Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

The UN Small Arms Treaty

June 7, 2010

“Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. [Recently] the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world. According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries ‘prevent, combat and eradicate’ what those countries define as ‘the illicit trade in small arms.’ The UN’s solution isn’t too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these ‘reforms.’ But not all insurgencies are ‘bad.’ To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war. … Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century — that is 2.6 million per year. This includes genocide, the murder of people for political reasons, and mass murder. Even if all 300,000 deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small arms trade, an obviously false claim, people have much more to worry about from their governments. … The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban,’ Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice.” –economist John Lott

SOURCE

For some reason this sounds a lot more credible than the NRA’s recent statements on the issue. Anyone else smell yet another sell out..?

Sharron Angle The Best Choice For Nevada Gun Owners (And The Country)

June 6, 2010
Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
http://www.goapvf.org

Friday, June 4, 2010

The Nevada Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate continues to shift dramatically.

A brand new poll by the Suffolk University Political Research Center now shows pro-gun Sharon Angle, who is endorsed by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, in first place with 33 percent, followed by Danny Tarkanian at 26 percent and Sue Lowden at 25 percent.

The three are battling it out for the right to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.

Reid’s anti-Second Amendment antics are well known.  In the past year, he forced ObamaCare through the Senate, along with a slew of anti-gun Obama nominees.

But one of the Republican candidates is not without Second Amendment problems of his own.  Less than four years ago, when he ran for Secretary of State, Danny Tarkanian received a glowing endorsement from a leading anti-gun group.

“I’m asking you to vote for Danny Tarkanian,” said Sarah Brady, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a radio ad.  “He supports common sense gun laws like a ban on military-style assault weapons.”

Brady was referring to Tarkanian’s support of ban on many types of common semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of Americans.

Go to http://goapvf.org/brady-endorsement-of-tarkanian-in-2006.htm to view the Brady endorsement of Tarkanian.

The choice for gun owners and sportsmen in this election is clear.  GOA-PVF urges all pro-Second Amendment Nevadans to vote for Sharron Angle on Tuesday, June 8, and for supporters around the country to get behind to Angle campaign with contributions in these crucial final days of the election.

Please visit www.sharronangle.com today to make a donation to Sharron Angle’s effort to defeat Harry Reid.

Thanks again for supporting Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman

Brady Campaign’s slipping relevancy underscored by NRA convention

May 21, 2010

Adhering to a pattern of behavior that has developed over the years, a tiny contingent of gun prohibitionists paraded outside of the Charlotte Convention Center while the National Rifle Association was hosting its record-breaking members’ meeting, but they remained only long enough to get some camera time with local news crews.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, came to that North Carolina city in order to grab some face time and get his name in the local newspapers. Where the NRA can pull more than 70,000 members, the Brady bunch could barely muster two dozen protesters to parade around for perhaps an hour, probably less, and then leave satisfied that the 5 o’clock news would carry their images.

For several years, right up to the devastating 1994 mid-term elections that turned dozens of Congressional anti-gunners out of office, the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups enjoyed media and public support. But when gun rights organizations began fighting back with facts, and developed a strategy of education through legal journals, their influence began to wane. That influence continued to erode as time tested their rhetoric and found it not simply wanting, but totally preposterous.

Their dire predictions in state after state that concealed carry reform and state preemption statutes would spawn Wild West gunfights at fender benders, bloody shootouts in restaurants and cocktail lounges, and skyrocketing murder rates in which perpetrators would be citizens who were licensed to carry all were false. Influential people, including prosecutors and county sheriffs, recognized this and went on the record to say so.

These days, Brady’s Helmke is reduced to spouting platitudes on the steps of the Supreme Court, verbally bashing important civil rights cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and the Second Amendment Foundation’s pending McDonald v. City of Chicago.

His organization has desperately resorted to attacking Starbucks Coffee to gin up support while pandering paranoia; an effort that anti-gunners have developed into an art form, albeit a lousy one.

They have attacked the most anti-gun president in the nation’s history, giving Barack Obama an “F” grade because he is not anti-gun enough to suit their extremist philosophy.

The Brady Campaign has not managed to push through a single piece of federal legislation in more than 15 years. Their attempt to sue the gun industry into bankruptcy using anti-gun mayors as their puppet proxies failed on legal merit and in the court of public opinion.

If it weren’t for the fact that pro-gun rights groups are so active, the Brady bunch would not even have events to attend. In short, gun prohibitionists have become irrelevant, and in their desperation for attention, they appear to be in a state of denial, reaching out to a shrinking audience that still believes in public safety through demagoguery and surrender to the criminal element.

Just like some politicians, Helmke and the Brady Campaign do not know when it is time to retire.

Alan Gottlieb is the Founder of Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.

SOURCE: SAF Newsletter

Op-Ed By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Felipe Calderón: Just go home hombre’

May 20, 2010

From the Hate America First camp El Presidente’ is again trying to run the United States of America. How’s that gun control working out for you in your failed third world state Mister?

Full Story HERE


Anti-Gun ObamaPet Nominated to the Supreme Court

May 19, 2010

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The next justice of the Supreme Court could well cast the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  And that justice will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

So it is more than a little interesting that Barack Qbama has reached into his closet of political leftists to bring out Elena Kagan — a woman whose legal views have been shaped by the most extreme socialist voices in Washington.

Kagan doesn’t have a record of judicial opinions. She hasn’t been a judge. So the crafty Obama figures that, without a paper trail, we won’t know of the ways she is moving American jurisprudence to the left until it’s too late.

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  According to columnist James Oliphant, Kagan was part of “a small group of staffers work[ing] behind the scenes to pursue an aggressive policy agenda” during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles. She also helped prepare a question-and-answer document advocating the campaign-reform legislation then proposed by Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain.”

Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

President Obama has made it very clear that he expects Kagan’s “powers of persuasion” to make her and Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing votes to uphold his anti-gun ObamaCare legislation.

Kagan’s opinion of the “greatest lawyer” of her lifetime was her former boss — the consistently left-wing Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bloomberg News reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun rights claim that was made in Sandidge v. United States — an amazing statement for a woman who is being heralded for supposedly showing a “special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups.

Alas, it seems that gun owners are not a part of those groups for whom she would like to show special concern.

After the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

Kagan, like the President who nominated her, is an extreme leftist.  According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

While every Senator needs to hear from us, there are seven Republican Senators in particular who need to hear from their constituents.  These seven Republicans voted for Elena Kagan last year when she was confirmed as Obama’s Solicitor General:

* Coburn (R-OK)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Gregg (R-NH)
* Hatch (R-UT)
* Kyl (R-AZ)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* Snowe (R-ME)

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to vote NO on Elena Kagan — and tell him or her that you want Kagan’s nomination filibustered and defeated.  As Kagan could be the deciding vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare and many other gun cases, it is imperative that Republicans stick together and filibuster every anti-gun nomination from the President.

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

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please vote NO on the nomination of Elena Kagan.  The next justice of the Supreme Court will almost certainly preside, during the next thirty years, over dozens of cases which could very well chip away at the DC v. Heller decision, telling us which gun laws the court views as “constitutional” and which “unconstitutional.”

But Kagan’s views on the Second Amendment are no mystery.  Columnist James Oliphant writes: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., [Kagan] drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”

She was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

Bloomberg News
reported on May 13 that while working for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan urged him to vote against hearing a gun owner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.  Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” toward the gun owner’s claim.

Sure, after the Heller case was handed down, Kagan did concede that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.”  But that makes her no different than the talking heads at the Brady Campaign.

According to WeeklyStandard.com (May 6, 2009), she is so far to the left she has lamented that socialism has “never attained the status of a major political force” in our country.

And according to Politico.com (March 20, 2009), she says that foreign law can be used to interpret the U.S. Constitution in “some circumstances.”  Considering that most of the world does not respect the freedoms that are protected in our Second Amendment, this is a bad sign.

Please vote NO on Elena Kagan and support any filibuster attempt against her.

Sincerely,


GOF Brief in McDonald v Chicago

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the next high-court judicial battle regarding gun rights will be an attempt to rule Chicago’s notorious gun ban as unconstitutional as the one struck down in Washington DC in the landmark Heller case. In essence, will the “individual right” affirmed in Heller apply to every state or just DC?

To view what Gun Owners Foundation is doing to influence this upcoming Supreme Court decision, and/or to make a tax-deductible contribution to further these legal efforts, please see:
http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

NRA CONVENTION REPORT

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.

SOURCE

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

The Side Effects of ObamaCare

May 15, 2010

The true scope of ObamaCare’s side effects continued to be divulged this week with the revelation of some little-known provisions in the law. The lab tests are back, and the prognosis isn’t good.

First, Section 9006 will force businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. Currently Forms 1099 are received by independent contractors and freelancers to document income beyond wages and salaries for work they perform for businesses and clients. Starting on Jan. 1, 2012, these forms will have to be issued not just to individuals, but to corporations as well. If a freelancer purchases any good or service worth more than $600, they must issue a 1099 to the business from which they made the purchase. This provision encompasses just a few lines in the 2,400-page law, but it will add millions of new tax documents to each year’s reporting.

Democrats defended the move based on their belief that it will put an end to some $300 billion per year in unreported income. Just think of all the tax revenue! Demos claim that this revenue will help fund continued tax cuts for small businesses. What they purposefully ignore is that the more complex the tax system grows, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to do business.

Meanwhile, the provision that allows adult “children” to remain on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26 has a surprise of its own. An estimated 1.2 million young adults are expected to join these plans after Sept. 23, and the Health and Human Services Department noted that premiums for the employers of those parents would rise about one percent in 2011 as a result. That’s on top of the 6 to 7 percent hike that employers are already expecting next year. Furthermore, coverage for young adults must be offered at the same level as for that of other dependents. They can neither be charged more, nor receive a lower level of benefits. Parents who purchase insurance for their adult children in the open market can expect to pay an additional $2,300 in premiums next year.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the health care plan will actually cost at least $115 billion more than estimated when it was signed into law. This pushes the law’s total cost well above $1 trillion over 10 years (though “unofficial” estimates are as high as $3.5 trillion) and erases the $100 billion in deficit “savings” that Barack Obama bragged about during the legislative debate. The CBO’s adjustment is necessary because Democrats didn’t include real numbers in various portions of the law that include administrative costs for actually implementing the program. Any figures the bill’s authors didn’t know at the time were simply replaced with the phrase “as needed.” The CBO has since had a chance to score these nebulous elements, and the president’s own budget office has told Congress to offset these new costs with spending cuts or tax increases. Gee, which option will they choose?

Obama audaciously issued a veto threat for any portion of the bill that comes in above the original cost estimate. Since we surely couldn’t believe him when he claimed that his health care takeover would actually save the country money, why would we begin to believe that he would veto any portion of legislation upon which he staked his political future?

Given all this, and given the many as-yet undiagnosed side-effects sure to come, we humbly suggest that the following FDA-type warning be read each time an Obama official mentions its crowning legislative achievement: Taking Hope ‘n’ Change may cause bloated budgets, irritated politics, nausea and heartburn. Unexplained costs could be a sign of a common but serious side effect of unbridled socialism.

SOURCE

Elene Kagan: A Scorecard

May 13, 2010

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

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

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

Does America need an anti-military Supreme Court justice?

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

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

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

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

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

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

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

obama care in the crosshairs

May 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE for the quotations above.

Additional information

And the cost?

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

From crisis to crushing of liberties, happens just that fast

May 12, 2010

Reprinted with permission of the Author.

You may have read about the Sheridan Police and how they harassed me and my family, you may also know that I would not comply with their request for identification since they performed an illegal stop. This isn’t my just my opinion, the basis in which a police officer cannot detain, search and seize just because a person is armed has been upheld by the courts time and again.

From the Tenth Circuit Court ruling by Judge BRUCE D. BLACK in a recent case in New Mexico:
“relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing…prohibited openly carrying a firearm…summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and…constitutional claims”

You are about to see how some individuals are challenged by the police at greater extremes, the following is from U.S. District 7 in Wisconsin. Jesus Gonzalez a U.S. Citizen that was abused by the same ones that are sworn to uphold the constitution, he was not only arrested for merely having a gun, according to court documents the police retained his property for 10 months before returning it and that was only after a court order.

But please realize this is how “law enforcement” joins the fight against your liberties. And yes it happens even though everyone involved took an oath to uphold the constitution.

From my own personal experience:
When the Town of Pine Bluffs Wyoming took a stance that the open carrying of firearms would be regulated by the local police, the town attorney Alex Davison told me “that he spoke with the Judge (wouldn’t you like that luxury?) and there had not been a similar case and he as the town attorney felt comfortable with an arrest and trying such a case in court”.

The Pine Bluffs town attorney was willing to usurp constitutional rights by using the courts, even though state law preempted their municipal power. Of course Mr. Davison finally saw the light and later relented.

Back to Mr. Gonzalez, he resides where concealed carry permits are not issued, in Wisconsin statute dictates the only way you may carry a firearm is fully exposed or what is called open carry.

The police officers ignored the fact that Gonzales had done nothing illegal, detained him and arrested him, seized his property including his social security card. Remember Mr. Gonzalez was forced to get a court order to get his own SSN card back.

Besides performing an illegal arrest, search and seizure, the police denied Gonzalez a right of refusal to disclose his SSN, in violation of Section 7(a) of the Privacy Act, even threatened him with jail if he failed to provide it.

But why would the police want to seize and keep a social security card of Mr. Gonzalez a Hispanic U.S. Citizen? I can’t help thinking that the police had intensions of flexing their authority in his face.

Second time’s a charm isn’t it?
About a year later the police arrested Mr. Gonzalez a second time and again pushing the envelope retained his firearm, magazine and ammunition, against his will and without a warrant and without what was needed the most, “PROBABLE CAUSE”.

So here is where I am going with this:
I contend that enacting legislation for example, under the guise of protecting us from illegal immigration with the possibility of “redefining probable cause” in the courts is dangerous stuff. Knee jerk responses to monumental issues could mean that unintended consequences will be at the forefront.

Also think about this, we are in a time where using a tactic of “pushing the federal government to fix the problem” will only weaken the tenth amendment fight on other issues. Wyoming should only enact legislation in which we take the bull by the horns, asking nothing of the federal government and at the same time hold up constitutional protections.

Remember from the last Line in the Sand article:
Wyoming Constitution 97-1-007 – Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Drafting laws at the state level that are concurrent with federal immigration law or simply using existing laws to enforce illegal immigration, would be most prudent.

As far as the Feds – “they really don’t want to fix the problem” or “maybe they just want more control over U.S. Citizens”. To draw the same conclusion, you must first understand how the game is played, it is all about politics and politics is all about, here it comes…wait for it  – “WHO RULES WHOM”.

While many neglect to see the danger of changing the rules in the middle of the game, it will be the very people that support such actions that will later find, they too are caught in the snare.
Since early gun control was racist by nature and was originally enacted to control the gun ownership of Blacks, to ignore this political incrementalism now could bring us full circle.

Also by allowing our elected officials to use incrementalism against our liberties, then we will surely lose. In my opinion, when we see issues like immigration and terrorism being politicized, the first thing that comes to mind is this -“Caveat Emptor” or “Let the buyer beware”.

Want proof?
Under the threat of the “war on terror” under the Bush Administration, Attorney General Ashcroft rallied for full control over what were supposed to be rights that were protected by the constitution.
If you remember the Left made an issue about this abusive control put in place by President Bush.

Fast forward to the present time and now the Left is silent when Obama and his appointees support the Bush policies including the Patriot Act. Even more alarming, Eric Holder has stated that he wants to change the Miranda rules, this means that once again your own constitutionally protected rights are now in danger under the guise of terrorism.

How can this be, the Left now agrees with policy put in place by Bush and now they are even willing to grab more power by changing the Miranda.

Please understand I never supported this kind of policy coming from Bush and now only mention it to shine a light on the this – Both the Left and Right are guilty of using and creating crisis for political gain and with such action comes legislation that will crush your liberties.

Like I said – Let the buyer beware, in this case no matter which side is selling the goods.

Suggested reading:
Constitutional Chaos – by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano


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

WyGO / Wyoming Gun Owners