Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

New voices in Congress..?

January 6, 2009

The new voices that are coming to the Congress appear to be sending differing signals to observers. We very well may be seeing the groundwork for a classic clash between Blue dog and Red dog Democrats. Or more probably with the Yellow Dogs in a coalition that will thwart extremism.

story here

Still, rumors of pay back time political extremism have been popping up just enough to let those in the know realize that there are some pretty extreme actions on the agenda. Other bloggers are already going after these stories with a vengeance and I will defer to them so that their work gets proper attribution.

Abortion full federal funding, gun control that will make the “Assault Weapons Ban” look like a has been, and a Constitutional Convention that will have as it’s goal the destruction of the Bill of Rights are all being discussed behind closed doors.

Time will tell.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on New voices in Congress..?

2009, a look to the future

January 1, 2009

As I wandered around the Internet today I found a common theme on a lot of forums, blogs, and personal websites.

What will 2009 bring to us ordinary, and not so ordinary people here in America, and across the world. Here is my list; I really hope that some of these things don’t happen, but, that does not change my thinking that they very well might.

  1. America will continue in becoming balkanized. The ground work for an actual secession of many states, or an actual revolution is being laid as I type this.
  2. Israel will attack Iran after Iran delivers a devastating blow to Israel. Much of the world will be drawn into the conflict, and it will go nuclear.
  3. The American economy will go into an actual depression, as defined by economics. The trickle down effect will have terrible consequences for the rest of the world. See #1 above.
  4. The Bill of Rights will be gutted, and shaped to fit those that have come into power. Call them what you want; NWO, Elitist’s, it really will not matter.
  5. The issue of illegal immigration will be settled. By the issue of Gun Control.
  6. The issue of “Gay Rights” will be settled. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  7. The issue of Private Property Rights will be settled, not by the cowards in the Supreme Court. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  8. Education will fall by the wayside in human priorities. It will be food, or can Johnny learn to be a good socialist.
  9. The people of the world will return to a precious metal standard for monetary purposes. Because the mints print worthless currency.
  10. Irish Whiskey will regain it’s position of supremacy as the finest gift from heaven to man. Our Scot cousins will still be allowed in our homes though. After all, family, is family.

Please note that nearly all of these relate directly to number one. I fear for the future of these United States of America.


Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, News, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Are Democrats Better on Privacy and Surveillance?

December 25, 2008

This piece by James Bovard points out the application of Historical Fallacy by various leftest organizations. Not the least of which is the Democrat Party. To be sure, the Republicans lost any and all credibility over the past eight years as the party of limited government, if indeed they ever truly deserved such a moniker.

The call for a new political party that actually does more than give lip service to the Constitution and Bill of Rights is nothing new. I have serious doubts that anything will come from this need though. Not to mention that the two majority parties have passed laws making any attempt to effectively remove them from the halls of power doomed to utter failure.

The Bush administration has probably illegally violated Americans’ privacy more than any presidency in at least a generation. Many Americans are understandably ready to throw out Republicans who trampled the Bill of Rights.

But is the solution to elect a Democrat? Many liberals were shocked in July when putative Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama voted in favor of the bill to retroactively immunize illegal wiretapping by Bush officials and telephone-company executives. Even worse, the bill authorizes the federal government to conduct far more warrantless wiretaps whenever the president claims the nation is endangered.

Some Americans are looking back at the 1990s as a comparative Golden Age for Privacy. Unfortunately, most people have forgotten that the Democratic Party’s record on surveillance was dreadful.

The Clinton administration consistently championed the right of government employees to stick their noses almost anywhere — into people’s email, car, house, or personal effects. Clintonites set off one false alarm after another to justify extending government’s right to intrude. The administration consistently sought to exploit technological development in order to maximize government’s control over the citizenry.

The Fourth Amendment states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent government officials from having dictatorial power over citizens.

The prohibition against unreasonable searches is the key to the Fourth Amendment.

As law professor Jeffrey Standen observed in an article he wrote for Legal Times, each extension of government power makes further extensions “reasonable” — since “reasonable” is defined on a sliding scale by however much intrusion people will tolerate from the government. The Clinton administration often sounded as if the only searches that were unreasonable were the ones that government officials did not care to do.


Public housing and the Constitution

In 1993, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) began warrantless sweep searches of residents’ apartments to confiscate firearms. Other cities, such as Baltimore and Philadelphia, also used warrantless mass sweeps of public housing apartments to seize guns and other items. Law professor Tracey Maclin observed, “During these sweeps, officers would rifle cabinets and dresser drawers, look inside refrigerators, overturn mattresses and sofa cushions, and inspect private papers and closed boxes.” In early 1994, the CHA proposed beginning routine no-knock raid sweeps. On April 7, 1994, federal judge Wayne Andersen ruled that the dragnet searches were unconstitutional, warning, “The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us.”

President Clinton was outraged that a judge limited the power of the police, and announced, “I’m so worried that all the progress that’s been made will be undermined by this court decision.” Two months later, he visited the Chicago housing projects, again endorsed the searches, and declared, “The most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren’t free from fear, they are not free.”

In Clinton’s view, public-housing residents apparently had no reason to fear the housing police’s storming into their apartments. Yet, court testimony showed that the warrantless searches, none of which occurred within 48 hours of actual shooting incidents, were ineffective at reducing crime. Harvey Grossman of the American Civil Liberties Union observed,

Instead of meeting their obligations to provide real safety, Chicago officials perpetrated a hoax by convincing many residents that warrantless sweep searches of all apartments would enhance their safety.

CHA officials have complained that they are forbidden by federal regulations from even checking whether applicants for public housing have a criminal record.


Pawing is not searching

The Clinton administration consistently argued that few, if any, government searches were blocked by the Fourth Amendment. In early 2000, the Supreme Court heard the case of U.S. v. Bond. A Greyhound bus was stopped at an internal Border Patrol checkpoint in Texas. After agents checked all the passengers’ identification, one agent went through and pawed, squeezed, and manipulated each piece of luggage in the overhead bins. He detected a suspicious object in one canvas bag — and Steven Bond was shortly thereafter charged with possession of a brick of meth. Bond’s lawyer argued that groping the luggage was an unconstitutional search.

The Clinton administration argued that no constitutional rights were violated because Bond and other passengers had no “legitimate expectation of privacy.” The Clinton administration brief asserted,

The fact that tactile inspection of a bag’s exterior may reveal information about its contents no more establishes a search than when officers standing on a public sidewalk or in open fields make observations of the contents of a car or a house. Passengers handling bags in a manner similar to the manner of Agent Cantu may not pay attention to what they sense, or know how to interpret it. But nothing bars government officers from using specialized knowledge to keep themselves alert to, and to help them interpret, that which any other member of the public might have sensed. To take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, since people in rush hour subway trains are occasionally most uncomfortably pressed against each other — so cops should be allowed to press their bodies against that of any passenger.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by archconservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, scorned this particular minimalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He declared, “Physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection.”

Some of the Clinton administration’s anti-drug policies were highly egalitarian, striving to violate everyone’s privacy. During the 1996 presidential campaign, Clinton proposed mandatory drug tests for all teenagers applying for a driver’s license. This followed the Clinton administration’s endorsement of mandatory drug tests for school students in a 1995 Supreme Court case. Clinton administration Solicitor General Drew Days argued that a school district “could not effectively educate its students unless it undertook suspicionless drug testing as part of a broader drug-prevention program,” as Cato Institute lawyer Tim Lynch noted.


High-tech hustles

A 1998 ACLU report observed that the Clinton administration had

engaged in surreptitious surveillance, such as wiretapping, on a far greater scale than ever before…. The Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans.

On April 16, 1993, the Clinton administration revealed that the National Security Agency had secretly developed a new microchip known as the Clipper Chip. A White House press release announced “a new initiative that will bring the Federal Government together with industry in a voluntary program to improve the security and privacy of telephone communications while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement.” This was practically the last time that the word “voluntary” was used.

The Clipper Chip presumed that it should be a crime for anyone to use technology that frustrates curious government agents. The ACLU noted,

The Clipper Chip proposal would have required every encryption user (that is, every individual or business using a digital telephone system, fax machine, the Internet, etc.) to hand over their decryption keys to the government, giving it access to both stored data and real-time communications. This is the equivalent of the government requiring all home-builders to embed microphones in the walls of homes and apartments.

Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, observed, “You don’t want to buy a set of car keys from a guy who specializes in stealing cars.” When the federal National Institute for Standards and Technology formally published the proposal for the new surveillance chip, fewer than one percent of the comments supported the plan.

The administration eventually abandoned its Clipper campaign but stepped up its attacks on purveyors of encryption software.


Wiretap mania

When the Clinton administration proposed legislation to massively increase the number of wiretaps, they named their offering the “Digital Telephony and Communications Privacy Improvement Act of 1994.” Apparently, the more the government could invade people’s privacy, the safer they would be. In the final cut-and-paste on Capitol Hill, the bill was renamed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

On October 16, 1995, the telecommunications industry was stunned when a Federal Register notice appeared announcing that the FBI demanded that, as a result of the new law, phone companies provide the capability for simultaneous wiretaps of one out of every hundred phone calls in urban areas. As the ACLU noted, the FBI notice represented “a 1,000-fold increase over previous levels of surveillance.”

The 1994 law led to five years of clashes between the FBI and the communications industry over the new standards. The Federal Communications Commission was designated as the arbiter of such clashes in the act; in August 1999, the FCC caved and gave the FBI almost everything it wanted.

The FCC bowed to FBI demands and required that all new cellular telephones be de facto homing devices. Cell phones must now include components that allow law enforcement to determine the precise location where a person is calling from.


Conclusion

The Clinton administration’s attitude towards high-tech should have alarmed any Americans who think the government is not entitled to read their email, tap their calls, or know precisely where they are. Clinton’s power grabs should have taught Americans of the perils of allowing politicians to ignore the Fourth Amendment. Any such “lessons learned” were declared “null and void” after 9/11 by the same politicians who quickly put their own boot prints on the Constitution.

Unfortunately, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a good record of respecting citizens’ privacy. Perhaps it is naive to expect politicians to obey the Constitution when so many Americans believe that omnipotent government is their only hope for survival. Americans need to relearn why the Founding Fathers distrusted politicians across the board, regardless of nation, party, or creed.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Are Democrats Better on Privacy and Surveillance?

Misandry and the Supreme Court

December 18, 2008

Misandry as expressed by in the various laws passed by people like Patricia Schroeder exhibit the pure hatred that some people have for the Constitution.

One more than significant part of that hatred was the love affair with things like ex post facto law as an inextricable portion of the notorious Lautenberg Domestic Violence Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

True to form this abomination of Anglo American Law was passed without a vote by sneaking it into a completely different budget vote without any debate.

This is poor law, it was poorly written, then  re-written by regulatory fiat via the rogue agency BATFE. It uses ex post facto penalties. It takes inalienable rights away for less than felony behaviors. It does so for life.


Finally, the Supreme Court is taking up at least part of this assault on common sense and the Constitution. The question however is not one of law, it is one of whether they will bow to political correctness.

READ HERE

This is a long read, and filled with terminology that only Lawyers could love…

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

Obama’s message of ‘change’ may include gun rights

December 14, 2008

The Obamanites, and “change? We shall see…

Obama’s message of ‘change’ may include gun rights
 By Forrest Fisher

The regular New York State big game firearm season ended last Sunday (Dec. 7) and the next day, the short nine-day late archery and regular muzzleloader seasons started so there is still time for hunters to take a whitetail. Every deer is a trophy, regardless of size.

There is nothing quite like the incredible challenge and joy of hunting deer in the woods to develop new savvy and skills. Sportsmen readily express moments of treasure during the Western New York deer hunting adventure of the last three short weeks. Hunting time is priceless and hard to come by for many sportsmen, especially with the holiday season upon us. Plus, recent studies show that 42 percent of Americans work longer hours now than just five years ago and many of the working class spend more than 50 hours a week at their job. So, for all of these folks, hunting season brings more than simple relief.

However, our rights to enjoy the outdoor hunting experience may be changing, friends. With the final coat of post-season gun oil on all metal parts and firearms returned to secured safe places and storage cabinets, there appears to be clamoring discussion in many corners of these United States about the very freedoms of the season in change. Hunting with a firearm of our choice may be about to take new meaning.

Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association have provided early warning information. NRA is tabulating the opening appointments from new president elect, Barack Obama, and the effects it may have on American hunting traditions as we know them. LaPierre figures as Obama selects key personnel for premium cabinet posts, he sends a message about his policy as upcoming president. According to the NRA study, it goes like this.

Obama first appointed to the White House chief of staff Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel who has been known as the “point man on gun control.” According to LaPierre’s message, “He will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.” Not good if you have grown up in the tradition of safe firearm use allowed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Then, of course, Hillary Clinton was selected as Obama’s secretary of State. If she is confirmed, word inside the NRA is that she will try to remove the second amendment right because as the nation’s top diplomat, she would have the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass (and Obama will sign) that global gun ban treaty that it has wanted for some time now.

Obama also nominated ex-Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, known as a confirmed adversary of the NRA, to be secretary of Health and Human Services. If Daschle is confirmed by Congress, which is now overwhelmingly controlled by the democratic party, he could also hold ultimate power to declare guns a “public health menace” and regulate away essential American firearm liberties long taken for granted, especially by sportsmen too lazy to write a letter, make a phone call or express their position.

Then, Obama is nominating Eric Holder to be attorney general. As former assistant attorney general, Holder was a key architect and vocal advocate for the sweeping gun ban agenda of the Brady campaign and the Clinton era. He was the power-drive behind national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks that make home defense difficult and ending gun shows. More recently, Holder opposed the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in the District of Columbia that, of course, declared the second amendment an individual right.

According to the NRA, there is a chilling notice to job applicant gun owners that they are not welcome to serve in his administration. The NRA states, “In case you trusted what Obama said about maintaining your second amendment rights during his presidential campaign, in the job application for the Obama Administration, he made it clear that gun owners are not his campaign cabinet choice and essentially told 80 million gun owners not to even bother applying for a job.”

Also according to the NRA, “If all of that wasn’t bad enough, the Brady Campaign just issued a completely bogus poll claiming that two-thirds of Americans, including 60 percent of all gun owners, favor gun registration, licensing of firearm owners and other sweeping restrictions on our firearm freedoms!” Where does the Brady group get this stuff? Skewed data reporting defies common sense since the data tells a different story. Interpretation of data is a science, but use of statistical terms is more a mystical science that can mislead readers.

What can sportsmen do? I don’t agree with everything that the NRA supports, but their objective is to preserve the second amendment. In this light, they represent the most viable voice for firearm rights. So, joining the NRA should be an option. Also in response, Americans have increased their firearm purchase rate by 300 percent following the election.

Sportsmen should prepare to adapt to a new environment of firearm change with hunting and target shooting freedoms requiring a bit more energy to be sustained. There is a new and unsure season ahead for sportsmen. Some sportsmen could seemingly care less to understand firearm ownership and second amendment issues. Learn more about your rights. Advance and be recognized!

Hunting season each year reminds us that the second amendment stands for more than simple words in our constitution. While time has shown that our forefathers exhibited uncanny wisdom in developing the winning road map in the United States, Obama is sending a message that we have entered a time of ‘change.’ Second amendment change? Only time will tell.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Keep your powder dry..?

December 14, 2008

Political double speak is the rule of the day for those that hate inalienable rights as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those people know that “Gun Control” is an issue that will get them bounced from their positions of power in a heartbeat. So then, what’s a gun grabbing neo -communist to do?Oh my, oh my! After all the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact address an individual right possessed by the people and not the state! Then, heaven forbid a Federal Court struck down the ex post facto portion of the Domestic violence act! Never fear legal double speak is here!  Some bright young hypocrite lawyer figured out a way to by pass that troublesome language in the Constitution, and, he will not even have to try and get a Constitutional Convention seated to do it!


All gun owners are familiar with the 17th century maxim, “Keep your powder dry.” But if we expect to be gun owners in the 21st century, we have to update that to read, “Keep your powder—and all the rest of your ammunition—at all.” That’s because politicians who want to ban guns, but who don’t have the votes in Congress and state legislatures, are trying to achieve the same effect by banning the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of as much ammunition as possible, and severely restricting the rest.

In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”

These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.

The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.

That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.

In October, the California legislature banned center-fire ammunition containing more than trace amounts of lead, when hunting big game and coyotes in the area inhabited by the California condor. And within two months, the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted a regulation going further, banning any sort of lead ammunition when hunting any game or non-game animal in the condor’s area. Now a lead bullet ban is being pushed in Arizona, too, even though there is still no solid evidence that condors anywhere are dying because they have ingested fragments of traditional hunting bullets.

In Congress, a handful of members of the House (all rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund) have introduced an “armor-piercing ammunition” bill to ban any handgun that can fire a bullet that, if fired from any rifle or handgun, could penetrate a protective vest. Given the number of rifle calibers that use the same diameter bullets as handguns, and the number of handguns that use rifle ammunition, all or virtually all handguns would be banned if this bill became law. Another bill proposes to reinstate the former Clinton Gun Ban’s prohibition on the manufacture and possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Anti-gunners’ current focus on ammunition is unmistakable, but going after guns by going after ammunition is not a new idea. As far back as the 1930s, during the debate over national gun owner licensing and handgun registration, it was proposed to implant a small tape bearing a serial number in every bullet, and require people to register ammunition purchases with their names and fingerprints.

This bullet coding idea lay dormant until 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended a law that would require manufacturers “to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy all such numbered ammunition.”

Today, ammunition registration is back on the front burner because a company that claims to have the technology to turn the 80-year-old concept into reality is eager for profits at the expense of our rights. Calling itself “Ammunition Accountability,” the company is trying to market ammo registration by portraying itself as a “group of gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more.”

Meanwhile, another of the LBJ-era commission’s recommendations, “a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun”—known today as “micro-stamping”—was mandated in California at the end of 2007, to take effect in 2010, and has been proposed in several other states.

California’s law had been urged by Washington’s undisputed gun control crusader for more than 30 years, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. And on February 7, only a week after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president, Kennedy introduced a bill in Congress to mandate micro-stamping nationwide. Kennedy claimed that his bill “provides law enforcement with a much-needed resource in solving crimes.” But even if micro-stamping worked, it would be relevant only to new guns acquired from retail dealers, while 88 percent of guns used in crime are acquired through unregulated channels.

To say the least, Obama didn’t get Kennedy’s support only because he made the keynote speech at the Democratic Party’s 2004 national convention in Massachusetts. When it comes to ammunition and guns, Kennedy, Obama and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.—whom the 2004 Democratic convention nominated for president, and who has also endorsed Obama this year—are cut from the same cloth.

Longtime NRA members will remember that in the 1990s, Kerry sponsored legislation to prohibit mail order sales of ammunition, require a criminal background check to purchase ammunition and ban conventional ammunition as “armor piercing.”

At the time, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, where he supported increasing federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent, banning compact handguns, limiting the frequency of gun purchases, banning the sale of guns (except antiques) at gun shows, charging a person with a felony offense if his gun were stolen and used in a crime, prohibiting people under age 21 from possessing guns, increasing the gun dealer licensing fee, prohibiting dealers from conducting business at gun shows or within five miles of a school or park, and banning police agencies from selling old service firearms to generate funds to buy new firearms for their officers.

From 1998 to 2001, Obama was also a director of the Joyce Foundation, the largest provider of tax-free funds to anti-gun groups and causes in this country—$19 million, including $1.5 million to the ultra-radical Violence Policy Center during Joyce’s Obama years. Obama even considered becoming Joyce’s president, according to the Boston Globe.

To be fair, I should mention that Obama’s chief rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has a serious anti-gun record, as well. When she was First Lady, Clinton endorsed a 25 percent tax on handguns, an increase in the federal gun dealer license fee to $2,500, registration and licensing of handguns and their owners, and registration and licensing for all new owners of rifles and shotguns.

We’re hearing the word “change” a lot in this year’s presidential campaign. But the longer I’m part of the fight for the right to arms, the more I realize that even though the details of anti-gun bills may change, their underlying concepts remain the same.

Back in 1974, Kennedy knew that banning ammunition would have the same practical effect as banning guns. On the floor of the Senate, Kennedy said that the “manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated” and that “existing handguns should be acquired by states.” And toward that end, he urged passage of his amendment to “require the registration of every civilian-owned handgun in America,” to “establish and maintain a nationwide system to license every American who owns a handgun,” and “to reduce the number of handguns in civilian ownership, by outlawing . . . all handguns except those intended for sporting purposes.”

But, Kennedy added, “if [banning handguns] is not feasible we may be obliged to place strict bans on the production and distribution of ammunition. No bullets, no shooting.”

Since then, Kennedy and others in Congress have introduced bills to ban or impose outrageous taxes on .25, .32, 9mm, 5.7x28mm, and .50 caliber ammunition; cartridge cases less than 1.3″ in length; hollow-point bullets; ammunition that “serves no substantial sporting purpose and serves primarily to kill human beings”; and (via the Consumer Product Safety Commission) “defective” ammunition. And who can forget the outrages feigned by media-hungry politicians over “Black Rhino,” Rhino, Black Talon, Blammo Ammo and other dubious threats?

I wish I could report otherwise, but I’m certain we can expect more bills and rhetoric of that sort after the November elections. In addition to federal and state-level gun bans of various stripes, there will also be a concerted effort to prevent the use of firearms for self-defense, target shooting and hunting, by prohibiting the ammunition you need for all those activities.

