of all, as the FBI states in its annual national crime report (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/variables_affecting_crime.html), a variety of factors determine the type and volume of crime, and none of these factors is guns, gun ownership, or gun laws. And the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Justice, and others have studied gun control and found no evidence that it reduces crime at home or abroad.

    Secondly, the nation’s violent crime rate began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act took effect. And violent crime committed with weapons other than guns has declined, as well as violent crime with guns–the only weapons requiring a background check. This is largely due to tougher criminal justice policies imposed in the states during the 1990s, such as mandatory sentencing and reduction of probation and parole of violent criminals–precisely what NRA has advocated for years.

    Thirdly, Brady incorrectly assumes that denying gun sales must necessarily decrease crime, because it believes guns are the cause of crime and it opposes the use of guns for defense against crime. However, since 1991, the number of new guns sold to private citizens has increased by 70 million, and total violent crime has decreased 38 percent, including a 43 percent decrease in murder. Let’s not forget also the deterrent factor posed against criminals by the Right-to-Carry laws now in effect in 40 states.

    Brady also claims that before the Brady Act, “gun traffickers had it easy” with “new handguns bought easily over-the-counter in states with weak gun laws.” The fact is, however, that prior to the Brady Act, the 18 states and the District of Columbia that already had Brady-like laws delaying the acquisition of firearms–including waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, and license requirements–accounted for 63 percent of the nation’s violent crimes. Therefore, the Brady Act–particularly during the waiting period phase favored by the Brady Campaign–never had an effect on jurisdictions where most violent crimes occur.

    Naturally, the media have reported Brady’s claims as gospel. But otherwise, the anniversary propaganda is little more than a pathetic attempt by a decreasingly significant group whose agenda has been rejected time and again, and whose views are ever further removed from the mainstream of public opinion.

    Tags:, , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Domestic Violence, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

    Buttered popcorn and Budweiser beer

    December 3, 2008

    The Supremo’s have decided to take a look at Obama, and his constitutional qualifications as regards becoming the President of the United States. Given the courts propensity to buck real issues I have serious doubts that the Black Crows will do anything substantial.

    Yes, on occasion they do actually accomplish something. However, it is most often a half baked attempt. That goes double if it truly is a constitutional issue. The recent D.C. gun control case is a perfect example. It only applies to D.C. while still leaving the door wide open for further oppression by those that know how to take care of all of us better then we ourselves do.

    For my part I think that I will sit with a bowl of buttered popcorn and a Budweiser while I watch the show.

    Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

    « Older Entries
    Newer Entries »