Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Bloomberg Follies: More of the same from the felon Bloomberg

April 25, 2010

The Straw Purchase Felon Michael Bloomberg is back at it spreading lies again. Read on…

This week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), began running television ads urging Congress to “close the gun show loophole.”  Page 34 of MAIG’s Blueprint for Federal Action on guns says that the group supports H.R. 2324 and S. 843 — bills that would require NICS checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows, and which also contain provisions designed to drive gun shows out of business.

MAIG’s ads claim “The Columbine school massacre … killers got their guns because of a gap in the law, called the ‘gun show loophole.'”  And in a related press release, MAIG claims “All four guns used in the Columbine shootings were bought from private sellers at gun shows.”

The claims are lies, of course.  For starters, one of the Columbine criminals’ four firearms was not acquired at a gun show.  More to the point, however, the other three firearms, while bought at a gun show, were bought for the criminals by a straw purchaser — a woman who was not prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, and who therefore would have passed a NICS check, if she had bought the firearms from a licensed dealer.

SOURCE

Epic fail obama: Election year fight over AZ Law

April 24, 2010

As the impostor in chief continues his arrogant leadership methodology complete with the Mussolini chin angle the people of Arizona did what neither him, nor Bush, nor any President since Eisenhower has. That being to actually do something about illegal immigration.

Leftest response was immediate, and, as was to be expected the race card was pulled faster than a revolver from a town marshal’s holster in an old west movie gunfight. Next it will be the “it’s for the children” card and the “Constitutional” card… Uh, sorry, they played that card before I could finish typing! I simply find it nothing less than amazing. The hypocrisy of the left apparently truly does have no boundaries.

Let’s play this out a bit shall we? First, the obamanites know that they are going to get their collective butts kicked in the upcoming election if they cannot come up with something divisive that they can rally their troops around. After all, the backlash from the obviously un-Constitutional obamacare has stirred things up in the United States like nothing since the Viet Nam War. Indeed, I would submit that this is an extension of that. Just take a look at the players in the card game now.

So, now that the extremist’s branch of the Democrat Party are in power, and passing all sorts of things that have raised the ire of the American people they need something that will split them up  into factions that can be divided up piecemeal, and easily defeated. Then we will have four more years, at minimum, of not just “big government.” But overbearing, arrogant, better than thou types that will become the new American aristocracy.

They need to gamble. Hence the “Card Game” metaphor. The “cards” are all based upon fallacies of course. But they do raise populist anger to the degree that can,and will break the unity developed by the Tea Party and other similar groups. Divide and conquest. It is an old stratagem, and it works. The only question is how many cards to play before the opposition folds. After all, those other cards may be needed at a later time…

When to play a card? When you have no rational, logical, or ethical argument to present.

  • The Race Card: Always a good stand by, it can be played time and time again. Just find a new twist. In this, the instant situation? They will call going after those that flaunt our laws racial profiling. Never mind that the people that are coming here to do evil things to us fit a particular profile. Be that a muslin terrorist, or a member of organized crime.
  • The Constitutional Card: That card can only be played when it suits them. They are therefore claiming that questioning people about their legal status to be allowed to be in this country constitutes an illegal search. So be it. Having said that? Where the hell are they when it comes to our First Amendment Rights? The sheer vitriol from the left about the Town Hall meetings exposes them for what they are. The constant assault on our Second Amendment Rights further shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are when it comes to Constitutional rights. Just look at the back door gun control being pursued by Clinton at the U.N. Need I really continue?
  • “It’s for the children Card”: The twist on this card is that people come here from other nations. Then make babies, and according to our law, those baby’s are indeed American citizen’s. There is a legal theory that deals with poisoned fruit. That is fruit that has fallen from a poisoned tree. In other words, you can’t use evidence that was obtained illegally. If their children were born here as a direct result of the parents knowingly breaking our laws? Too bad, they are fruit from poisoned trees so to speak. Send them back to the countries of their parents origin along with the parents.

That is just a partial list of course… Not to mention that I didn’t list all the wonderful things that the illegals do when they get here. Like bring in drugs, guns that citizen’s are not allowed to own. Rape, murder, kidnap, and so on… Here are a few links to read so that you, the reader, will know more about the subject which I am writing about.

Story 1

Story 2

Story 3

Story 4

Gun-Control Activists aka the losers Bloomberg and Menino

April 21, 2010

Backed by more sheer propaganda the New York straw purchase felon and his cronies are set to assault the rights and freedom of Americans everywhere yet again. More states need to assert their authority and simply arrest these people for being the treasonous goofballs that they are. I’m sure that Bubba would rather enjoy their company…. Read on.

Gun-control proponents, outspent and outmaneuvered on Capitol Hill, are pushing back this week using the anniversaries of two high-profile tragedies to make the case for legislation that would close gun show loopholes.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D), is expected today to unveil a lobbying blitz to prod Congress to approve legislation that would require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.

The group will launch a six-figure media campaign that includes both national cable and selected state advertising spots as well as an online petition drive.

“The truth is the conventional wisdom is just wrong that you can’t do a gun issue,” said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s chief adviser for policy and strategic planning. He cited polling that shows support for closing the loophole and added that both President Barack Obama and his GOP opponent Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) pledged to close the gun loophole during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“The mayors are ready to say, ‘Now is the time to do it,’” Feinblatt said. “This is not a gun-control issue. It is a crime-control issue.”

The announcement comes on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado and days after the third anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech.

Lori Haas, whose daughter was killed in the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, said requiring the background checks is a “middle-of-the-road position to take,” one that has already been approved by 17 states.

Haas, a spokeswoman for the victims’ families, said that even though the killer at Virginia Tech, a university student, did not buy a firearm at a gun show, “the connection to Virginia Tech is we know what happens when guns get in the wrong hands.”

The group Virginians for Public Safety sponsored an ad this week in the Richmond Times Dispatch that urged the state’s Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb to back legislation. Haas also said she is scheduled to talk to Warner about the issue this week.

In Colorado, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which also helped in the Virginia media campaign, underwrote an ad in the Denver and Boulder newspapers calling on Sen. Mark Udall (D) to sign on to the gun show bill. The state’s other Democratic Senator, Michael Bennet, has already agreed to co-sponsor the legislation introduced by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

In the House the measure is co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was killed and son severely injured in a shooting on the Long Island Rail Road.

The latest lobbying effort, however, comes at a time when the political climate has grown increasingly inhospitable for gun-control forces. The Democratic leadership has not been eager to push gun-control measures that they fear could generate a backlash for lawmakers who represent more rural or conservative districts.

Furthermore, anti-gun-control groups have been increasingly bold in pushing their agenda. They recently convinced the House leadership that the only way they could muster enough votes to pass a bill granting the District of Columbia a voting Representative was to include a provision that would largely gut the remaining gun-control laws in the District.

Other gun-rights groups have become more brazen in their public demonstrations, with one organization encouraging participants to bring their guns to a rally Monday in a national park in Virginia just outside of D.C.

In 2009, anti-gun-control groups spent almost $5 million on federal lobbying compared with the $261,000 that gun-control groups spent, according to a CQ MoneyLine analysis of lobbying disclosure reports filed with Congress.

The top-spending gun-control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund, spent $123,00 last year, most of which was paid to the Democratic lobbying firm the Raben Group.

The National Rifle Association, the biggest anti-gun-control group, shelled out $1.9 million on lobbying in 2009. It was followed by Gun Owners of America, which spent $1.4 million, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which spent $1 million.

“It is a very powerful lobby. They are very good at what they do. They are good at intimidating lawmakers,” said Tom Mauser, the spokesman for Colorado Ceasefire, whose son was killed in the Columbine shootings.

Even though Colorado voters approved a referendum that closed the gun show loophole in 2000, Mauser said the surrounding states have not, meaning that guns purchased by people with criminal records are still coming into the state.

An NRA spokeswoman said Monday that the group did not want to respond to the latest lobbying effort by the mayors until it had been officially announced.

However, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has posted on its Web site a rebuttal to what it called “the Gun Show Myth.”

The NRA said official firearm dealers are required to conduct background checks on those buying guns at shows. Only a person who is not a dealer can sell a firearm from his personal collection without conducting a background check. The gun group said less than 1 percent of criminals obtain their guns from gun shows.

“Many legislators have proposed to restrict gun show sales, but their proposals would simply create a bureaucratic nightmare — shutting down the shows while leaving criminal markets untouched,” the NRA statement said.

In 1999, the Senate included a provision to close the gun show loophole as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill. The legislation passed by one vote, with then-Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, but the provision died in conference.

While the measure has languished, advocates for the bill say the public is on their side. They cite a survey done last year by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the mayors group that found 69 percent of NRA gun owners favor the background checks at gun shows.

They also argue that moves by some of the most conservative gun groups, such as bringing guns to political rallies and into Starbucks, could backfire.

“It will actively help our side when people see how extreme it is getting,” Mauser said.

SOURCE

Citing twisted poll numbers and the words of a hopeless hoplophobe do nothing for credibility either…

Colorado: House Considering “Deny-On-Arrest” Legislation

April 10, 2010

The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the state’s background check system.

House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that was due to sunset in July 2010.  The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted.  This deny-on-arrest provision would remove a constitutional right to own a firearm based on an arrest (an accusation), NOT a conviction.  It directly conflicts with the fundamental American doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Because the disposition of an arrest record isn’t always available, the burden of proof falls on gun buyers to prove they are eligible to purchase a firearm. In many cases, this costs these individuals thousands of dollars of their own money to prove their innocense.

The bill has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, April 12, in the House Judiciary Committee.  Please call members of the committee and respectfully urge them to vote against HB 1391 and this unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens. Contact information can be found below.

State Representative Claire Levy (D-13), Chair
Phone:  (303) 866-2578
Email:
claire.levy.house@state.co.us

State Representative Beth McCann (D-8), Vice Chair
Phone:  (303) 866-2959
Email:
beth.mccann.house@state.co.us

State Representative Lois Court (D-6)
Phone:  (303) 866-2967
Email:
lois.court.house@state.co.us

State Representative Bob Gardner (R-21)
Phone:  (303) 866-2191
Email:
bob.gardner.house@state.co.us

State Representative Daniel Kagan (D-3)
Phone:  (303) 866-2921
Email:
repkagan@gmail.com

State Representative Steve King (R-54)
Phone:  (303) 866-3068
Email:
steve.king.house@state.co.us

State Representative Joe Miklosi (D-9)
Phone:  (303) 866-2910
Email:
joe@joemiklosi.com

State Representative B.J. Nikkel (R-49)
Phone:  (303) 866-2907
Email:
rep.nikkel@gmail.com

State Representative Sal Pace (D-46)
Phone:  (303) 866-2968
Email:
sal.pace.house@state.co.us

State Representative Su Ryden (D-36)
Phone:  (303) 866-2942
Email:
sy.ryden.house@state.co.us

State Representative Mark Waller (R-15)
Phone:  (303) 866-5525
Email:
mark.waller.house@state.co.us

SOURCE

Matt Mead: Rumor Control..?

April 3, 2010

The State of Wyoming deserves better than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Matt Mead appears to be attempting to be something that he isn’t. Being a member of the N.R.A. does not mean that you do, in fact, support gun owners. What is Matt mead’s position on the abhorrent and immoral unconstitutional  Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act that made ex post facto law the law of the land? Does it mirror the N.R.A. position? That’s just one example of the N.R.A. playing politics with the rights of Americans. I myself will need to look more deeply into Matt Mead before I will cast any vote for him. At this juncture though, it appears that I will be casting my vote for someone else… What follows is posted with the authors permission, please follow the link for the entire story.

Bridge for sale call Matt Mead
Image – A.Bouchard

Related Articles:

Matt Mead for Governor, wolf in sheep’s clothing

Matt Mead – rejected for governor by Wyoming Gun Owners


It appears Matt Mead has been deceptive while attempting to combat his anti-gun record as a U.S Attorney. In a recent email from the Mead campaign there was as stated a “little ditty” called “Killing the Rumor Mill” in which it states the following-

“We have added this little ditty to our email updates and will have a similar feature up on our website soon. It will be used to answer questions that come up or to kill strange email rumors. Just because you read it on the internet does not mean it is true. If you believe everything you get in an email then I have a bridge to sell you. ”.

It goes on with in Q&A format with this :

Rumor: Matt Mead does not like guns.

Fact: Matt Mead is a member of the NRA, a lifelong hunter, with a lifetime small game license. Matt is also an avid gun collector.

Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a “bridge”, because I don’t believe anyone ever said that “Mead does not like guns”, and lets be real here, being an NRA member, hunter and avid collector doesn’t make one a gun rights supporter does it?

“Maybe Mead is trying to sell us a bridge”

The NRA could be considered as a “strike” against Matt Mead. Just look at what this NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson said in support of the Clinton Gun Ban. How do you spell “elitist” gun owner?

Or, look at this state level NRA group the Wyoming State Shooting Association (WSSA) and their take on things- Wyoming’s – NRA little brother the WSSA exposes its true colors.

REAL LIFE FACT- there is documented proof that Mead has fought on the side of the BATF and against gun owners of Wyoming, PERIOD.

ANOTHER REAL LIFE FACT- Matt Mead and his VENOMOUS ANTI-GUN past will haunt him in his campaign for governor.

Full Story HERE

Attenion G-Mart Shoppers!

April 2, 2010

Today’s green light specials are hand grenades, and Fully Automatic Rifles. We also have a limited supply of RPG launchers, and a six pack of  high explosive rockets in a money saving package that will certainly make you the talk of the block!

Well, we all know that what is above is nothing but satire, and that would be fine if certain people didn’t insist on continually telling lies. Read on…

Heavily-Armed Cartel Attacks Mexican Army;
Weapons Used Show U.S. Gun Laws Not To Blame
Friday, April 02, 2010
At the end of March, troops of a major drug cartel launched a series of attacks on military personnel and installations in a half dozen cities in the northern Mexican states of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas. Fortunately, things did not work out as the narco-thugs had hoped. At least 18 of them are now taking the kind of siesta from which there is no awakening and, at last count, only one Mexican soldier was injured.

Contrary to the notion that the cartels depend on semi-automatic rifles bought illegally in the United States, the cartel conducted its attacks with a variety of weapons that cannot be legally bought anywhere in our country. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “In coordinated attacks, gunmen in armored cars and equipped with grenade launchers fought army troops this week. . . . The army said it confiscated armored cars, grenade launchers, about 100 military-grade grenades, [and] explosive devices” in addition to a large quantity of ammunition.

Contrast that reality with the fiction perpetuated by politicians on both sides of the border. NRA members certainly recall that soon after President Obama took office last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stated his support for an “assault weapon” ban as the solution to Mexico’s drug violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), the sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” ban in 1993, soon called upon President Obama to support the Inter-American Convention Against Illegal Arms Trafficking, claiming, “According to the Mexican government, about 90 percent of the weapons they seize from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.” Newspapers around the country fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, parroting the 90 percent claim, as well as the utterly absurd, mathematically impossible claim that 2,000 guns cross from the U.S. into Mexico each day.

Apoplectic anti-gun members of Congress held dozens of hearings on the Mexico situation, including field hearings along the border. At one dog and pony show in El Paso, former Democrat Party presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) obligatorily called for a ban on the importation of “assault weapons,” a ban already imposed in 1989 by the BATF (as it was then known), apparently without Sen. Kerry’s knowledge. In fact, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Feinstein nearly burst a blood vessel when a witness refused to support her belief that 2,000 guns crossed the border every day.

U.S. politicians have since maintained a low profile on the issue, fearful of the potential for a backlash at the polls in November. Last month, however, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, complained that “there are more than 10,000 gun stores along the American border with Mexico. . . . So, the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons to Mexico.”

The claim is no more true today than when it was first floated a year ago. As we have noted, most of the guns that Mexico has seized from the cartels and asked the BATFE to trace (because markings on those particular firearms indicated that they came from the U.S.) represent only a small percentage of guns that Mexico has seized.

This was stated, though not clearly, in a Government Accountability Office report last summer (see document pages 14-15). However, lest anyone be misled by GAO’s lack of thoroughness on this point, the Department of Homeland Security, in an appendix to the GAO’s report (see page 69), set the record straight.

“DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO,” DHS said. “GAO asserts that, ‘Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.’ and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

In the early part of the 20th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is certainly the case in this story. As the vast scope of the Mexican drug cartels’ multi-million dollar arsenals is incrementally uncovered, the attempt by opponents of the right to arms to use Mexico’s problem as the excuse for restricting Second Amendment rights has fallen flat.

And to Mexico’s soldiers who obliterated the cartels’ punks and thugs last week, we say “buen tiro” (translation: “Good shooting”).

SOURCE

Black John McCaffery: USMC

April 1, 2010

Seems that things in the P.I. are not what one would think. For several years various insurgent groups have been decimating the Islands of the Philippines…

John McCaffery, called “Black John” by the Marines that he served with would not be happy with what the current Philippine Government is proposing. No, not at all… When all hell broke loose in the P.I. at the beginning of World War Two? He was there. He spent months in the jungle fighting the Japanese. United States Marines are like that. Simple statement of fact folks…

And now? The Government of the Philippines? Have decided that the people there are to damned stupid to properly and effectively  defend themselves!

John McCaffery, wasted his, and Americas time…

Read on…

PNP wants permanent total firearm ban

By AARON B. RECUENCO
March 28, 2010, 4:31pm

The Philippine National Police (PNP) wants the implementation of the total gun ban to become permanent after it noted positive results not only in the campaign against election-related violence incidents (ERVI) but also in criminal activities nationwide.

Director General Jesus Verzosa, PNP chief, said that they have been receiving positive feedbacks from various sectors regarding the improvement of peace and order situation even in areas included in the election hot spots, including the usual troubled areas in Luzon like Masbate and in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

“Maganda ang resulta (it has produced good results),” said Verzosa when asked why they are planning to implement the total gun ban beyond this year’s election period.

“But we cannot decide on this matter on our own, we still have to coordinate with proper government agencies regarding this (proposal to make total gun ban permanent),” he added.

Right now, Verzosa said that they still have to wait for the after-operation results of all the security measures they proposed since the start of the election period on January 10 such as setting up of checkpoints and suspension of all permits to carry firearms outside residence.

“We still have to come up with the asessment which will serve as our basis in convincing concerned government agencies to agree on our proposal,” said Verzosa.

SOURCE

The “Golden State” of my birth…

April 1, 2010

Said State of Gold…? Is broke. As a direct result of socialist policy’s that have been going on for decades. It is broke morally as well as financially. Don’t get me wrong on this. There are still quite a few people in California that are decent, strong, and smarter than your average hoplophobe from San Fransisco. But..? Why, in the name of God, or any of the early Californios, are these things even an issue..?

Some things are right, and? Some things are wrong. Granted, some things are a bit gray. However? What follows clearly isn’t. Not at all. You see, these things are already granted…

Assembly Bill 2053, sponsored by Assemblymember Jeff Miller (R-71), would clarify the current statutes for law enforcement to issue a concealed firearms license.  Under AB2053, the “good cause” stipulation would apply to self-defense, defending the life of another, or preventing crime in which a human life is threatened.

Assembly Bill 2115, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Knight (R-36), would alter California’s concealed carry statutes by eliminating the “good cause” requirement for veterans.

Assembly Bill 2152, simply put, would exempt honorably discharged members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, Air National Guard, and active reserve components of the United States from the handgun safety certificate requirements to purchase a handgun.  AB2152 is sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Nielsen (R-2).

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB2053, AB2115, and AB2152. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr. (D-24)
(916) 319-2024
Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Anthony Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

SOURCE

Payola: Epic Fail obama style

March 31, 2010

One has to admit grudgingly, that the impostor in chief does things with style, Chicago politics style…

Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-gunner to the Federal Bench

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

“Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views… using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.” — Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

Monday, March 29, 2010

Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama’s transition team.

If you can imagine such a leftist candidate, then you would be thinking of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the ultra-left UC Berkeley School of Law.  Only 39 years old, he comes nowhere near fulfilling the ABA’s standards for a judge.

But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in radical liberalism.  In a recent book that he co-authored, Liu says that, “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change… as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

Got it?  Like many radical progressives, Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving.  The Second Amendment might have been necessary in the 1700s, he believes, but now those rights are no longer necessary.

In Liu’s world, there would be no gun rights

Noted author David Kopel cites a law journal article of Liu’s where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did “damage” to civil rights and “upset settled understandings of congressional power.”  What?!  Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights?  Well, let’s be clear:  the Court did upset someone’s “settled” understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL’S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton… which should tell us all we need to know about Liu’s liberal, anti-gun views!

Rights evolve over time?

The bottom line is that Liu would not be a stickler for the Constitution if he were to sit on the appellate court.

“It becomes pretty clear why ‘originalism’ and ‘strict construction’ don’t make a lot of sense,” Liu said in an interview promoting his book. “The Framers deliberately chose… broad words so they would be adaptable to new challenges over time.”

No wonder that the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), spoke out so forcefully against the nomination of Goodwin Liu:

I am very disappointed by President Obama’s nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit….

Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.  Professor Liu believes that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution, he has a history of advocating for racial preferences, and he served on the Board of the directors of the ACLU.

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to oppose Obama’s appointment of Goodwin Liu, the latest anti-gun liberal to be picked for the federal courts.  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:

I oppose the nomination of Goodwin Liu, the President’s recent nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Liu is an anti-gun, radical leftist who doesn’t even meet the ABA’s basic requirements for a federal judge, as he has neither practiced law for 12 years, nor has he any experience as a trial lawyer.

Liu believes that our rights are constantly evolving… which is why I’m very concerned about his Second Amendment views.  He co-authored a law journal article in 2002 with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, wherein he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional — the Brady Law’s unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Leftists like Liu think our gun rights might have been necessary in the 1700s, but are no longer necessary today.  I agree with Senator Jeff Sessions’ critique of Liu, as the latter mistakenly thinks that judges should look to “evolving norms and social understandings” in interpreting the Constitution.

I vehemently oppose this view and hope you will vote against any nominee who doesn’t stand strong on the Bill of Rights.

Please oppose Goodwin Liu.

Sincerely,

Just the facts mam: Don’t allow pesky things like facts get in the way…

March 28, 2010

Yet another Federal Judge chooses to ignore the facts… Read on.

Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA’s case challenging D.C.’s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller’s assertion that D.C.’s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court “did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court’s upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.’s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a “reasonableness test,” which would “require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had ‘articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,’ and the measure did ‘not interfere with the “core right” the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'”

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.’s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an “intermediate scrutiny” level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws “implicate the core Second Amendment right” and, if they do, whether they are “substantially related to an important governmental interest.”

Urbina agreed that D.C.’s firearm registration scheme implicates the “core Second Amendment right,” which, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court “suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter,” and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the “factual” claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are in “common use,” the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina’s decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.

SOURCE