Posts Tagged ‘Law’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Supremes, and no, not the singers …

June 19, 2008

The recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States clearly shows what happens when one branch of the government oversteps into the realm of another. The Black Crows are placing the people of the United States, indeed, of the world in great and grievious danger.

“The Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson

Those words alone, from a Founder, should be cause for all those concerned with the protection of America and her allies to sit up, and listen. That said, I will defer to the great people over at The Patriot Post to explain just what this utter abortion of justice will mean.

“All hail the imperial court. In a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Boumediene v. Bush that alien enemy prisoners, waging a jihad against the American people and captured by our military in a war authorized by Congress, have a right—under our Constitution—to petition our courts for their release. So doing, the Court invalidated laws it had only recently implored Congress to enact, laws that provided these prisoners with generous protections never previously extended to enemy operatives in American history. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, dictates that Americans must regard enemies as if they were mere criminal defendants, entitled to an exacting legal process—access to discovery, witnesses, counsel, etc.—that will, as a practical matter, make it impossible to detain them without shutting down interrogations prematurely and informing the enemy of our national-defense secrets. There can be no justification for this stunning conclusion… The runaway justices say that foreign al-Qaeda killers detained in Cuba can march right into the federal district courts and demand what, suddenly, are their constitutional rights. In those courts, judges—without guidance and emboldened by the high court’s usurpation of war powers—will be encouraged to make it up as they go along: More access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony (and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel, which is certain to halt any questioning—and thus any revelation of lifesaving intelligence—before it can even start? Full-blown trials in the criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence, privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens? And who will adjudicate the resulting mess? Our imperial court, of course.” —National Review

“Now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to affirm a variety of rights of terror suspects held at Guantanamo, a new book is out exposing the harsh realities of Gitmo—the diet on which detainees have gained weight—the soccer fields and basketball courts—the letters home about mild weather and beautiful sunsets—and the detainees who don’t want to leave.” —James Robbins Break “Once upon another time, namely Franklin Roosevelt’s, most of a group of German saboteurs that had infiltrated this country were caught, tried by a military tribunal that was convened by executive order for that purpose, promptly convicted and then executed—all within seven weeks. Can anyone imagine that kind of swift and effective justice from this court?” —Paul Greenberg

Sympathy for the devil: “Next, we turn to the Supreme Court, which… handed the Bush administration a stinging defeat. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that foreign terror suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison do have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the president and the Congress can’t switch the Constitution on and off at will.” —ABC’s Charles Gibson on the court’s spin on the Constitution Break “The ruling essentially tells the Bush administration no more halfway justice at Guantanamo, that the detainees there, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy, ‘have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.’ That simple statement gives the 270 detainees the right to challenge their detentions, not at a military tribunal, but in front of a U.S. judge. … Lawyers for the detainees called it a victory for America’s reputation around the world.” —CBS’s Wyatt Andrews **Not to mention a victory for our enemies

And so it goes on, life that is.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

5th Amendment, Self-Incrimination, & Gun Registration

June 16, 2008

While perusing another blog I commented that the unintended consequences of passing laws are often at odds with the original intent of the law. Well, the blog owner told me that I was full of crap, and to put up, or shut up. Guess what? The comments section is to small, so, for Doug, here is just one set of examples. Enjoy…

by Clayton E. Cramer

A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, “What`s wrong with mandatory gun registration?” Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing — and they understand our objection to registration.

In Haynes, a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm.

Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm — a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination (“No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”) was being violated — he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were “uncommon.” [2] The Court concluded:

  • We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of the Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]

Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon cannot be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person) can be punished.

This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried — the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:

  • Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, “I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble.” Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings` desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found “in the coolness and calmness of retrospect” to be somewhat different in their consequences. [5]

Unfortunately, Rep. Vinson`s concern about law-abiding people running afoul of registration laws, while criminals run free, turned out to be prophetic. The same year as the Haynes decision, the New York City Gun Control Law was challenged in the courts. The statute sought to bring shotguns and rifles under the same sort of licensing restrictions as handguns. Edward Grimm and a number of others filed suit against the City of New York, seeking to overturn the city ordinance. Grimm, et. al., raised a number of objections to the law during the trial, most of which were based on the Second Amendment. After the trial, but before the decision had been completed, the Haynes decision appeared. Grimm`s attorneys pointed out the implications for New York City`s gun registration requirement. The trial court held that the legislative intent of the law was:

  • that there existed an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals and persons not qualified to use these weapons and that the ease with which the weapons could be obtained was of concern… [6]

Yet on the subject of the Haynes decision:

  • In this court`s reading of the Haynes decision, it is inapposite to the statute under consideration here. The registration requirement in Haynes was “…directed principally at those persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with the Act`s other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by criminal prosecutions… They are unmistakably persons `inherently suspect of criminal activities.`”… The City of New York`s Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature. Accordingly, Haynes does not stand as authority for plaintiffs` position. [7]

In three pages, the court went from claiming that the registration law was intended to stop “an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals” to admitting that it was “not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities.”

