Second Amendment March Newsletter HERE.Lots of news in this issue concerning states as opposed to going to D.C.
See all of you in Cheyenne!
Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Countdown to April 19, 2010
March 4, 2010SCOTUS will again take the wimp road
March 3, 2010The oral arguments at yesterdays SCOTUS were an exercise in circular logic, and clearly indicate that although expansion of Second Amendment rights is a probability it will be for the weaker of the reasons presented. So, what is the rest of the world saying about it? Well, this is what we have so far.
Click here for complete transcript of the oral arguments in McDonald V. Chicago.
News and Editorial Coverage of the Case
Supreme Court appears set to widen gun rights
The Supreme Court majority that two years ago ruled a near total ban on handguns in the District to be unconstitutional seemed equally willing on Tuesday to extend the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states.
New ammunition for gun rights
The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.
2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog
Justices signal they’re ready to make gun ownership a national right
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns
At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog
Justices signal they’re ready to make gun ownership a national right
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns
At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
What Do the Supremes Think of Chicago’s Gun Ban?
Despite the push by Chicago to make McDonald v. City of Chicago about crime, a majority on the Supreme Court today appeared to want nothing to do that argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self defense as being as “fundamental” as the right to freedom of speech. The question the court faces is how many of Chicago’s regulations beyond the ban should survive.
Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth
In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.
Guns before the court
Today the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that is likely to result in a landmark decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court will consider whether the individual right to bear arms it recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller can be enforced against State and local governments. In doing so, it may address more broadly the way in which individual rights are enforced against the States and the extent to which State and local governments can regulate or restrict those rights.
Does the Second Amendment Apply Outside the Home?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside of jurisdictions controlled by the federal government. The court will almost certainly say yes, and soon it may consider a question that should be equally easy to answer: whether the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.
Our most basic rights
The Second Amendment of the Constitution says “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.” The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday as to what that actually means.
The Herald Journal (Spartanburg, S.C.)
Gun rights: High court hears another case
In a 5-4 decision in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty was apoplectic. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” he predicted, demanding that the City Council promptly enact onerous new gun control rigmarole that would “get around” the Heller decision.
“Armageddon never arrived,” John Lott Jr. points out in a March 1 essay for FOXNews.com. Quite to the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by a whopping 25 percent from 2008 to 2009, Mr. Lott reports. D.C.’s murder rate “is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washington’s lowest since 1967.”
A few thoughts on the McDonald argument
Based on a quick read of the oral argument transcript, a few things stood out:
1.The Privileges or Immunities arguments never really got off the ground. None of the Justices seemed in favor of that approach, at least based on the questions. (Justice Thomas, as is his custom, asked no questions.) Only about 10-12 minutes of the questioning even concerned the P or I route, and the questioning seemed mostly focused on trying to understand the nature of the claim. For my VC co bloggers and many VC commenters who hoped today would signal the beginning of the libertarian constitutional revolution, there doesn’t seem to be much room for optimism.
More guns, less crime
The District of Columbia’s murder rate plummeted by an astounding 25 percent last year, much faster than for the US as a whole or for similarly sized cities. If you had asked Chicago’s Mayor Daley, that wasn’t supposed to happen. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to strike down DC’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements should have lead to a surge in murders, with Wild West shootouts. The Supreme Court might keep Daley’s predictions in mind today as they hear the oral arguments on Tuesday in the Chicago handgun ban case.
Press Releases:
Michigan Attorney General: Confident U.S. Supreme Court will protect right to bear arms
Attorney General Mike Cox today said he is confident the United States Supreme Court will again protect the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution as they hear oral arguments over Chicago’s handgun ban. The local case has national implications because it could put an end to state and local infringement of gun ownership.
Office of the Michigan Attorney General
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attends landmark Second Amendment argument
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court, which this morning heard the Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. The landmark case involves a constitutional challenge to the City of Chicago’s prohibitions on handgun possession. Attorney General Abbott led a national effort to protect all Americans’ right to keep and bear arms by forging a 38 state coalition that defended the Second Amendment and argued that Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.
Ohio Attorney General: Compelling arguments today in defense of Second Amendment rights
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of McDonald v. Chicago and is poised to decide whether the Second Amendment right of people to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government, as the court held two years ago, but also to state and local governments.
Ohio Rep. Space: Supreme Court must stand up and again defend right to bear arms
Anticipating the start of oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, U.S. Rep. Zack Space today called on the Supreme Court to again stand up for the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans. Space has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for Second Amendment Rights and Second Amendment issues.
“The Second Amendment is crystal clear: Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms,” Space said. “We’ve seen this Supreme Court side with Second Amendment advocates before, and we’re demanding that they rule again in defense of Americans’ Constitutional rights.”
Representative Zack Space, U.S. House of Representatives
Florida Senator LeMieux: Right to bear arms is fundamental
U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R FL) today made the following statement after attending the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago. The Supreme Court is weighing whether the Second Amendment protection against government infringement of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms should apply to state and local governments. The federal government is already restricted from such an infringement on personal liberties.
Senator LeMieux said: “Before our nation’s founding, the right to keep and bear arms was accepted as a fundamental individual right. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to assure that this right would not be infringed by expressly preserving it in the Second Amendment.
Senator George LeMieux, U.S. Senate
Kansas Rep. Tiahrt: Supreme Court should bring Chicago back from left
U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R Kan.) today issued the following statement as the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing opening arguments in a case that challenges whether or not local and state entities can take away the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens to defend themselves in their own homes. