Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. (See the article below). GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate from the bench. The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a "wait and see" approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to wiggle through and be confirmed. GOA calls on all pro-gunners across America to urge NRA leadership to join in this critical fight to protect the Constitution -- and especially our gun rights. -- GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy ---------------------------------------- NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor by Sandy Froman Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that contradicts the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court. On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue is "fairly scant," she has twice stated that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. Senator Sessions also noted that in Second Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor's analysis of important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting "a troubling tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of exceptional importance." Sotomayor's view on the Second Amendment clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous. Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms. But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority, with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens. Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms hangs by a single vote. The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right" that applies to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting gun rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees. When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can't help you. This position becomes all the more radical when it's revealed how she reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action. Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms. America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four million members of the National Rifle Association. I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000 to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we must urge them to oppose this nominee. Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever. We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It's time to tell the Senate, "Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor."
Posts Tagged ‘NRA’
GOA Applause: NRA Past President on Sotomayor Nomination
June 30, 2009Fundraising for “nobel” causes…
May 21, 2009This is sort of a rant. I got to thinking about it after reading this in the Denver Post. For years I worked as an activist for several conservation organizations as well as some with political agenda’s. One day while working near Deckers myself and a few other volunteers were talking as we cleared brush.
At some point I made the comment that the group that we were working for was getting as bad as the NRA. Specifically, that you never heard from them without some desperate plea for yet more money. The entire world would come to an end if you didn’t donate even more money.
The sensationalism that seemed to be requisite for each of these pleadings was always dramatic. I remember thinking once that I knew what retired psyops people did after retiring from the military; they went to work as fundraisers.
Don’t get me wrong, I am well aware of the fact that it takes money to get things done in nearly all cases no matter what the project is. I don’t mind one iota that I gave money to the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Habitat is a key factor in wildlife sustainability, and in my mind, both of these organizations are top notch. As is the Isaac Walton League, and Gun Owners of America.
What ticks me off though is when you give money to this or that group, and you never see any results. Heck! You never even see them trying! I could easily understand trying, and failing. Sometimes things just do not work. But? When you have an organization that basically rolls over and gives in to the opposition I get pretty angry about it. When the NRA rolled over on the issue of supporting ex post facto law via the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act I blew my top, and that is putting it mildly. I’ve not given them a penny since, and I will not ever support them monetarily until they put the full force of the NRA into getting that abomination off the books. That, is why I support Gun Owners of America to the hilt as regular readers know. Trout Unlimited has pulled similar shenanigans over the years, and I never donate to them any longer as well.This list could go on, and on…
When it comes to donating for causes the phrase caveat emptor simply cannot be overstressed. The recent unveilings about ACORN shows that shysters come from every bent and cause.
H.R. 2159 Guilty until proved innocent,well, not even then…
May 17, 2009If anyone really believes that the Republican Party is a bastion of small government and the leaders for individual rights… Think again!
Americans are telling us!
April 23, 2009This is from Town Hall from March, is LaPierre a clairvoyant?No, he just didn’t have any blinders on. Enjoy!
Americans don’t need the NRA to tell them that the Barack Obama-Joe Biden administration could spell oblivion for their freedoms: Americans are telling us!
Even during the poorest holiday spending season in almost 40 years, with consumer confidence in a freefall, Americans bought guns like they were going out of style—or going to be banned.
The month Obama was elected, FBI background checks for firearm purchases increased by 42 percent over 2007, setting an all-time record for purchases in a month. Right-to-carry permit applications soared from coast to coast.
It’s easy to see why.
After spending millions of dollars to convince Americans they would never take their guns, Obama and Biden, just three days after winning the election, posted a Web page detailing how they planned to do just that.
Their preliminary agenda included:
• “Making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent”—despite the fact that even after 10 years, the Clinton-Reno Justice Department couldn’t spin it as anything more than a total failure;
• Opening sensitive federal gun-trace data for abuse by politicians seeking to sue the firearms industry out of business for the criminal acts of third parties; and
• “Making guns childproof” through government mandates requiring nonexistent, unworkable or prohibitively expensive technologies, ultimately leading to bans on non-“childproof” firearms.
If gun bans are their goal, Obama and Biden have plenty of experienced players to run with the ball.
The leader of Obama’s transition team, John Podesta, served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, where he helped mastermind the strategy of using frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt America’s firearms industry through “death by a thousand cuts.”
Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a key Clinton administration strategist on gun bans before he went to Congress, where he introduced the very gun ban that the administration now admits it seeks.
Obama’s choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, also served in the Clinton administration—as Attorney General Janet Reno’s lead salesman for various gun bans.
Last year, Holder signed a “friend of the court” brief defending the Washington, D.C., gun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic Heller case, arguing that “the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Now, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under his control, Holder will have the power not only to suppress gun sales through increased fees, regulations and harassment of dealers—just as Bill Clinton did when he drove 80 percent of gun dealers out of business—but also to bring suit in federal court to prevent the landmark Heller ruling from being applied to cities and states, or to quash it altogether.
For more than a decade at the United Nations, dictatorships have been working with global gun-ban groups funded by billionaire financier George Soros to impose a gun ban treaty upon the United States.
In 2010, the United Nations convenes a major gun-control conference. But you can bet that, under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. delegation won’t oppose the U.N.’s gun-ban dictates, as it did in the past, but will now embrace American gun bans in the name of “international law.”
Under Obama, hunters may be as much of an endangered species as gun owners.
Obama’s pick for EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, held a similar post in New Jersey, where, in 2006, she shut down the state’s bear hunt—even after overabundant bears had begun killing livestock, invading homes and attacking kids. Could she shut down shooting ranges and hunters nationwide by regulating lead bullets out of existence as an “environmental toxin”?
If so, she surely won’t meet much resistance from Cass Sunstein, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “We ought to ban hunting if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun,” Sunstein has said. “That should be against the law.”
In fact, in his book “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions,” Sunstein wrote, “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives.”
It’s easy to laugh, but this is no joke. Anti-gunners now control every lever of federal power. With the White House, nearly veto-proof majorities in Congress, and the ability to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal bench and the vast federal bureaucracy with anti-gun extremists, they can attack your rights from every direction—executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory, even international.
If you agree with us, then join us. This is no time for silent assent or passive agreement. We must let those in power know we’re watching and we’re listening. We must stand with deeper ranks and broader strength and more resolve than ever.
So that if it becomes necessary—and I believe it will—the NRA will have the size and strength to swiftly act with the formidable unity and dogged resolve that have proven us the singular and most potent guardian of this freedom so essential to a free state.
If He Can Make It Here, He Could Make It Anywhere!
April 8, 2009Okay folks, I don’t know how on earth this slipped past me, but better late then never I suppose, and yes, the NRA should have proof read this before posting it. SOURCE
| Friday, April 03, 2009 |
| For those of you who don’t closely follow local politics in Manhattan, Richard Aborn, former president of then-Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Center) is running for Manhattan DA, and he has secured some endorsements for his race based in large part on his support for gun control.
Former New York City Police Department and current Los Angeles police commissioner Bill Bratton blessed Aborn’s race, noting their working relationship on, among other items, the Brady bill. Bratton also cited Aborn’s work with Mayor Bloomberg on “meaningful gun control and regulation.” Aborn was also endorsed by NY Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell, brother of the well-known, shrill, anti-gun crusader, Rosie O’Donnell. Danny O’Donnell cited the following in issuing his endorsement:
Someone needs to educate Assemblyman O’Donnell that “protecting civil liberties” while whittling away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are mutually exclusive. And finally, from Aborn’s own campaign site, he lists these bona fides: GUN CONTROL LEADER
Enough said. |
Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Gun Industry
March 19, 2009In Illinois? I about fell over when I read this. I mean..? The land of obama and Daley? Well, even broken clocks show the correct time twice a day…
Fairfax, Va. – Today, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed yet another reckless lawsuit aimed at putting firearms manufacturers out of business. Adames v. Beretta was dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA). The court’s order affirmed the original trial court judgment in the case.
This is the second judicial decision in 2009 upholding a dismissal under the PLCAA. Ten days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals in the cases of New York v. Beretta and District of Columbia v. Beretta.
NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, “We are pleased that the Court recognized that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is the law of the land. America’s law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits, such as this one, that have no legal merit. Blaming gun manufacturers for the acts of criminals is not the way we do things in America, and today the Illinois Supreme Court confirmed this view.”
The Illinois Supreme Court found that “the discharge of the Beretta was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, which act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death.”
The Court also agreed with the appellate court in finding the PLCAA was constitutional. Finally, it let stand the trial court’s findings that “the Beretta [pistol] was not unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed” and that the danger of pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger is open and obvious, even if the person pointing the gun mistakenly believes that the gun is not loaded.
Several cities and individual plaintiffs began suing firearm manufacturers in the late 1990s, based on the expectation that although the industry manufactured a legal product, forcing manufacturers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy.
In addition to being based on bogus legal theories that seek to evade personal responsibility for criminal or reckless acts, these lawsuits endangered American military personnel and law enforcement officers. During congressional debate on the PLCAA, the Department of Defense issued a statement agreeing with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms would be a threat to America’s domestic and international security.
-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Unintended Consequences… I seriously doubt that!
February 18, 2009Regular readers are aware that I am doing something that is apparently below the pay grade of Congress-persons and Senators.I am actually attempting to read this entire so-called stimulus bill. Others, bless them, are already zeroed in on the obvious conflicts with freedom and liberty. Reading, and even more importantly interpreting this abomination (Obaminazition?) is worse than learning the Kreb’s Cycle under Gerry Gordon M.D. in Paramedic school!
In any case Gun Owners of America has already hit the ten ring on at minimum some of this veritable beast that I believe may very well catapult the United States into irrevocable balkanization, if not revolution. I pray that secession this time will be Constitutional, and bloodless.
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
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
It was a day that will live in infamy.
President Obama traveled to Denver, Colorado yesterday to sign the
multi-billion dollar, pork-laden, so-called “stimulus” bill
into law.
But forget the $787 billion price tag you heard on TV. Forget the $12
TRILLION debt limit which the bill created.
By the time debt services and other frills of the “socialism
bill” are
accounted for, the cost will be over $3,000,000,000,000 (yes, three
TRILLION).
This makes the bill the biggest government spending grab in human
history.
But what about the details? The hundreds and hundreds of pages in the
bill were not made available until less than 18 hours before the final
passage vote. But here’s what we know in relation to the gun-related
provisions:
* The final bill continues to spend between $12 and $20 BILLION on
requiring your doctor to retroactively put your most confidential
medical records into a government database. Based on our experience
with veterans, we would expect the government to try to use computerized
psychiatric records to impose gun bans on people who have sought (or
will seek) treatment.
* The final bill continues to fund liberal community action groups like
ACORN, which, you may remember, engaged in massive criminal election
fraud on behalf of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy and also was
involved in anti-Second Amendment activism in New Jersey.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was at least honest when he said
it would be a shame to let a crisis like the current recession “go to
waste.” Like vultures picking on the nation’s carcass, the White House
has used the nation’s pain to lavish largesse on its political
supporters, at the expense of the nation’s economic survival.
And, in the end, this act of ethical depravity was made possible by
every Democrat Senator who voted for the bill, plus the defections of
three Republicans: Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and
Susan Collins (R-ME).
If there is one silver lining to all of this, it’s the debunking of a
rumor that recently swept across the internet. The rumor claimed that
the provisions of HR 45 — the massive gun registration bill introduced
by Chicago congressman Bobby Rush (D) — were “rolled into”
what was
passed.
But having searched the contents of the new law, GOA staff has
determined the rumor appears to be false.
****************************
Are You A Bitter Clinger?
Who is a Bitter Clinger? According to Barack Obama, who was recorded
unawares at a San Francisco fundraiser, bitter clingers are voters who
are bitter because of their economic frustration and so cling bitterly
to their Bibles and their guns.
Gun control or people control?
February 7, 2009Those that preach the panacea of a society without violence often use legitimate people as whipping boys for their targets. Legal gun owners for example. Their twisted logic states that guns are evil, and that it is the gun that makes the person do evil things.
Those very same people expose the rest of us to extreme violence, and make it tough, if nor outright illegal to effectively defend ourselves. They make laws that create free fire zones for criminals and social misfits. Like schools, parks and so on. People that inhabit such places are turned into cannon fodder by other people that care little for anything other than their agenda. Such measures may have started out as well intentioned but the evidence is more than clear after so many mass shootings that the law of unintended consequences beats intentions every time.
So then, just who is it that commits most gun crime? A tiny minority are sociopaths that shoot up schools, malls and other public places. By far though, the vast majority are gang related. It is a sad fact of life that in America gangs are just about everywhere. Money is the driving force behind most of the violence, and innocent people get caught in these cross fires as groups vie for territory or “street cred.”
Drugs, and the lucrative profits from dealing that the ongoing drug war bolsters are most often tied to gun violence. At least according the the alphabet soup agencies. A recent CNN article pointed out that nearly all gun violence is gang related. So why then are so many different people, and organizations hell bent on disarming the rest of the population?
It could be blamed on mental illness, and many of the anti rights types are clearly hopolophobics. I think though, that is simply that old game of control. They want control of your life, and through that, your death.
The Brady Bunch has a wish list… Again
January 18, 2009| Friday, January 16, 2009 |
| No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady “no,” because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That’s demonstrated by Brady’s statement that their current request “is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point.” It includes: A California-style “assault weapons” ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California’s ban–which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004–as the “model” for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn’t say so, but it clearly supports–as does the Violence Policy Center–the California–like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as “assault weapons.” And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well. A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them “high-capacity,” but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike. Now’s as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, “Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence,” adding, “during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection.” The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation’s violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office. Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act’s waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as “Brady checks.”) And, contrary to Brady’s prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years. Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms “would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges.” But as for Brady’s hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment “restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement,” and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm. Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won’t know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn. Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it’s all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it. Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a “no fly” list, for reasons that have not been made public. Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart “large-volume” illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit. Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady’s agenda isn’t about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration. Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production. We close with yet another Brady lie, “These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners.” Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for “the interests of gun owners,” we’ll follow the Supreme Court’s example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense. |
Obama’s message of ‘change’ may include gun rights
December 14, 2008The 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.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 