Nor is Grimm an exceptional case. A number of other judicial decisions have upheld gun registration laws, specifically because they did not apply to criminals, but only to law-abiding citizens. During the turbulent late 1960s, Toledo, Ohio, passed an ordinance that required handgun owners to obtain an identification card. [8] The plaintiffs attacked the law on a number of points, [9] including the issue of self-incrimination. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Court of Common Pleas asserted that application for a handgun owner`s identification card (effectively, registration of gun owners) did not make a person “inherently suspect of criminal activities.” (This quotation suggests the judge writing this opinion was aware of the Haynes decision, although not cited.) The court pointed out that unless the plaintiffs had been prohibited persons within the Toledo ordinance, the Fifth Amendment would have provided them no protection. Only criminals were protected from a mandatory registration law — not law-abiding people.

Later that same year, in the Ohio case State v. Schutzler (1969), Gale Leroy Schutzler attempted to quash an indictment for failure to register a submachine gun in accordance with O.R.C. sec.2923.04, which required registration of automatic weapons. [10] At the original trial, Schutzler argued that the registration requirement violated his Fifth Amendment rights, based on Haynes. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas did not agree with any of Schutzler`s arguments, including his citation of the Fifth Amendment. Where the Haynes decision was based on the fact that Haynes was an ex-felon, and therefore his possession of a sawed-off shotgun was illegal, Schutzler was not breaking the law by possession; his only violation of the law was his failure to register the submachine gun and post a $5000 bond. [11] Had he been an ex-felon, the Haynes decision would have protected him. Because he was not a convicted criminal, he did not receive the benefit of the Fifth Amendment`s protection.

In State v. Hamlin (1986), a case involving an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to apply the Haynes precedent, because the Louisiana statute specifically prohibited the government from using registration information to prosecute convicted felons in possession of a firearm. The Louisiana registration law had been “sanitized” in a manner similar to the 1968 revision to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. sec.5801, which required that no information obtained from gun registration could be used against a person who could not legally possess a gun — convicted felons could register their machine guns or short-barreled shotguns with complete confidence that they would not be prosecuted for illegal possession. [12]

If mandatory gun registration can`t be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother? Because of the Haynes decision, if we want to punish ex-felons who are caught in possession of a gun, there are only two choices available: We must either skip registration, so that we can severely punish gun possession by those who aren`t allowed to own guns; or use the “sanitized” form of registration law — where the criminal is guaranteed that gun registration can`t hurt him, while the rest of us can be punished for failure to comply (source: Liberty Law).

It sounds paranoid to suggest that gun registration records might be used in the future to confiscate guns — although the second director of Handgun Control, Inc. has stated explicitly that mandatory registration is one of the steps towards prohibition of handgun ownership [13] — but when we examine how the courts have crippled gun registration laws so that felons are effectively exempt, and only law-abiding citizens need to fear such laws, what other explanation can there be for the continuing plea for mandatory gun registration?

Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a telecommunications manufacturer in Northern California. His first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine, was published in 1990. Rhonda L. Cramer is completing her B.A. in English.

1. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).

2. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 96, 88 S.Ct. 722, 730 (1968).

3. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 100, 88 S.Ct. 722, 732 (1968).

4. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 98, 88 S.Ct. 722, 730 (1968).

5. National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, DC, Government Printing Office: 1934), 21-22.

6. Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358, 361 (1968)

7. Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358, 364 (1968)

8. Photos v. City of Toledo, 19 Ohio Misc. 147, 250 N.E.2d 916 (Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).

9. Photos v. City of Toledo, 19 Ohio Misc. 147, 250 N.E.2d 916, 923 (Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).

10. State v. Schutzler, 249 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).

11. State v. Schutzler, 249 N.E.2d 549, 552 (Ohio Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).

12. State v. Hamlin, 497 So.2d 1369, 1372 (La. 1986).

13. Richard Harris, “A Reporter At Large: Handguns”, The New Yorker, July, 26, 1976, 57-58. A fascinating interview, Shields also describes the founder of Handgun Control, Inc., as a “retired CIA official” who was its first director — without pay. For those people who regard the CIA as a secret government with nefarious motives, this will doubtless make them wonder about the origins of Handgun Control`s current policies in support of prohibition of those rifles which are most necessary to restrain domestic tyranny.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=22&issue=006

Tags:,
Posted in Education, Gun Control, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

No one is safe while the Congress is in session…

June 15, 2008

So, besides trying to take your money, raise fuel prices, and let invaders into the country without penalty, just what has the Congress been up to? Why, they want to take away your ability to resist their authoritarianism of course! Here is just a partial list of the shenanigans that they have been working on. At your expense!

http://www.gunowners.org
Jan 2008

FIREARMS LEGISLATION IN THE 110th CONGRESS

Analysis by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408

House Bills

H.R. 73 (Bartlett): This bill would affirm the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves, their families, and their homes.

H.R. 96 (Castle, Shays, Kirk): This bill would require Instantchecks for private transactions at gun shows. If the sponsor “knowingly” fails to notify every attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law (new 18 U.S.C. 932(a)(2)(D) and new 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8)(B)), every board member of the sponsor could be fined $250,000 for every person not notified and sent to prison for five years per violation. And, while the “knowing” requirement is an improvement over earlier versions, it is far from certain that a Brady-Law-pamphlet-distributing guard who intentionally leaves his post during a busy time for a bathroom break would not (1) be interpreted as “knowingly” failing to notify attendees, and (2) be interpreted as violating the law vicariously as an agent of every board member of the sponsoring organization. Obviously, at the hands of an anti-gun administration, this has the potential of permanently putting an end to all gun shows.

H.R. 171 (Lee and 16 others): This bill, which would authorize additional funds for school mental health counselors, makes a finding about the need to reduce the number of weapons in schools. Such a finding would demonize Utah teachers and administrators — who are allowed, by law, to possess firearms in schools — as well as, other heroes (such as Joel Myrick of Pearl, Mississippi) who have used firearms to stop school massacres and, thus, save the lives of students.

H.R. 203 (Rothman): This bill would interfere with the discretion of states by requiring that police seize firearms of persons suspected of domestic violence, based on “probable cause,” even though no court has heard the case. In addition, it allows a court to permanently bar an individual slapped with a “protective order” from possessing a firearm and to order a search of his home, even though, unlike current federal law, the order was an “ex parte” order with respect to which the individual had no notice, no right to be present, no right to be heard, and no right to an attorney.

H.R. 226 (Stearns): This is the NRA-backed reciprocity bill, which would set a “national standard” allowing persons who have obtained concealed carry licenses to be granted reciprocity in other states. Residents of Vermont, which does not require a license for concealed carry, would not be granted relief under this legislation.

H.R. 254 (Jackson-Lee): This bill would amend the hate crimes law — which prohibits using a firearm to cause bodily injury to any person on account of race or religion — to also include sexual orientation.

H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee): This bill would:

extend current provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922(x) (making it virtually impossible to legally teach your children the safe and responsible use of firearms) by (1) raising the across-the-board age to 21, (2) covering semiautos, and (3) increasing the penalties;

require FFL’s (including small FFL’s) to keep guns in a government-approved storage facility;

require you to lock up all firearms (making them unavailable for self-defense) — or face a three-year prison sentence if a child gets hold of the firearm and causes bodily injury;

prohibit unaccompanied minors at guns shows; and

spend more money on anti-gun “education” programs.

H.R. 297 (McCarthy): This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to “provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event.”

Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.

NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.

For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [18 USC 922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.

Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.

The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons “under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich,” this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.

Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill. This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally “incompetent” and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.

Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that “The problem of emotional disorders in children is large — 20% of all children are affected — and it seems to be growing.” It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.

The fact that metal health ‘experts,’ a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as ‘mentally incompetent.’

Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.

Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of ‘fishing expeditions’ is that related to illegal aliens.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

In order to identify illegal aliens, “relevant” records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we’ve already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records — all in the name of making sure that you’re not an illegal.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill in 2006, 31 were GOA “F” rated, one was rated “D.”

H.R. 354 (McCarthy): This bill would spend $965 million a year on trying to figure out why and remedy the fact that schools that ban guns are not safe from “gun violence.”

H.R. 428 (Towns): This bill would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban realistic toy handguns.

H.R. 623 (Rangel): This bill would allow a “nonviolent offender” to have his record expunged if he has complied with a variety of conditions, including obtaining a GED, performing a year of community service, staying free of substance abuse for a year, and not committing any other state or federal offense in the future. A “nonviolent offense” is one which does not involve “the use of a weapon or violence.”

H.R. 660 (Conyers): This bill would dramatically expand federal funding for law enforcement resources to guard federal and state judges, prosecutors, jurors, and other persons involved in the judicial process — and would expand criminal penalties for certain related offenses, including, for instance, placing a false lien on a judge’s home.

H.R. 861 (Stearns): This is the NRA-backed version of national concealed carry reciprocity. It would set “national standards” for recognition of concealed carry permits, but would provide no relief in cases of states like Vermont that don’t require permits as a condition of concealed carry.

H.R. 880 (Forbes, Wolf, Chabot, Coble, Franks, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Pence, Smith): This bill would subject guns to the same sort of mandatory minimum sentencing currently applied to organized crime. You would be sentenced to at least 10 years in prison if “a formal or informal group or association of 3 or more individuals” (such as your family), in relation to the group (e.g., protecting them), commit two or more “gang crimes,” one of which constitutes a “crime of violence” (which could include brandishing a firearm in order to protect your family from a robber). “Gang crimes” include driving within 1000 feet of a school with a firearm and training your kid how to use a handgun without first writing a letter of permission for him to keep on his person while you are training him. Other anti-gun provisions in this bill are section 109 (making it harder for a person charged with a “firearms offense” — including paperwork violations — to be released), section 114 (upping the mandatory penalties for simply owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime of violence — including trying to defend yourself when state law mandates that you retreat), and section 115 (allowing your kid to be prosecuted as an adult if you train him to use a handgun, but he fails to possess a written letter of permission while you are doing so).

H.R. 1022 (McCarthy): This bill would reauthorize the ban on semi-automatic firearms more or less verbatim. It would change the list of explicitly banned firearms to include:

a much broader list of named firearms which are banned;

a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine capacity that has any one of the following: folding stock, threaded barrel, pistol grip, forward grip, or barrel shroud (the previous ban requires two of these features);

most semi-autos with fixed magazines with more than 10 rounds;

a semi-auto pistol with detachable magazine capacity that has any one of the following: second pistol grip, threaded barrel, barrel shroud, or detachable magazine capacity outside the pistol grip (the previous ban requires two of these features);

a semi-auto shotgun with a revolving cylinder or with folding stock, pistol grip, detachable magazine capacity, or fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds (the previous ban requires two of these features);

many frames, receivers, or conversion kits;

a military- or police-design semi-auto rifle or shotgun not suitable for sporting purposes.

It would also add four additional anti-semi-auto provisions. These would:

expand to semi-autos the provisions in 18 U.S.C. 922(x) making it virtually impossible to legally teach your kid the safe and lawful use of handguns (subjecting you and your kid to a prison sentence, for example, if he does not have a written permission letter from you on his person at the time you are training him);

expand and make statutory an import ban on semi-auto magazines;

require that transfers of semi-autos be through FFL’s; and

prohibit transfer of “any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device” and require that an FFL transferring a grandfathered “large capacity ammunition feeding device” report to the Attorney General.

H.R. 1096 (Paul): This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and the Instantcheck system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no “sporting purpose,” and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.

H.R. 1141 (Cannon): This bill would grant amnesty to any veteran with a pre-1968 unregistered automatic firearm.

H. R. 1167 (McCarthy): This bill would prevent anyone whose name turns up on one of the government’s secret “no fly” watch lists from possessing a firearm.

H. R. 1168 (McCarthy): This bill would reverse the Supreme Court’s U.S. v. Small decision by prohibiting firearms possession by any person who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign court, including political felonies by Nazi, Communist, and other totalitarian regimes.

H. R. 1399 (Ross, Souder): This bill would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

H. R. 1582 (Schiff, Bono): This bill would treat your family as a “criminal street gang” if you committed two gun-related offenses — including driving 1,000 feet from a school with a gun in your glove compartment.

H. R. 1592 (Conyers, et al.): This bill would reauthorize federal “hate crimes” legislation extending protections to homosexuals and transvestites and providing for a ten year federal prison sentence for anyone who uses a firearm to “attempt” to cause bodily injury.

H.R. 1593: This bill would reauthorize and expand upon transitional programs for reentry of prisoners into society, focusing particularly on drug offenders.

H.R. 1784 (Engel, McCarthy, Kennedy, et al.): This bill would essentially allow the Attorney General to ban most ammunition by defining as “armor-piercing” any ammunition which may be fired by any type of handgun and is “capable of penetrating body armor” — in accordance with tests in which the AG would solely determine the angle, the distance, the firearm, the number of shots, the quality of the body armor, and the number of penetrations required. H.R. 1791 (Gingrey, Paul, McCotter, Musgrave, Sessions, Rogers, Boozman, Jones, Goode): This bill would require BATFE to make videorecordings of firearms and ammunition testing. H.R. 1859 (McCarthy): This bill would reinstate the ban on “large-capacity” magazines. H.R. 1874 (Andrews): This bill would require firearms importers and manufactures to microstamp all firearms (or insure that they are microstamped), and would require ballistics resting of any firearm in the custody of the U.S. that is suspected of having been used in a crime. Such results would have to be computerized. H.R. 1895 (McCarthy): This bill would:

repeal current appropriations language prohibiting the disclosure of firearms trace information — thereby opening the door to new lawsuits against large firearms dealers;

require that all firearms used in crimes go into the trace database;

apply federal racketeering laws to “prohibited persons” violations.

H.R. 1897 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.

H.R. 2013 (Blackburn, et al.): This bill would make “technical corrections” in the current federal language prohibiting state regulation of toy “look-alike” guns and replicas.

H.R. 2074 (King of New York): This bill would potentially allow the Attorney General to make anyone on a federal “watch list” a “prohibited person” and to withhold information on why they are prohibited from possessing firearms.

H.R. 2093 (Meehan, Shays): This bill, which is almost identical to legislation GOA helped successfully defeat in the Senate as it pertains to GOA, would require reporting of “grassroots lobbying” (i.e., efforts to influence public opinion) by any group that hires a consultant to influence the public (by, e.g., doing radio broadcasts) and which spends an aggregate of over $100,000 a quarter to influence public opinion.

H.R. 2325 (Gohmert et al.): This bill would:

enhance and federalize crimes dealing with attacks against judges, court personnel, and their families;

allow judges and prosecutors to carry guns and insulate them from some types of liability.

H.R. 2424 (Paul): This bill would repeal the 1996 “gun-free school zones” law, which prohibits, in many instances, bringing a gun within 1000 feet of a school.

H.R. 2640 (McCarthy et al.): This bill would dramatically increase the number of personal records on Americans handed over to the FBI Instant check center in West Virginia and would, for the first time, statutorily make a battle-scarred veteran, a troubled school kid, or a senior with Alzheimer’s a “prohibited person” based solely on a diagnosis.

H.R. 2666 (Rush): This bill would require a firearms license for any person possessing a handgun or semi-auto (whether or not subject to the expired semi-auto ban). The license would be issued by the Attorney General, who would require a thumbprint, a certificate that the person has passed an exam, and a certificate that the firearm will be locked up, among other things. The license will have to be renewed after five years, and all information on transfers will have to be submitted to the Attorney General. Private sales of firearms without an Instant check would be outlawed. In addition, the bill provides for firearms lock-up requirements, unlimited inspections of FFL’s, various and sundry additional firearms-related crimes, and, of course, an exemption of police from its requirements.

H.R. 2726 (Forbes, Gohmert, Smith, Chabot, Buchanan, Boozman): This bill would expand, in modest ways, the circumstances under which current law enforcement personnel (e.g., Amtrak police) or retired law enforcement personnel (after 15 years of service, with firearms certification during the past year) are authorized to carry outside their jurisdiction (with the exception of machine guns and silencers).

H.R. 3142 (Reichert): This bill would:

establish civil penalties for FFL’s who engage in both “minor” and “serious” violations of federal gun laws;

dramatically expand penalties for gun offenses — increasing penalties for —

certain repeat “prohibited persons” offenses to twenty years (and a minimum sentence of 15 years in some cases);

“conspiracy” to commit a federal crime from five years to twenty years (unless this exceeds the penalty for actually committing the crime);

certain racketeering, illegal alien, murder-for-hire, and “other felony crimes of violence”;

expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;

extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses to ten years.

H.R. 3156: This substantial rewrite of many provisions in the federal crime code would, inter alia, include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.

H.R. 3305 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal agency from prohibiting a pilot from carrying a firearm in order to protect his craft.

H.R. 3436 (Reyes): This bill would allow courts to act more leniently with respect to firearms offense sentencing in cases of persons who are “authorized to carry” firearms in connection with their jobs.

H.R. 3462 (Lampson): This bill would:

expand penalties for violent crimes committed during drug trafficking crimes;

expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;

extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses to eight or ten years, respectively.

H.R. 3474 (McNerney): This bill would expand funds (by $10,000,000 a year) for dealing with “gang crimes,” but would not expand substantive law to attack guns in the same way as other gang-related legislation.

H.R. 3547: This bill would include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.

H.R. 3766 (Norton): This bill would authorize up to $100,000,000 a year for “gun buyback” programs.

H.R. 4128: This bill is a comprehensive rewrite of the federal criminal code, comparable to the one that was killed in 1982 by GOA and NRA because of its dramatic expansion of criminal liability for gun owners.

H.R. 4818 (King of New York, Rangel): This bill would:

impose a 20 year prison sentence on the sale of two or more firearms, e.g., to a “prohibited person” (such as a veteran with PTSD);

expand penalties for things like possession of a stolen firearm or a firearm with an obliterated serial number during the commission of a felony;

expand sharing of gun trace information.

H.R. 4900 (King): This bill would do the following:

Section 101: Current subsections 18 U.S.C. 923(e) and (f) allow BATF to revoke FFL’s, after notification and the opportunity for a hearing. Section 101 would create a bifurcated structure:

“non-serious” violations could trigger civil penalties of up to $1,000 ($5,000 per inspection) and a suspension of not more than 30 days;

“serious” violations could trigger $2,500 civil penalties ($15,000 per inspection), up to 90 days suspension, or revocation. “Serious” violations would consist of, inter alia, actions which could result in the acquisition of a firearm by a prohibited person or interfere with a criminal investigation. There would be a five-year statute of limitations, and there would be procedures for contesting penalties (before an administrative law judge in the case of minor penalties and before a court in the case of revocation). These procedures would be relatively pro-defendant — with a bar to bringing a civil charge after an unsuccessful attempt at a criminal prosecution.

Section 102: This section would allow an FFL applicant to supplement his application, in the case of problems, before final denial.

Section 103: One of the big battles in McClure-Volkmer was over “scienter” (state-of-mind) requirements. In particular, there has been a tendency to diminish what is required for an individual to act “knowingly” or “willfully.” This section would define “willfully” to mean “intentionally,” which is about the most culpable state-of-mind requirement in existence.

Section 104: This section would require BATF to establish guidelines for conducting investigations.

Section 105: This section would prohibit purchaser information concerning a non-prohibited person from being shared with any other agency –unless the agency agrees not to share it with anyone but a court, prosecutor, or law enforcement agency.

Section 106: This section would give an FFL with a revoked license 60 days (with the possibility of an extension) to liquidate his inventory.

Section 107: This section would allow more flexibility in permitting an FFL with a revoked license to transfer his business to another FFL without automatically assuming that the violation giving rise to the revocation continues — and with an opportunity for the acquiring FFL to cure any defects.

Section 108: This section would decriminalize a non-material (i.e., minor and irrelevant) “false entry” in FFL records.

Section 109: This section broadens federal supervision of state oversight of explosives.

Sections 201 through 210:

make minor non-controversial corrective changes to federal gun law;

allow testing and security corporations to test machine guns without getting a license;

make the Smith amendment permanent;

eliminate the provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(x) which would allow a parent to be prosecuted because his son possessed a handgun without a written permission slip — even if the parent were physically present;

limit sharing of trace information;

expand the ability to import gun parts; and

limit access to inactive licensee information.

Senate Bills

S. 77 (Schumer): Most importantly, this bill would allow the Attorney General to inspect gun dealers as many times as he wants for any purpose. In addition, the bill tweaks the Firearms Trace System on issues of confidentiality and coordination, and doubles many gun-related prison sentences for a wide variety of offenses.

S. 368 (Biden et al.): This bill would massively expand federal funding for (and hence control of) local law enforcement.

S. 376 (Leahy, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn): This bill would tweak the police concealed carry reciprocity law to, for example, (1) expand its provisions to retired police who had served 10 years (rather than 15), and (2) allow competency certification by “a certified firearms instructor” (as opposed to the state).

S. 378 (Leahy, Specter, Reid, Durbin, Cornyn, Kennedy, Collins, Hatch, Schumer): This bill would dramatically expand federal funding for law enforcement resources to guard federal and state judges, prosecutors, jurors, and other persons involved in the judicial process — and would expand criminal penalties for certain related offenses, including, for instance, placing a false lien on a judge’s home.

S. 388 (Thune, Nelson, Sununu, Inhofe, Coburn, Burr, Martinez, Crapo, Baucus, Cornyn, Dole, Craig, Lott): This is the NRA-backed version of national concealed carry reciprocity. It would set “national standards” for recognition of concealed carry permits, but would provide no relief in cases of states like Vermont that don’t require permits as a condition of concealed carry.

S. 456: Although differing in details, like H.R. 880, this bill would treat firearms offenses like Mafia crimes.

S. 607 (Vitter): This bill would create a 15-year prison for “forcibly… resist[ing]” law enforcement personnel during an emergency with a “weapon.”

S. 1001 (Hutchinson et al.): This bill would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

S. 1237 (Lautenberg): This bill would, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General, make you a “prohibited person” if he “suspects” you of being a terrorist. The Attorney General is specifically authorized to refuse to tell you why he has made you a “prohibited person.”

S. 1316 (Feinstein): This bill would overturn U.S. v. Small and would make persons convicted of felonies in foreign courts — including political offenses and actions not unlawful in the U.S. — a “prohibited person” unless they can affirmatively establish that the conviction violated “fundamental fairness” or that the activity would be legal (and not just a felony) anywhere in the U.S.

S. 1331 (Feinstein, Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd): This bill would treat a rifle firing a .50 BMG caliber cartridge like a bomb, grenade, or missile for purposes of federal law.

S. 1860: This comprehensive crime bill contains a number of anti-gun provisions, including sections which would:

expand penalties for certain “prohibited persons” offenses;

expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;

extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses;

include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes;

dramatically expand federal abilities to enact civil and criminal forfeiture.

S. 2237: This bill, which would dramatically expand the role of the federal government in going after ordinary street crime, contains, inter alia, “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.

Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 9 Comments »

This is the end, my only friend, the end …

June 4, 2008

Well, I guess the party is over. It’s been rather fun watching Hillary and Obama rip each other seemingly on a daily basis. Just how much can be attributed to “Operation Chaos?” I personally believe that Rush Limbaugh had little to do with it. All the internal strife within the Democrat party that is.

This was, I believe, more about the Clinton Machine being defeated than anything else. The Clinton’s are, and were appeasers. The Democrat Party, after all has been taken over by those that are on the extreme far left of the political spectrum, and they are not the types that are willing to compromise.

Big government authoritarianism is raising it’s ugly head here in America. It matters not whether it is from the right or the left of the political spectrum. If you are an individual then you had better watch out. You are about to become one with the “Borg,” to borrow some Star Trek terminology. Atlas Shrugged indeed! But, it took a few years past 1984, in order for George Orwell’s prescience to become a very real possibility.

I call it metastatic communism, because, like a virulent cancer it spreads, and destroys that which feeds it. First it was social welfare issues that were meant to be last ditch attempts at saving people from themselves, that is, from failure. The best example that I can think of here in America would be the Social Security program. Soon, it will be basic private property rights, after all, the benefit of the many far outweighs your own needs. Just because you earned that gadget means nothing. Be sure that you never question any of this, for, after all, should you do so you will be deemed mentally incompetent, if not a dangerous subversive as well. yes, then there is that little “dangerous” clause to all this righteous indignation that the elitist’s with authoritarian ideology worry about. Any danger to them ( The elitist’s.) is a danger to all, after all is said and done. What to do about that..? Simple! Disarm any that hold different beliefs. That will pave the way to the utopia that is to be our future!

That, will be the methodology of the Neo-Communist. That, is democracy, and why a Constitutional republic, is so superior.

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

Eminent Domain, and Colorado

June 3, 2008

Eminent domain has again raised it’s ugly head here in Colorado. The idea of private property rights seems too have gone the way of the passenger Pigeon here. Jon Caldara, and The Independence Institute are, as usual, right on top of things.

Surprisingly, the most notorious abuser, The Denver Water Board, has not been heard from for a while. That is alright though, the RTD, The Arvada City Council, and now Telluride are making up for that lapse.

Enjoy:

So Now We’re Taking Land Because It’s Pretty

Posted by Jon Caldara on Jun 03 2008 | property rights

Property owners of beautiful land both in and around Telluride received quite the rude awakening yesterday as the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Telluride could take land inside AND outside its boundaries for open space purposes.

Property Rights Project director Jessica Corry reports, “With this decision, the Court held that a 2004 state statute, known as the “Telluride Amendment,” is unconstitutional. The result: Local governments can take property OUTSIDE their own boundaries through condemnation. This process, called extraterritorial condemnation, is a tool increasingly sought after by municipal planners. See our issue paper, “Tower Tussle: The Colorado Battle Over Extraterritorial Condemnation” for more information. The expansion of government power here has dangerous implications for future land use planning.”

It seems we have reached the point where property rights cannot even trump some bureaucrat’s subjective valuation of what they deem beautiful. It’s bad enough to see RTD snatching up private property for light rail use, but it’s even worse to see Telluride condemn land to preserve “historic character.” No land is safe when municipalities can reach for property outside their jurisdiction and for reasons as frail as someone’s whims and fancies.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Eminent Domain, and Colorado

The right of the people …

June 1, 2008

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

The right of the People… shall not be infringed

By Mark Alexander

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” —Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is no more important constitutional issue than that of defending the plain language and original intent of the Second Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

It is no small irony that the latest assault on the Second Amendment is taking place in our nation’s capital. The Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in June, and that decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the “interpretation” of our Constitution’s most important provision.

And make no mistake, the newly-emboldened Left, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is gunning for those rights. Obama supports the D.C. regulations because he, “…wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms… The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.”

Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?

Of course, in addition to serving on the Woods Fund board with Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which since 2000, has given more than $15 Million to radical gun control organizations and is closely linked to the Soros Open Society Institute, which advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Indeed, the Second Amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic,” and those who fail to support it as such, and reject detractors like Obama, do so at great peril to themselves and the liberty of future generations of Americans.

The subject of this dispute is the Washington, DC, “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which banned handguns and mandated that all other firearms, including shotguns and rifles, be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock,” ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.” D.C.’s FCRA actually prohibits a person who owns a legal handgun (pre-1976 grandfathered one) from transporting the handgun from one room to another in his or her own home.

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

Will that decision comport with the Constructionist view (original intent) of our Constitution, or will it be another adulterated interpretation of the so-called “Living Constitution”, the ACLU’s perverted distortion of our Constitution by its cadre of judicial activists?

It is our hope that the Court will affirm the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the District’s ordinance banning possession of handguns is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Though every constitutional constructionist knows that the Second Amendment assures an individual right to keep and bear arms, militias being the people, the ACLU’s “Living Constitution” mob argues that “the people” means “the state militia,” as outlined on the ACLU’s website under “Gun Control”: “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias. … The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns.”

Well, they may believe that, but in the inimitable words of Founder John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It seems the lawyers at the ACLU are always viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens, while they view the Second through a pinhole. Alas, they have it backwards.

In the 1788 Massachusetts Convention debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Founder Samuel Adams stated: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

That same year, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (No. 46), “The ultimate authority… resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote: “Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.”

To understand how the right to bear arms was understood in proper context as an individual right, consider some of the earliest state constitutional provisions both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights: Pennsylvania—That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state (1776); Vermont—[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777); Kentucky—[T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). Tennessee—[T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) and, Connecticut—Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

These are not references to state guard units as the ACLU insists.

Though the Supreme Court rarely referenced the Second Amendment in the first hundred years of our nation’s existence, because its meaning was understood, in one early reference, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), the Court noted, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union…the full liberty…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” The implication is that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal right for U.S. citizens.

Of course, Washington, D.C. is not the only major city violating the Second Amendment. New York City has restrictive gun regulations, but consider this comment from Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, from an 1821 commentary on American life: “In both New-England, and New-York, every man is permitted, and in some, if not all the States, is required to possess fire arms.”

Times have indeed changed, and not in the interest of liberty.

If you know some of those Chardonnay-sipping elitists who insist that guns should be banned, get them a few of these “Gun Free Household” stickers for their front and back doors.

Speaking of Chardonnay, here’s an interesting fact: Alcohol-related traffic deaths outnumber homicides with guns by a wide margin. In the latest year of record, there were 12,253 homicides with firearms (many of which involved alcohol) but 16,885 alcohol related highway fatalities. (Perhaps the ACLU should be fighting for a five-day waiting period to purchase alcohol?)

Here’s another inconvenient truth for the Leftist gun-grabbers: The U.S. ranks 41st in the world in homicides but first in the world in private gun ownership (39 percent of households). The firearm homicide rate in the United States was 4.17 per 100,000 in 2005. But Israel, which is awash in so-called “assault weapons,” has a total homicide rate of 2.62 per 100,000.

The National Institute of Justice estimates that Americans use firearms in self-defense approximately 2.73 million times per year. While firearms are used in 67 percent of illegal homicides in the United States, they are used in 99 percent of justifiable homicides. In other words, bad guys use guns sometimes, but good guys use guns almost all the time.

Put another way, smart guys protect their families with “Second Amendment Security”.

On this point, I would argue that gun ownership is not only a right, but a duty and obligation of all Patriots. After all, we are the Militia.

(For good reference pages on the Second Amendment, see Sources on the Second Amendment and Brief Amicus Curiae in DC v Heller, both by my colleague Eugene Volokh, Professor, UCLA Law School. Read Charlton Heston’s comments on the Second Amendment, 1997.)

source : The Patriot Post

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

Outrage Of The Week

June 1, 2008
Outrage of the Week
Friday, May 30, 2008

Outrage Of The Week

This week’s outrage comes to us from Winchendon, Massachusetts where, in yet another case of “zero-tolerance” enforcement defying common sense, fourth-grader Bradley Geslak was suspended from Toy Town Elementary School for bringing a Memorial Day souvenir to school.

According to a May 29, Telegram.com article, a uniformed veteran gave the 10-year-old two empty rifle shell casings from blanks used during the town’s Memorial Day celebration Monday morning. Bradley gave one of the empty casings to his grandfather and kept the other as a souvenir. The trouble began when he took his souvenir to school the next day.

“He was just playing with it at lunch,” explained Crystal Geslak, Bradley’s mother. “He wasn’t showing it to anyone; he had it in his hand and was playing with it.”

A teacher saw him with the harmless piece of brass and confiscated it. Ms. Geslak was then called at work and told to come and pick up her son, who had been suspended for five days!

Ms. Geslak arrived at the school to find her son in tears. “I was totally shocked. I couldn’t believe this was happening,” she said. “It was just an empty shell, not even from a real bullet. A sharpened pencil would be more dangerous than this piece of metal.”

“He was so proud to have been given them. His dad’s a veteran, his uncle’s a veteran, both his grandfathers are veterans. Memorial Day is a big thing to us. It’s a very important holiday and we have a big celebration every year,” Ms. Geslak said.

Ms. Geslak, who will be forced to miss work in order to stay home with her son, says she is worried about what having a “weapon-related suspension” on his school record will mean to his future.

To add insult to injury, the family says a school official told them that the shell would not be returned, and that the next step might involve assigning a probation officer to Bradley! Yes, you read that right, a probation officer.

A young boy punished over a harmless souvenir. By any standard, that’s outrageous.

If you’d like to express your concern over this incident, please visit http://www.winchendon.mec.edu/. To leave a voice message for Brooke Clenchy, Superintendent of Schools, please call 978-297-0031.

If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate for the “Outrage of the Week!” section, please send it to: freedomsvoice@nrahq.org. Please be sure to send additional background and citations where available.

Tags:,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Thunder in the Mountains

May 29, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolutionaries and Separatist Vol.1

May 26, 2008

This will probably be an ongoing theme in the coming months. It will cover home grown organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America. Most are racist in nature, but claim that only Caucasians can be racist.

First, for no particular reason, is La Voz de Aztlan. Simply check out their official website and it becomes quite clear that these people are hell bent on destruction. They are not Klansmen, but sure do sound a lot like them and the Nazi’s when it comes to those of the Jewish faith or background. They are also way up there when it comes to conspiracy theories. Then, their plans for a new nation should be a wake up call for anyone that breathes or calls the western United States home.This page deserves special attention.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=La+Voz+de+Aztlan&btnG=Google+Search

Don’t worry folks, it doesn’t end there. These people are just plain dangerous.

http://www.aztlan.net/

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

Arizona and Illegal Immigration

May 21, 2008

Hat Tip to Ablur! 😀

Arizona is leading the nation in local enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. As illegal immigrants leave the state, the state’s most serious problems such as traffic congestion and the expense of teaching English Language Learner classes are dissipating.
Since Arizona’s local law enforcement began enforcing illegal immigration laws and an employer sanctions law went into effect, illegal immigrants have been fleeing the state in large numbers. The effects have been far-ranging. Commuters are reporting fewer vehicles on the freeways, shortening their rush-hour commutes. What had become a serious transportation problem in Arizona is losing its urgency. English Learner Language (ELL) students started dropping out of school. This helped end a confrontation between the state legislature and a liberal federal judge who had ordered the state to spend more money on ELL classes.

Fewer illegal immigrants are using hospital emergency rooms, so waiting times have decreased. Although the rest of the country is in an economic slump, unemployment is going down in Arizona, from 4.5% in January to 4.1% in March. Day laborers loitering outside of Home Depot and other stores have mostly disappeared, ending months of confrontation between illegal immigrant sympathizers and protesters. Desert lands near the border are returning to their pristine condition and the wildlife is coming back. Identity theft and car thefts are decreasing. No one showed up on May 1 to march in immigrant rallies.

With illegal immigrants leaving, the state will see huge savings as fewer illegal immigrants use social welfare programs and the cost of arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating and deporting them decreases. Arizona is facing one of the worst budget deficits ever, looming as high as $2 billion in 2009, but the situation may resolve itself.

Rest of Article

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »