Posts Tagged ‘ex post facto law’

More Ex Post Facto Law; Guess who it’s being brought to you by?

December 3, 2013

I mean seriously people… Lautemberg is barely in his grave and what? A Monument to his utter treason?


Legislative Time Bomb Could Retroactively Outlaw the Possession of Virtually all Guns with Non-Metal parts
Wood stocks could be prohibited

“We look at [the plastic gun ban] as an infringement,” said GOA’s Erich Pratt.  “The law does nothing to keep undetectable guns out of the hands of criminals [who have] no regard for the law in the first place.” — The Hill, November 28, 2013

URGENT ACTION:  The House did not take up the plastic gun ban yesterday.   So please continue contacting your legislators — especially your Representative — with today’s new message.  The House will most certainly vote today.  If you can, please call your Rep. at 202-225-3121.

Gun ban would be mischief for an anti-gun administration.

Sometimes it takes decades for a poorly-drafted anti-gun law to rise up and bite you. The 1968 gun ban for “mental defectives” sat around for 25 years before an anti-gun Clinton administration decided to use it to disarm more than 150,000 law-abiding veterans who had never been before a court.

The “plastic gun ban” is another massive time bomb sitting in federal law. And it will be reauthorized (for as much as a decade) in the next two weeks — if we don’t stop it.

Unless it existed before December 10, 1988, the plastic gun ban absolutely bans any gun that is not as detectable in a “walk-through metal detector” as a Security Exemplar [18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(A) and (6)].

The “Security Exemplar” is a piece of metal that the ATF uses to calibrate how much steel a manufacturer needs to put in the gun to make it beep in the metal detector.  Other than the fact that it has to contain 3.7 ounces of steel and look sort of like a gun, anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder can determine, by regulatory fiat, the characteristics of the Exemplar.

He can determine whether you test guns with a “top flight” metal detector — or a crummy one. He can determine how many times (or thousands of times) a gun has to pass in order not to be banned.

In addition, every “major component” of every firearm has to pass through an airport x-ray in such a way that its shape is “accurately” depicted [18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(B)].

The statute contains a list of parts of guns which are definitely “major components.”  But is that list exclusive?  If we didn’t have a President and an Attorney General who have violated and perverted the law again and again and again, we might be able to conclude that it was exclusive.  But the language is not so definitive as to protect us against an administration intent on destroying us.

So what if Holder determines that a wooden stock is a “major component”?

According to an expert we consulted, a wooden stock would produce an x-ray image which is “fuzzier” (less “accurate”) than a metal gun would produce.  Interestingly, a wholly plastic gun would also produce an x-ray image, according to this expert, although it would be “fuzzier” (less “accurate”) than that of a metal gun.

So, for those Republicans who are talking about locking us into an extension of this statute that could ban lots of guns … tell them, “please don’t.”

A couple of more points:

* It is simply not true that, if this statute is allowed to lapse, “killers can freely go into airports, courthouses, and schools to commit mass murder and mayhem.”

X-ray machines will pick up the images of plastic guns.  And, unfortunately for the safety of the inhabitants, guns in airports, courthouses, and schools will remain illegal under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) and 930.

* And it is foolish to assume that the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas of the world — intent on committing mass murder — would somehow be deterred by a plastic gun ban.  That genie is already out of the bottle.

* Finally, it appears that New York Senator Chuck Schumer would like to take the potentially significant gun ban and expand it even further.

Thursday, November 21, Schumer tried to pass an expansion though the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent without even usual a standard Senate procedure for notifying other senators, called hot-lining. Almost two weeks AFTER HE TRIED TO PASS IT, the text of the Schumer bill was still not available.

But we do know that Schumer has been working all year to expand the plastic gun ban to shut down every gun manufacturer in America who makes guns using a mold.  We also know that Schumer has been trying to extend it even more explicitly to gun parts and magazines — although it’s hard to see what danger a plastic magazine would pose.

ACTION:   Click here to contact your senators and representative.  Tell them to oppose this effort to ban guns with wooden stocks. Call him or her at 202-225-3121.

Epic fail obama pundit get handed her head on national show

January 19, 2013
Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gun Owners of America on MSNBC tells it like it is.

Plus she can’t seem to figure out who she is trying to debate.

In any case the point of the add was that the elites are hypocrites when it comes to their own protection or their families. Whether you agree with more police in schools, armed teachers and principles or not.

Not to mention that already they, as in Governor Cuomo and others are already talking about confiscation. In other words, even more ex post facto law. For years I have raged about the insult to our freedoms imposed by the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act’s ex post facto provision. Well, I don’t have any problem with disarming people in the heat of the moment or even for as long as it takes to complete consoling and jail time. But damn it! If you are going to take someones rights away forever then convict them of a felony, period. But no, based upon political correctness and misandry (sexism) they trashed out the Bill of Rights, and that has set the groundwork for even more.

Comparision / Contrast: AKA holding your nose when you vote

January 29, 2012

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation  them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

Mitt Romney

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

“Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at:

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

Newt Gingrich

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: .

Both the above assessments are from Gun Owners of America

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

Which old Witch?

December 5, 2011

Harry Reid Attempting to Ram Through Another Judge


With the help of tons of emails from Gun Owners of America members that poured into the Senate earlier this year, a gun-hating Obama judicial nominee had been kept from coming to the floor for a vote.


But thanks to good old Harry Reid, who likes to pretend he supports gun rights, that nominee is coming up for a vote on Tuesday.


Using his power as Majority Leader, Senator Reid made a procedural move last week to force a vote on Caitlin Halligan, formerly the solicitor general of New York and an avid leader in the effort to destroy firearms manufacturers using frivolous litigation.


Click here to send your Senators a pre-written letter.


Reid scheduled the on Halligan vote for this Tuesday, December 6. Consider it an early Christmas present for his anti-gun pals.


Gun Owners of America began in February briefing Senate members on the dangers of confirming Halligan to a seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals — sometimes called the second highest court in the land.


As New York’s solicitor general, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.


Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”


Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item — whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else — would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.


After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.


Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.


Halligan’s failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes “fraud” against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant.


But, of course, none of this matter to Harry Reid. He already did his part getting two strident anti-gun Obama judges onto the Supreme Court, and now he’s doing what he can to pack the Appeals Courts with radical leftists as well.


We have to stop this Reid/Obama court-packing scheme. Please act now, as the vote is scheduled for this Tuesday.


Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.

Some thoughts on term limits

December 5, 2011

Like everything, term limits has it’s pros, and cons. Back in the day I helped the Libertarians spearhead the term limits law in Colorado, and yes, it got co opted by the Republicans. This was one time however when the Utilitarian came out in me.

We cleaned out so much dead wood and big government, I am the world types that I thought we had reached near political heaven…

That lasted about a handful of years and then we had to come to grips with the fact that now we didn’t have the quantity, nor the quality of freedom loving people willing to take a pay cut to serve in the Colorado legislature. (It barely paid minimum wage.)

Tabor was passed along with other laws that actually repealed laws that restricted the liberty and freedom of the people of the state. Private property laws were also reinforced. But then the inevitable happened.

I posted this in response to a thread over at Texas Fred’s. There are times when something appears to be the absolute best solution to a problem. Only to find out later that it really just backfired.

My wonderful adopted home was invaded. By miscreants from my actual home state, New York City, Chicago, and so on. Those people Californicated Colorful Colorado. Leftest of the worse sorts were elected, and most if not all the gains that had been made in the cause of freedom were abolished, or made toothless. Laws were passed that would insure that freedom loving people would have a difficult time getting elected, and gerrymandering reached heights that make the firestorm about that in Texas look like a schoolyard spitting match! Laws that take away your rights forever for less than felony behaviors or severe mental illness got their starts in Colorado during this time. Calling taxes something other than taxes started there as well.

And getting anyone elected that thought otherwise in any place besides conservative strongholds became all but impossible.

My point in all this is to remind everyone that most things in life have a double edged sword effect, and term limits is right there with all the rest of the unintended consequences.

How often must people be reminded that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the hill?

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

November 5, 2010

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

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

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

Full Story

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

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

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

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!


May 18, 2010

I do indeed agree with much of what Mr. Kopel says in what follows. However? He leaves much of the story out.

The NRA’s annual members meeting was held last weekend, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Since I’ve been going to these events for the last two decades, I’d like to offer a report on how the Convention has changed over the years, and some thoughts about the NRA’s past and present.

First of all, the annual meeting grown from “large” to “enormous.” This year’s convention drew 72,128 NRA members. It’s now so big that relatively few US cities have convention facilities that can accommodate it. The 2010 meeting was the largest event ever held in the city of Charlotte, and the people of Charlotte were very welcoming, and the facilities were well-run.

The Exhibit Hall, where manufacturers of firearms, hunting gear, and related accessories show off their products to consumers, was a three mile walk, if you went through each row. The shooting industry’s annual trade show (SHOT — Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades) is even bigger, but you have to be a firearms retailer, or otherwise engaged in the firearms business, in order to be able to attend SHOT. So for most persons, the NRA exhibit hall is the best opportunity ever to examine products close up, talk to manufacturer’s representatives, and so on. As has become the norm in recent years, the exhibit hall was so full most of the day Saturday that it was difficult to walk at more than a slow space. (Friday and Sunday were easier.)

Traditionally, the highlight (at least for me) has been the annual members’ banquet on Saturday evening. Last year in Phoenix, the banquet set the record as “the largest meal ever served in the state of Arizona.” Even then, there were many people who wanted to attend, but could not get tickets. So this year, the banquet was replaced by an evening event at the nearby basketball arena (the Time-Warner Cable Center), which drew 11,754 to hear a Charlie Daniels concert, plus speeches by Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, as well as by NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.

A notable addition in recent years is the Friday afternoon “Celebration of American Values” leadership forum. This too took place at the basketball arena. As Jim Geraghty of National Review Online reported, the event now serves as a cattle call for politicians who may have national ambitions.  Speakers this year included Sarah Palin, John Thune, Haley Barbour, and Mike Pence, plus North Carolina Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler. The CAV is a relatively recent addition to the Annual Meeting. Because the Saturday banquet can only accommodate one or two headline speakers, the CAV provides NRA with an additional opportunity to build relationships with leading political figures.

New media were present, with NRA staff twittering the convention for the first time, plus the now-established events for the dozens of “gun bloggers” who attend. The most prominent “new media” at the convention was NRA News, the NRA’s satellite radio program which airs three hours every weekday on Sirius (and, starting today, also on XM) as well as on the Internet. NRA News had a studio on the convention floor, and broadcast nearly round the clock over the weekend. [For NRA News video of the weekend’s speeches, go the NRA News website, and then look in the video archives for May 14 or 15.]

The Continuing Legal Education seminar at the Annual Meeting has been in operation for about a decade and half, a Friday program that provides hundreds of lawyers with eight hours of low-cost CLE, and greatly helps to expand the number of lawyers who have the knowledge to handle firearms cases–whether the case is an administrative law issue for a licensed firearms dealer, or a constitutional defense.

Among the interesting presenters at the CLE was Stephen Halbrook, discussing his draft article for the Northeastern Law Review symposium, in which he commented on this passage in Chicago’s brief (p. 19, n. 9) in McDonald: incorporation “would raise questions whether a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois) must be allowed elsewhere, precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

Stated another way, Chicago wants the legal option to ban ordinary rifles used for hunting deer and other big game. Rifles which, by the way, are currently owned by Chicago residents, and are lawfully used by them for hunting and target shooting. Chicago’s argument certainly refutes the notion that nobody in the gun control movement wishes to ban hunting long guns.

Throughout the three days of the convention, there are seminars on all kinds of topics, from hunting to self-defense to firearms history. The one I attended was Sniper: Myths and the Media & Winning the Sniping War in Iraq. Major John Plaster gave a very interesting presentation on the sniper war in Iraq from 2004 to 2008, perhaps the most extended sniper conflict in the history of warfare. He explained how the Iraqi insurgents nearly won that conflict in 2005-06, and how the U.S. forces finally turned the tide by changing their tactics, and bringing in substantial additional resources, including forensics teams who could lift fingerprints from recovered insurgent guns.

But the main reason I went was for the other speaker, Stephen Hunter, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Now retired from newspapers, Hunter is a novelist, and in his most recent mystery-adventure novel, I, Sniper, I am a very minor character. It’s the first time I have ever appeared in a novel, so like a Pirandello character in search of his author, I made sure to say hello to him, and get him to sign my book.

In sum, the NRA Annual Meeting showcased an organization that is strong and getting stronger, largely because of its increasing ability to mobilize the grassroots. Twentyfive years ago, if you joined the NRA, you got a monthly magazine, plus direct mail requests for additional donations, and occasional legislative alerts. Now, the NRA is in touch with its members daily (at least the members who want daily updates) via NRA News, the website, e-mails, blogs, and so on. As the Annual Meeting continues to scale up, the organizers are doing a solid job of giving members the opportunity not only to be part of very large crowds, but also to participate in smaller events with one-on-one conversations.

Throughout the meeting, at event after event, the key word was not “rifle” or “gun.” In Charlotte, as at every convention for at least the last ten years, the word was “American.” This is reflected in part in the genuine veneration which the NRA, at all levels, has for the American armed forces. The NRA membership and staff have a high proportion of military veterans, and at any convention event, a call-out to the active duty soldiers typically leads to a standing ovation.

But more broadly, the NRA considers itself the embodiment of American patriotism, as the direct descendant of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. This isn’t a point about constitutional originalism, but it is a point about four million people who have never thought that it was uncool to be patriotic, and who very much see themselves as carrying forward the sacred flame of liberty that was lit in 1776, was fought for on the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal, and which is based on eternal truth.

Like any social and political movement, the NRA at times defines itself as oppositional–as resisting “the anti-gun mainstream media,” or Bill Clinton, or Michael Bloomberg. But the National Rifle Association of America is incapable of being oppositional to America itself, or of imagining itself to be countercultural. Founded in 1871 by Union army officers, and led in its early days by bipartisan Union Generals (such as retired U.S. President U.S. Grant, a Republican; and Winfield Scott Hancock, “the hero of Gettysburg” and the 1884 Democratic presidential nominee), the NRA has always defined itself as the mainstream of America. Probably the only civic organization whose membership has included more U.S. Presidents than the NRA is the Boy Scouts–and that’s because the Boy Scouts make every U.S. President into their honorary President. In short, Whig history is alive and well at the NRA, and based on the present and past successes of NRA in shaping American culture as a gun culture, that view of history cannot be said to be inaccurate.


And what of the NRA’s stance supporting ex post facto law? Just to name one utter failure…

Chi Town and Thuggery verses The People of America!

February 26, 2010

Back when the Heller vs D.C. ruling came down the masses were thrilled. I warned back then that this battle was far from over, as did Gun Owners of America, The N.R.A. and every other reputable group that supports the Bill of Rights.

The anti Liberty and Freedom crowd find themselves in a precarious position as I see it. They are claiming that local rule should prevail. That sounds a lot like a Tenth Amendment argument to me. In other words, they are talking out of both sides of their faces. Incorporation either works for everything or the entire theory falls apart at the seams.

The same people are also using the old, tired, and utterly stupid argument that firearms kill people. They don’t, people kill people.

Should Otis McDonald prevail I submit that while it would be a major step forward in the cause of Liberty and Freedom the battle will still be far from over. The Supreme Court has, after all affirmed that ex post facto law is not un-Constitutional which is beyond comprehension. If, in fact there is a “win.” You can bet that there will be wiggle room left for the purveyors of despotism to impose their agenda upon the unwashed that are the people that they Laird it over.

Full Story

Matt Mead rejected as governor: Wyoming does the right thing

November 21, 2009

When it comes to Governors never back an attorney for the office. To be blunt, they kiss butt way too much. Wyoming Gun Owners points out the obvious with a very informative piece that outlines the threat to states rights, as well as the federal mandate based in mysandry and ex post facto law.

While Wyoming did go a long way toward correcting a fundamentally flawed law it did not go nearly far enough. Nor do I see any way that the law that was passed could, or would, be recognized by other states. Or that a person that had been convicted in another state could use Wyoming residency to have their rights restored in Wyoming. Read on, and I hope that Wyoming Gun Owners start allowing comments at some point. At least from dues paying members such as myself.

By Anthony Bouchard
The headline should read “Gun owners beware of formers U.S Attorneys”. But it’s best that you decide…

In 2004, The Sovereign State of Wyoming enacted legislation that established a procedure to expunge misdemeanor convictions “for the purposes of restoring any firearm rights lost”.

This was specifically to aid Wyoming citizens in restoring gun rights if they had a misdemeanor such as domestic violence on their record. The NRA backed Lautenberg legislation bans gun ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Wyoming legislators recognized there was nothing to protect individuals that were erroneously convicted.

Full Story HERE

%d bloggers like this: