Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Newer Entries »

Thunder in the Mountains

May 29, 2008

The thunder in the mountains and lightening in the sky of Colorado has nothing at all to do with the recent tornadoes. Rather, it has more to do with fundamental differences between people that believe that the United States Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. In other words, a head on clash between rational thought and liberalism.

On the rational side of the debate is Mike Rosen, a radio talk show host on 850KOA radio and columnist at the Rocky Mountain News. This, is what got things started:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/22/rosen-judicial-hubris-in-california/

On the liberal end is Paul Campos, also a columnist at the Rocky Mountain News, and, a professor of law at, you guessed it, The University of Colorado at Boulder. Not content with being a Ward Churchill supporter he seeks to make Mister Rosen appear foolish, and out of touch. That attempt can be found here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/28/campos-an-impossible-exercise/

Paul Campos is one of “those” university professors that are usually referred to as “they.” They being professors that preach their agenda as being how things really are out there in the world. Professor Campos regularly supports the failed doctrine of a “Living Constitution.” Through that mechanism he preaches that Judicial Activism is right, and just. So long as it fits his liberal template. A little background may help any readers to understand: Professor Campos is a devout hopolophobe, a supporter of plagiarists Ward Churchill, and in general can be counted upon in any “Hate America First” situation.

Paul Campos, in my less than humble opinion, is why the early Americans invented Tar and Feathering. It is a tradition that should be revived.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

On Anchor Babies

May 19, 2008

source: Earl1911

The problem we have today of “anchor” children (of illegal aliens) being granted citizenship, then providing the means for families of these illegal aliens to be allowed to enter our country – would not be an issue if the Constitution were being observed and applied.
 
The law that permits children born here to have immediate citizenship is contained in the 14th Amendment.
 
But was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? Not only NO, but HELL NO!
 
Many illegal methods were used by the radical, anti-Constitutional congress that followed the War between the States to force a major change in the balance of power between the federal and state governments. One method was by illegally injecting unratified amendments into our constitution.

When the concept of “State’s Rights” (10th Amendment to the Constitution) is brought up, generally people consider the issue belonging to the Southern states. However the South was not the exclusive advocate of the concept of State’s Rights and interposition. In earlier days it was the New England and Northern states that were the first to advocate and stand for these principles. They were also more successful in their efforts to use such to protect their vested interests. In 1808 Connecticut and Massachusetts endorsed interposition; the famous New England Secession Convention was held at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814; the House of Representatives of Massachusetts in 1846 declared the war with Mexico to be unconstitutional; and many Northern states successfully nullified the fugitive slave acts, thereby overruling both the federal Congress and the federal Supreme Court.

Following the War between the States, the radical congress had revenge in mind. In its zeal to punish, plunder, and reconstruct the South, it greatly increased the congress at the expense of the states. Part of its tactics was the imposition of “forced” amendments, adopted without Constitutional justification and procedure. The process of adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, was an example of repeated irregularities that gives insight into the glaring arguments regarding the legitimacy of all of the reconstruction era congressional acts.

In Ex parte Milligan, for example, the United States Supreme Court ruled that martial law could not be constitutionally imposed in the absence of war or rebellion and in areas where the civilian courts were functioning. The Reconstruction Act of March 1867 was a brazen and flagrant violation of this decision. Also, since congress had declared that the Southern states were without legal governments, it had trapped itself in a contradiction. Earlier Congress had accepted the ratification by the Southern states to the Thirteenth Amendment, but now Congress had declared these same states to be illegal. It was also apparent that this act denied civil rights to upwards of nine million Southerners. As such, it violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process and was in direct violation of constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder.*

To make the point of just how absurd it is to contend that the Fourteenth Amendment was legally ratified, assume the following:

1. Assume that the amendment had been constitutionally proposed, then;

2. Assume that the ratifications of Tennessee, Oregon and West Virginia were proper, then:

3. Assume that the rescission by New Jersey and Ohio were illegal.

THEN you are left with the problem that still Congress is six votes short of the number necessary for ratification.

Now comes the interesting part. To obtain the ratification of the remaining states, Congress required the Southern states to ratify in order to get back into the Union. But remember, states can vote on ratification of a constitutional amendment only if they were duly recognized as governments at the time they acted on the amendment. But Congress had already declared these “states” to be illegal governments and not a part of the Union – therefore their ratifications, according to constitutional principle, cannot be counted toward final ratification. Thus we are left with an amendment that was never ratified!

But let’s not stop there. The Southern States were forced to ratify the amendments. After learning that the South had rejected the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin declared that the north would “march upon the them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.” Their ratification was therefore also illegal on the basis of duress.

Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment was never constitutionally ratified, even if it had ever been constitutionally proposed.

* NOTE: A Bill of Attainder is described as a legislative act, no matter what its form, that applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Renewed Attack on Privacy of Gun Buyers

May 4, 2008

Lautenberg is back at it again with yet another assault on the American people. When will he ever be sated? I doubt that will ever happen. He is such an egotistical authoritarian maniac that he will probably be bossing around the people that embalm him. Now he is attempting to link firearms buyers to terrorism.  Well Senator, you are the terrorist, and enemy of the American people.

 

 

Renewed Attack on Privacy of Gun Buyers
 
Friday, May 02, 2008
 
This week, anti-gun U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) registration legislation that would invade the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Cosponsored by like-minded Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Charles Schumer (D-NY), S. 2935 would, among other things, require the FBI to retain records of cleared firearm transactions for at least 180 days.  Current law requires federally-licensed firearm dealers to conduct a background check on a prospective buyer using NICS prior to selling a firearm.  NICS creates an audit log of the purchase during the course of the search.  Under current Justice Department regulations, those records must be destroyed within 24 hours to preserve the lawful purchaser’s privacy.  The Clinton Administration originally proposed keeping these records for as long as 180 days.  NRA successfully fought to reduce this time period to 24 hours.  Lautenberg’s legislation would undo this regulation. 

Once again trying to create a link where none exists, Lautenberg opined, “We must overturn the ill-conceived law mandating destruction of this data so we can successfully combat gun violence and terrorism in America.” 

This latest anti-gun scheme should further remind gun owners of the importance of this year’s elections.  S. 2935 demonstrates that threats to our Second Amendment rights remain very much alive.  Sen. Lautenberg has a long and well-documented anti-gun record, and in sponsoring legislation that is a gross invasion of law-abiding gun owners’ privacy, his intentions are clearly aimed at further restriction of those rights. 

 

source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3897

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

New York City Lawsuit Against America’s Firearm Industry Blocked

May 4, 2008

Some politicians just never learn do they? Well Bloomberg, you lost, and the American people won a victory.

New York City Lawsuit Against America’s Firearm Industry Blocked
 
Friday, May 02, 2008
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has delivered a major blow to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s lawsuit aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry, by ruling on April 30 that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005 blocks the city’s lawsuit against a host of gun makers and distributors. 

“The blocking of this bogus lawsuit against America’s firearm industry is an important victory,” declared NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.  “New York City’s lawsuit was a politically motivated attack by an anti-gun mayor to bankrupt a lawful industry.” 

The Second Circuit, like other courts around the country, found that the law is constitutional and that District Judge Jack B. Weinstein had wrongly interpreted its exceptions. Weinstein, one of the most frequently overruled federal judges in the country, had said that the suit, under a “public nuisance” law, was still allowed under the PLCAA. 

After reviewing the history of the PLCAA, Judge Robert J. Miner wrote, “We think Congress clearly intended to protect from vicarious liability members of the firearms industry who engage in the ‘lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale’ of firearms.” 

This decision is just the latest setback for Mayor Bloomberg, who has also been publicly rebuked by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for his unlawful “sting” operations against firearm retailers in several states.

source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3898&issue=

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on New York City Lawsuit Against America’s Firearm Industry Blocked

In Liberty’s Two Arms

January 26, 2008

source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8920

In Liberty’s Two Arms

by David Kopel

This article appeared in Legal Times on January 14, 2008.

  TEXT SIZE

addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = ‘cato_webmaster’; AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget

All Second Amendment clauses protect gun rights

To understand the Second Amendment, it helps to consult Justice Stephen Breyer’s book Active Liberty.

This is not because the book reveals specifically how Breyer would vote in District of Columbia v. Heller, the upcoming Supreme Court case on the D.C. ban against owning handguns and using any firearm for self-defense in the home.

But Breyer’s book, through its philosophical discussions of the meaning of liberty, does show a way to reconcile the subordinate clause of the Second Amendment (the importance of the militia to a free state) and the main clause (gun ownership as an individual right). And this reconciliation of the two clauses strongly suggests that the D.C. gun bans are unconstitutional.

One could say that the families without guns are free-riders on the benefits from families with guns.

LEGAL LIBERTY

Active Liberty reminds us of the original meaning of “liberty” in the Greek city-states: the right of citizens to participate in their government. At the best periods in ancient Greece, as in New England town meetings, important public decisions were made democratically at assemblies of the people.

Active liberty, by itself, provides democracy, but it does nothing to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Thus, Enlightenment philosophers articulated a principle of negative liberty: That a person has certain rights that even a majority cannot infringe.

Breyer explains that active liberty and negative liberty are both part of the Constitution. For example, in evaluating campaign finance restrictions, Breyer would balance the negative liberty aspect of the First Amendment (that government should not control political speech) with the active liberty aspect (the right of the people to a good system of elections).

As Breyer explains, active and negative liberty can conflict. In campaign finance regulation, negative liberty (“don’t control political speech”) conflicts with active liberty (“protect democratic elections”). For the Second Amendment, however, the active and negative liberty provisions reinforce each other.

FOR THEMSELVES

The negative liberty aspect is in the Second Amendment’s main clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The clause derives from a long line of human rights philosophy about the right of individuals to defend themselves and their families. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his model constitution for Virginia: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements.”

In forbidding the possession or use of any functional firearm in the home, the D.C. law violates the Second Amendment’s main clause. Lawfully registered rifles and shotguns must be kept disassembled or locked up. There is no exception for self-defense.

Although the D.C. government’s Supreme Court brief claims that local courts might find an implicit self-defense exception, the government took the opposite position in 1977. Then, in successfully defending the self-defense ban, the District argued, and the city’s highest court agreed, that the statute deliberately banned self-defense in the home. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in McIntosh v. Washington that, even though owners of business premises were still allowed a limited degree of self-defense, the complete ban in the home was not an equal protection violation. The court found that there was a rational basis for the self-defense ban because of the great risk that people who had functional firearms in their home would kill in a domestic rage. (Extensive social science evidence disproves that court’s dire view of people who pass a background check to own licensed, registered guns.)

AND FOR OTHERS

The introductory clause of the Second Amendment (“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”) comes not from the tradition of negative liberty, but from classical and Renaissance principles of republicanism, an active liberty tradition.

As David Hardy described in his 1986 law-review article “The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights,” James Madison, in drafting the Second Amendment, blended the republican and human rights principles into a single amendment.

The active liberty clause is concerned with preserving citizens’ ability to contribute to the defense of their communities. For example, a threat might arise from a foreign attacker where the national army might not be able to respond in time. Likewise, the armed citizens of the founding era were often called upon by local officials to help search for escaped criminals or to protect frontier villages. More broadly, the republican philosophers worried that citizens who did not participate in the protection of their communities would become passive and dependent, and thereby lose virtues necessary to the survival of a free society.

Today, the government does not require citizens to serve in organized militias. Gun prohibition advocates claim that the Second Amendment therefore has no practical meaning.

David Kopel is an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

More by David B. Kopel

Thomas Cooley, the greatest American legal scholar of the latter 19th century, anticipated this argument and explained why government neglect of the militia (the first clause) did not negate the second clause: If Second Amendment rights were limited to those enrolled in a militia, “the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.”

TO SUPPRESS PREDATORS

Even if the Second Amendment nullificationists were correct that the introductory clause overrides the main clause, they err in their hyperliteral reading of this initial clause.

When we see the word “press” in the First Amendment, we understand that it protects more than just the freedom to use literal printing presses. It obviously includes sharing ideas using tools that have the same purpose as the press, such as fountain pens, typewriters, and Web sites. If a newspaper abandoned printing presses entirely and published its articles exclusively online, “freedom of the press” would still protect the writing.

Likewise, the active liberty principle of the Second Amendment’s opening clause teaches us about more than just formal militias. It looks to the role of citizens in helping to carry out the government functions of a free state — particularly the essential governmental function of suppressing predatory violence.

Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that legally armed homeowners (of whom there are none in the District) use firearms to drive burglars away from their homes hundreds of thousands of times a year.

Only about 13 percent of American burglaries are perpetrated against occupied homes (known as “hot burglary”), thanks to the burglars’ fear that residents might be armed. By contrast, the rate of hot burglaries is 45 percent to 50 percent in countries such as England and the Netherlands, where defensive gun ownership is forbidden or heavily discouraged.

Thwarting or deterring a home invasion obviously is beneficial for the individual family, but it also benefits the people as a whole. Drastically reducing the number of hot burglaries reduces the number of emergency calls to which police must respond, giving them more resources for other programs.

A militiaman in 1791 did much more than protect himself alone, and the Founders understood that collective benefit. By defending communities, militias protected people not in the militia, such as the elderly, women, and children.

Likewise, modern Americans who exercise Second Amendment rights confer benefits on the whole community. About half of all American homes contain a firearm. Burglars, however, do not know which half, so they must try to avoid all occupied homes.

One could say that the families without guns are free-riders on the benefits from families with guns. Or one could say that the Second Amendment’s opening clause envisioned that the security benefits of keeping arms would inure to the whole community.

THROUGHOUT HISTORY

This view has strong historical roots. The leading constitutional commentators of the early Republic, St. George Tucker and William Rawle, described the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a right to own guns for individual defense and for community security.

Likewise, the Reconstruction Congress, when passing the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and, later, the 14th Amendment, explicitly affirmed the right of former slaves to own guns in their own homes for protection against the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. This was important for the freedmen personally and also for preventing the Klan from destroying the right of freedmen to participate in the political process.

Later, during the 1950s and 1960s, many civil rights activists in the South (including Eleanor Roosevelt, on a speaking tour in Tennessee) had guns to protect themselves while they campaigned against segregation laws and in favor of voting rights.

It is possible to imagine how the active liberty and negative liberty clauses of the Second Amendment might conflict. A law that required prospective gun owners to undergo training or take a test might advance the active liberty clause, while arguably infringing the negative liberty clause.

Yet in the D.C. case, the active liberty and negative liberty provisions are in perfect harmony. The D.C. bans on functional firearms are contrary to the purposes of both clauses of the Second Amendment. The D.C. statutes eliminate both the personal and community benefits from firearm ownership in the home. Under both the active and negative concepts of liberty discussed in Breyer’s book, these D.C. statutes should be struck down.

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

Briefs Filed in D.C. Gun Ban Case

January 19, 2008

As the date for Supreme Court argument in District of Columbia v. Heller approaches, the filing of briefs has begun.  The District filed its brief last week.  In addition, various “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) briefs were filed with the court. 

Department of Justice Brief 
Gun owners are understandably dismayed about the brief filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Hoping Something Will Stick To The Wall: Gun Ban Groups’ Briefs 
Nearly two dozen briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by individuals and groups supporting D.C.’s bans on handguns, having a gun assembled within the home, and carrying a gun within the home. 

Outrage of the Week:  Are You A Bigot? This week’s Outrage comes from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which filed a friend of the court brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in support of keeping Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun ban on the books.  According to a recent ADL release (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5207_33.htm), “The League urged the Court to ensure that states retain the ability to keep guns out of the hands of ‘violent bigots.'”   

Leading Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights:  With the Presidential nominating season in full swing, trying to pin down the various candidates’ unequivocal stance on issues of import can often be difficult, if not impossible.  Amidst their political posturing and refining of positions at the recent Las Vegas Caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), were asked a series of questions about the gun issue.  All called for severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.   

To view a video of the exchange, please visit our NRA-Political Victory Fund website (www.nrapvf.org) and click on the video feed in the center of the page.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Treachery, or just business as usual…

January 11, 2008

Treachery, or just business as usual… The Senate and Congress have been playing with the rights of Americans for so long now that they evidently think that we all like it. Guess what? We do not. Perhaps after Lautenberg, Schumer, and Pelosi all get tarred and feathered they might figure it out. Read on about this latest shenanigan from foggy bottom.

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

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

As most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holidays last
month, the U.S. Congress pulled another fast one when only few people
were watching.

It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either
at the airport or in the air returning home. They weren’t in
Washington, DC, because their party leadership had told them that all
the major votes were over… that the only legislative business left
related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would
return from Christmas break, etc.

But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and
Senate passed the Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote.
It was a huge deja vu, as this was the method that a previous
Democratic Congress used — together with compliant Republicans — to
pass the original Brady Law in 1993.

WHO IS TO BLAME?

In the fury that resulted from this “fast one,” many Americans have
wanted to blame the entire lot of them… all 535 congressmen. And,
to be sure, there is an extent to which they all share some blame.

But to be fair, no one congressmen can camp out on the floor of the
House or Senate chambers, every day, 24/7. It’s a physical
impossibility, which is why members of each party rely on their
leadership to protect their interests and keep them informed. And
that’s where the betrayal occurred.

No Unanimous Consent agreement can pass the House or Senate without
the leaders of both parties signing off. And on December 19, the
leaders of each party sent their members home for the Christmas
holidays, while forging Unanimous Consent agreements in each chamber.

As such, the immediate ire should be directed at the following
legislators: Democrats such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Republicans such
as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Obviously, the backers of the Veterans Disarmament Act should be held
to account, as well. Most of the lead sponsors were Democrats —
such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

But there were a few key Republicans who helped cosponsor the
legislation: Representatives Michael Castle (DE), Christopher Shays
(CT) and Lamar Smith (TX). And dishonorable mention goes to Tom
Price of Georgia who was physically present on the House floor on
December 19. It was Rep. Price who asked for the Unanimous Consent
agreement to pass the Veterans Disarmament Act without a vote.

Finally, many of you know that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) held up the
bill in the Senate for several months. His intentions were laudable
as he desperately wanted to protect Second Amendment rights and cut
unconstitutional spending.

Unfortunately, not one pro-gun senator chose to stand with Coburn…
not one. In fact, GOA felt just as alone as Coburn did. While two
veterans groups (and several pro-gun state groups) sided with us, GOA
was the only pro-gun group at the federal level that actively fought
this legislation week after week, while another and bigger
organization was working behind the scenes to help pass the Veterans
Disarmament Act.

Standing alone, Senator Coburn decided to negotiate for a better
bill. GOA was asked for input and made a few contributions to the
bill, but not enough to justify support for the Veterans Disarmament
Act.

Add to this fact that GOA was prevented from seeing the final version
of the bill before the brokered Schumer-Coburn compromise was taken
to the floor under a Unanimous Consent agreement.

As a result, Senator Coburn spoke in favor of the compromise bill on
the floor of the Senate — something that was a huge mistake, for
many of the glaring problems with the bill still remained untouched.

So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer… and for Carolyn McCarthy
as well, as she told CBS News, “This is the best Christmas present I
could ever receive.”

WHAT DOES THE BILL DO IN GENERAL?

It would be a mistake to under-react — or over-react — to the
passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act.  On the bad side, this bill
statutorily validates BATF regulations which could potentially disarm
millions of Americans.  This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of events which
will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.

The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized
will be clear only over time — and perhaps a long time — and will
depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are in power.  For
example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun
Control Act to be used to disarm veterans.

On the other hand, GOA was able to secure a few modest concessions
which should provide some protection to gun owners — though NOT
NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTION TO JUSTIFY SUPPORT of this bill.

So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation
for Americans with psychiatric diagnoses?

Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of
the BATF regulations, per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new
language which could make you a “prohibited person” (unable
to own a
gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or
psychologist), provided:

* That you had “an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board,
commission or other lawful authority”; and

* In the future, that you had notice that you would be made a
“prohibited person” as a result of the agency action (section
101 (c)
(3)). [NOTE:  This was added pursuant to negotiations over GOA’s
objections to the bill.]

However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to
140,000 veterans had their gun rights taken away as a result of a
diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things for
those 140,000 people:

1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any
knowledge of the ramifications of the “diagnosis” in the past
— and
the fact that this diagnosis could disarm him or her for life. How
many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs,
hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of
the new law?

2. Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew
they had a right to appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000
Americans who have now lost their Second Amendment rights first
received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to
their diagnosis, a “guardian” was being appointed for them to
handle
their affairs. As stated above, how many vets realized that this
action would deem them as “mental defective” under the 1968 Gun
Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?

Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by
appealing the diagnosis? If they didn’t realize the significance of
this VA letter, most likely, the vets did nothing, as they were more
concerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a diagnosis
would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new
law would still validate the removal of their Second Amendment
rights.

HOW WILL THE BILL AFFECT ME?

If you have been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis,
the following may be helpful:

* A diagnosis by your private doctor — with no government
involvement — will probably cause you no problems.

* The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans.  Although the
language of this bill could conceivably disarm adults who were
diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program,
seniors on Medicare with Alzheimers, etc., we know of no active
efforts to disarm persons in these cases — yet.

* The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be
directly related to the ease of accomplishing this though a computer
keyboard.  If your file exists only on microfiche in a dusty basement
cabinet, you are relatively safe for now — although, keep in mind,
the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating
records like this.

* Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment
supporter is in the White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot
to do with how vigorously this new statute is enforced.

WHAT CAN I DO IF I’M ILLEGITIMATELY PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN?

In the unlikely event that you can get your diagnosis “set aside,”
“expunged,” or found to no longer exist, you can regain your
rights. 
[See section 101(c)(1)(A)&(B).]

The McClure-Volkmer “relief from disabilities” provisions
which have
been blocked by sponsor Schumer for 15 years have been reinstated and
expanded — so that they will now exist in the broader range of state
and federal agencies which this bill will allow to make you a
prohibited person.  Pursuant to negotiations over GOA’s objections,
we were able to secure very modest improvements which:

* Would allow you to sue to get your rights restored if the agency
sat on your appeal for 365 days;

* Would allow you to get your legal fees if you prevail against the
agency in court;

* Would prevent Schumer from defunding these efforts in the same way
he defunded McClure-Volkmer — by requiring the 3% of state funds
under this bill be used for these “relief from disabilities”
programs.

But here’s the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains
were granted by the “right hand” are taken away by the
“left.”
Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with
so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the
state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill
stipulates that such relief may occur only if “the person will not be
likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the
GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.”
(Emphasis added.)

This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California’s)
that have “may issue” concealed carry laws — where citizens
“technically” have the right to carry, but state law only says that
sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway,
those sheriffs usually don’t grant the permits!

As we have predicted before: liberal states — the same states that
took these people’s rights away — will treat almost every person who
has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that
granting relief would be “contrary to the public interest.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

GOA is devising strategies with House and Senate members to restore
veterans’ rights. Please stay tuned.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Gun Control, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

“To secure these rights…”

December 17, 2007

Often, there are those that think that they are wiser than the Founders of this nation. They tend to be well educated, and think of themselves as the elite of society. They believe in freedom of expression. Just so long as it is in line with their thinking. Mark Alexander writes yet another fine piece about this in the Patriot Post. Well done Mark. It is reprinted here in the hope that it, and Mark, get even more exposure.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

“To secure these rights…”

By Mark Alexander

Saturday, 15 December, is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, as ratified in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was inspired by three remarkable documents: John Locke’s 1689 thesis, Two Treatises of Government, regarding the protection of “property” (in the Latin context, proprius, or one’s own “life, liberty and estate”); in part from the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason in 1776 as part of that state’s Constitution; and, of course, in part from our Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson.

James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights as amendments to our Constitution in 1789, but many of our Founders objected to listing the Bill of Rights at all, much less as “amendments.” Their rationale was that such rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.

Alexander Hamilton argued this point in The Federalist Papers, the most comprehensive explication of our Constitution: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous… For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Federalist No. 84)

George Mason was one of 55 who authored the U.S. Constitution, but one of 16 who refused to sign it because it did not adequately address limitations on what the central government had “no power to do.” He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams against the Constitution’s ratification for that reason.

As a result of Mason’s insistence, ten limitations were put on the Federal Government by the first session of Congress, for the reasons outlined by the Bill of Rights Preamble: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation on constraints upon the central government.

However, as Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest threat to such limitations on the central government was an unbridled judiciary: “Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control… The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will… It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation… The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

That admonition notwithstanding, the federal judiciary has become “a despotic branch.”

Indeed, since the middle of the last century, judicial despots have grossly devitalized the Bill of Rights, asserting errantly that our Founders created a “Living Constitution” amendable by judicial diktat.

For example, the Leftjudiciary has “interpreted” the First Amendment as placing all manner of constraint upon the exercise of religion by way of the so-called “establishment clause” and based on the phony “Wall of Separation” argument. At the same time, the courts have asserted that all manner of expression constitutes “speech.”

The judiciary and legislatures have undermined the strength of the Second Amendment, a right of which James Madison’s appointee, Justice Joseph Story, referred to as “…the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”

Equally derelict is the manner in which the Tenth Amendment has been eroded by judicial interpretation.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison outlines the clear limits on central government power established in the Constitution: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Alexander Hamilton added in Federalist No. 81 “…the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.”

There was a very bloody War Between the States fought over offense to the Constitution’s assurance of States’ Rights.

All is not lost, however.

Sunday, 16 December, is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (1773). The “radicals” from Marlborough, Massachusetts, who threw 342 chests of tea from a British East India Company ship into the Boston Harbor in protest of tyrannical rule, did so noting, “Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their… liberties.”

Three years later, this rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to a document that declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Judicial and political despots, take note

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Contemporary Quotes, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The Triumph of Liberty

December 8, 2007

“Ultimately the triumph of liberty depends on the dissemination of ideas on liberty. Such ideas cause people to reevaluate long-held notions as to the role of government in a free society. Ideas on liberty have the potential of transforming a society by awakening and arousing people to the genuine nature of freedom and its importance and benefits. “

citation:

Jacob G. Hornberger

In my not so damned humble opinion, President Bush could appoint a far worse person to the Supreme Court, than this man.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Education, Historical Quotes, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Triumph of Liberty

Second Amendment verses D.C.

November 18, 2007

Mark Alexander writes a fine piece for the Patriot Post about upcoming litigation that will be presented to the Supreme Court. 

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms”

By Mark Alexander

There is yet another ideological contest brewing in our nation’s capitol, this one between two distinctively different groups in the federal judiciary: constitutional constructionists, who render decisions based on the “original intent” of our nation’s founding document, and judicial despots, who endorse the dangerously errant notion of a “Living Constitution.”

This is no trivial contest, however, and the outcome will have significant consequences across the nation.

The subject of this dispute is Washington, DC’s “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which prohibits residents from owning handguns, ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.”

Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—that of socio-pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.)

In 1960 the frequency of violent crime in the District was 554/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 10/100,000. In 2006, the frequency of violent crime in the District was 1,512/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 29/100,000. That is a 200 percent increase, and according to the latest data from Washington Metro Police, violent crime is up 12 percent thus far this year.

Fact is, firearm restrictions on law-abiding citizens in Washington, and other urban centers, have created more victims while protecting offenders. There is nothing new about this correlation. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Simply put, violent predators prefer victims who have no means of self defense.

Most pro and con arguments about firearms are constructed around the crime debate, including excellent research by John Lott, whose book More Guns, Less Crime, clearly establishes that restrictive gun policies lead to higher crime rates.

The arguments from both sides in the current case in Washington are also constructed around the crime issue. However, the Second Amendment debate is not about crime, but about the rule of law—constitutional law. Fortunately, the appellate court for DC is making this distinction.

In March of this year, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down that federal jurisdiction’s restrictions on gun ownership, finding that the District is violating the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and should the High Court accept the case, its ruling would be the first substantial decision on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939.

At issue: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on the individual rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, or does it restrict the central government from infringing on the rights of the several states to maintain well-armed militias?

The intent of the Second Amendment, however, was abundantly clear to our Founders.

Indeed, in the most authoritative explication of our Constitution, The Federalist Papers, its principal author, James Madison, wrote in No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…”

Alexander Hamilton was equally unambiguous on the importance of arms to a republic, writing in Federalist No. 28, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense…”

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In other words, the right of the people to bear arms is the most essential of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, because it ensures the preservation of all other rights.

Accordingly, the appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government… The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.”

Additionally, the majority opinion notes, “The activities [the amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

The dissenting judge’s conclusion did not dispute the plain language of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government, but he insists that the District is not a state, and is, thus, not subject to the prohibition.

This is ridiculous, of course, since such a conclusion would imply, by extension, that District residents are not subject to any protection under the Constitution.

The real contest here is one between activist judges, those who amend the Constitution by judicial diktat rather than its clearly prescribed method stipulated in Article V, and constructionist judges, those who properly render legal interpretation based on the Constitution’s “original intent.”

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution…” In other words, nothing in the Constitution gives judges the right to declare the Constitution means anything beyond the scope of its plain language.

However, activist judges, including those among generations of High Court justices, have historically construed the Second Amendment through a pinhole, while viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens.

For example, though the First Amendment plainly says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” judicial activists interpret this plain language to mean a public school coach can’t offer a simple prayer before a game.

Equally absurd, they argue that the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause means burning the American flag, exploiting women for “adult entertainment,” or using taxpayer dollars to fund works of “art” such as a crucifix immersed in a glass of human waste.

If these same judicial despots misconstrued the Second Amendment as broadly as they do the first, Americans would have nukes to defend themselves from noisy neighbors.

The appeals case regarding the constitutionality of DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is not about crime prevention, or whether the District is subject to prohibitions in the Bill of Rights. It is about the essence of our Constitution’s most important assurance that all Americans have the right to defend themselves against both predatory criminals and tyrannical governments. It is about the need for the High Court to reaffirm this right and stop the incremental encroachment of said right by infringements like that in the District, or more egregious encroachments like those found within the Feinstein-Schumer gun-control act.

Of self-government’s “important principles,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is [the peoples’] right and duty to be at all times armed.” Indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Tags:,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Gun Control, Men's Issues, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

Newer Entries »