Whether these proposed bans become law will depend on how many NRA members and other gun owners turn out to vote. I’ll be in the voting booth on Election Day 2008, and I hope you will be, too. Our ammo and our guns depend on it.

SOURCE

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

Physicians vs. Gun Owners

December 13, 2008

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Now think about this:

Gun Owners

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do”

Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

Hat Tip to Texas Fred

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Humor, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean

December 12, 2008

In what was nothing less than a travesty of justice two Americans were sent to prison based upon misguided, if not criminal prosecution by those sworn to uphold the Constitution . These men sit in prison while President Bush pardons others. Get off your ass Mister President, and do what is just and correct!

Pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean

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/ordergoamem.htm

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) already has filed not one, but two friend
of the court briefs for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Antonio Compean. In
those briefs, GOF has pointed out to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals that the 10-year conviction of the two agents is for a crime
which doesn’t exist.

The two agents were convicted of the “Discharge of a Firearm in
Relation to a Crime of Violence” — something which is not an
offense, rather it is a sentencing enhancement after the government
has established illegal gun possession, use or carrying.

Of course, if the Feds had gone for that kind of charge, they would
have run into the problem that the agents were required to possess,
use and carry guns on them while on duty. That is why the US
Attorney, Johnny Sutton, went for, and succeeded, in making up an
offense that would not force him to explain away that the agents are
required to be armed.

One of the reasons the Border Patrol requires agents to be armed is
so they can use their guns against armed drug smugglers such as
Osvaldo Aldrete.

Even if the Supreme Court reverses this injustice done to Ramos and
Compean, they could expect to sit in jail for upwards of another two
years — for a crime that was impossible for them to commit.

GOF was a friend of the court in a similar case before the Supreme
Court. Our position was upheld nine-to-nothing. It involved a drug
dealer who took a gun in payment for a bag of dope. The Feds gave
him many extra years because he supposedly had “used” a gun in a
crime. The Supreme Court agreed that such a view was ridiculous and
clearly not the intent of the law. The Fifth Circuit has simply
overlooked these fatal flaws in the government’s case.

George Bush is thinking about his legacy. We have a chance to
convince him that his legacy is on the verge of staining his
reputation with the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the federal
prosecutor, Johnny Sutton. Keep in mind that Sutton lied to the
trial court and to the appeals court about Aldrete’s connections with
the drug trade. He also concealed from the jury that he was paying
Aldrete for his testimony against the agents.

Hopefully, President Bush does not want to be known as one who stood
by while innocent men — and the wives and children — suffered
because of a blatant injustice.

All gun owners should be alarmed at what the government has done to
these two agents. If they will do this to police officers, we cannot
assume they will treat the rest of the population any better. The
two GOF briefs are at:

http://www.gunowners.com/amicus10.pdf
http://www.gunowners.com/amicus14.pdf

ACTION: Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send an e-mail (see sample
below) to President Bush to ask him to pardon these two men whose
only crime was to uphold the law.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear President Bush:

I am shocked that Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean are still in
jail. Their conviction on the ten-year count was fraudulent. There
is no such crime as “firing a gun in a federal crime.” That is only
an enhancement for other felony charges — for example, reckless
endangerment.

Essentially, Ramos and Compean — to get this sentencing enhancement
— would have had to illegally possess their firearms and recklessly
endanger the drug smuggler they shot. But isn’t the possession of
firearms part of their job description?

Please pardon these men in time for Christmas.

Sincerely,

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

GOA Members Win Key Battles in 2008

December 10, 2008

GOA Members Win Key Battles in 2008
— While gun rights advanced this year, the prospects for next year
look very tough

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/ordergoamem.htm

———————————————-
“The best Second Amendment defense organization in the country is Gun
Owners of America.” — Joseph Farrah, founder and CEO of
WorldNetDaily.com, September 2008
———————————————-

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Change.

That’s what the next four years are going to bring. More government
regulations… more government spending… and more battles over gun
control.

Once Barack Obama takes his oath of office in January, he will
become, without a doubt, the most anti-gun President this nation has
ever seen.

How are gun owners responding to the oncoming Obama presidency? By
the tens of thousands, they are pouring into gun stores all across
the country and stocking up on guns and ammo, fearing the worst.
Many buyers include first-time gun owners.

And while that is not a bad idea, it’s a short term solution to a
long-term problem that does nothing to defend our Second Amendment
rights from being eliminated by a Congress controlled by people like
Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy and other notorious gun
grabbers.

That’s why we need you to stand with Gun Owners of America next year.
If you have never become a GOA member — or you’ve let your
membership lapse — we need you on board so that we have the
ammunition necessary to fight every gun control bill that comes our
way.

It takes less than five minutes to go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and sign up. By doing so,
you will be joining — in the words of WorldNetDaily’s founder — the
“best Second Amendment defense organization in the country.”

We need you now more than ever, as we are surely in for the fight of
our lives!

Even so, despite all the hurdles that we see ahead, one should not
forget that 2008 was a real improvement for gun rights in many
respects. Gun Owners of America experienced victories in the
courts… in the Congress… over federal bureaucracies… and in the
states.

The following victories are just a few of the accomplishments that
GOA was able to achieve this year with YOUR HELP. So let’s take a
look at our work together, month by month.

January – February

* As the new year dawns, President Bush signs the Veterans
Disarmament Act (a.k.a. the NICS Improvement Amendments Act). This
legislation codifies illegitimate procedures that, over the past
decade, had already resulted in almost 150,000 veterans being denied
the right to buy guns because battle-related stress has supposedly
rendered them unable to manage their own financial affairs.

GOA was able to win some significant concession in the bill, even as
we were trying to kill it outright. Unfortunately, the bill passed
both houses of Congress last year without a vote. Republican Senator
Jim DeMint of South Carolina later complained that the Democrat
controlled Senate had passed 94 percent of its bills this year
without a recorded vote.

* An Associate Director in the U.S. Interior Department defends the
National Park Service ban claiming that “parks are safe places” and
that right to carry laws “do not reduce crime” or protect people
against dangerous wildlife. GOA responds by generating thousands
upon thousands of postcards into the Oval Office, asking President
Bush to put the squeeze on Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to get
the NPS ban reversed — a reversal that will come about in May.

* The U.S. Solicitor General files a brief with the U.S. Supreme
Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of
virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court
determines they are “reasonable” — the lowest standard of
constitutional review. This view could justify a national ban on all
firearms, including a ban on all hunting rifles.

GOA works with Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) and helps him to quickly get
57 additional congressmen to oppose the Solicitor General’s opinion.

* Because of generous contributions from its members, GOA is able to
submit a very unique amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in
defense of Dick Anthony Heller, who was denied the right to own a gun
in the nation’s capital as a result of the draconian gun ban which
exists there.

In this hard-hitting brief, GOA takes aim at the weak arguments put
forth by both the DC government and the Bush Administration. But
more than that, GOA examines the favorable text and context of the
Second Amendment in great detail, while also documenting the pro-gun
history that formed the backdrop of its inclusion into the Bill of
Rights.

March – May

* After looking at all the briefs which have been submitted in the
Heller case, the editors at USA Today decide to use GOA for the
opposing voice on March 19. The paper’s editors tell our attorneys
that GOA had an argument that was clearly distinctive, as we were the
only ones to argue that the words “shall not be infringed”
invalidated all federal gun control laws.

* In the states, GOA helped Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming to pass
Emergency Protection bills throughout the country. These bills
repeal laws that allow police to confiscate firearms during a
declared emergency, such as what occurred in New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina decimated the city in 2005.

The sponsor of the Utah legislation, Senator Mark Madsen (R), thanked
GOA in March for the help we offered in helping pass the legislation
in his state.

“GOA supplied me with video that documented the plight of decent gun
owners in New Orleans who had their guns stolen by police after
Hurricane Katrina,” Madsen said. “The DVD was very helpful in
educating other members of the Utah legislature, and my bill to
protect Utah gun owners from gun confiscation, SB 157, passed by
overwhelming margins.”

Sen. Madsen’s new law is one of the best in the country. If someone
were to have his gun illegitimately confiscated, that person could
not only sue for damages, but could hold the offending officer and
his superior personally liable.

* GOA’s attorneys uncover a proposal in April to keep gun owners from
shipping replica or inert munitions through the mail. GOA
immediately submitted a blistering critique to the U.S. Post Office
and contacted thousands of grassroots activists so they could submit
their own comments as well. To date, the agency has backed off of
its original gun control proposal.

* The Bush administration, after more than seven years, has finally
issued regulations permitting the carrying of firearms in national
parks! Beginning in 2009, gun owners will be able to carry firearms
according to the laws of the state in which the park is located.

* GOA learns about Pastor Phillip Miles of South Carolina, who was
sentenced to three years in a Russian prison for carrying a single
box of hunting ammo in his luggage, intended as a gift. GOA urges
President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to intervene on
Miles’ behalf, as the sentence definitely did not fit the “crime.”
Russian authorities succumb to the outcry shortly thereafter… Miles
is released in June and returns to the United States.

June – August

* The Supreme Court strikes down the DC gun ban! While not perfect,
the Court’s decision recognizes that the Second Amendment protects an
“individual right” and states that the decades-old ban in the
nation’s capital is unconstitutional.

GOA’s brief had countered both the DC government and the Bush
Administration — as the latter had asked the Court to use the DC
case as a justification for all sorts of gun control. GOA is pleased
that the Justices heeded our admonition to limit the Court’s holding
to the case before it, thus shooting down both the DC government and
the Bush Administration in their quest to validate other firearms
restrictions.

* GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt escorts David Olofson to a
federal prison in Minnesota. Olofson was convicted in federal court
of transferring a malfunctioning semi-automatic firearm which the ATF
claimed was machine gun — a determination that should concern every
gun owner who owns a semi-auto.

Gun Owners of America becomes the lead gun organization fighting
against the ATF’s persecution of Olofson. In taking on this case,
GOA is also defending the rights of gun owners who could be
prosecuted for owning a malfunctioning firearm. For the ATF, a gun
that misfires is an excellent opportunity to rack up an easy
conviction on an illegal machine gun charge.

In Olofson’s defense, GOA submits an appeal challenging his
conviction at the district court level, and sets up a relief fund to
help pay for his family’s mortgage and car payments.

September – November

* David Olofson’s wife, Candy, thanks GOA and its members for helping
their family. Candy tells GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt that
because of the financial help that GOA members have given, she has
not had to get a second job, so she is able to spend time being a
Mom.

* GOA’s Larry Pratt travels to the Big Easy to award a brand new
handgun to Patricia Konie — the New Orleans resident who was tackled
and disarmed by police in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Konie was
forced to evacuate her home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
and until recently, had remained disarmed. To this day, she has
never gotten back her stolen gun.

* GOA tells its email activists how the ATF was trying to prevent the
distribution of an electronic 4473 Form. This software has been
developed by a private firm, Coloseum Software Corporation, and is
intended to protect dealers against the “mistakes” that have
allowed
the ATF to prosecute or harass them into giving up their licenses.

GOA issued a grassroots alert in mid-October explaining how the ATF
had been dragging its collective feet for months — keeping Coloseum
from distributing its software, even while the ATF was developing its
own competing software (and possibly, violating the copyright which
belonged to Coloseum).

After GOA asked gun owners to contact the Bush Administration, the
owner of Coloseum contacted us shortly thereafter to tell us that our
alert had been a tremendous success: “After the GOA alert put the
spotlight on criminal activity by the BATFE, they quickly provided us
[Coloseum Software Corp] with the required documentation for the new
Form 4473 which we had been asking for months.”

Sign up with GOA… the battle lines are now drawn!

GOA is on the front lines, fighting to defend your rights. Even if
you have already renewed your membership in GOA, we hope you will
consider making an additional contribution.

With your extra support in 2009, we will fight off every new attack
on our gun rights. And we will remind the Democratic Congress what
happened to their majority the last time they followed an anti-gun
President down this path.

This next year is going to be our most difficult year in a long, long
time. Already, President-elect Obama is surrounding himself with
virulent anti-gunners:

* His pick for Attorney General went to a committed gun grabber in
Eric Holder. Holder signed on to an amicus brief in the Heller case
which SUPPORTED the DC ban on handguns and the ban on using any
firearm for self-defense in a person’s home. Holder’s brief also
argued that the Second Amendment protects a “collective” right, not
an individual right (as the Supreme Court eventually ruled).

* And based on his pick for Chief of Staff, you can be sure that the
Obama administration will use any “crisis” it can to push its gun
control agenda. Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the Wall
Street Journal recently that, “You never want a serious crisis to go
to waste…. [A] crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things
that you could not do before.”

Get it? Every time a crackpot goes on a shooting spree, the Obama
administration is going to use that “crisis” to come after
your guns!

So please make the decision to stay with us in the upcoming year, as
it will be critical for America’s gun rights. Whether you can help
us out with your gift of $35 or $3500, your contribution will be put
immediately into the fight to preserve and restore all of our gun
rights.

Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and stay with
us in 2009!

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The Brady Bunch and the NRA just more hypocrisy

December 8, 2008

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

source


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »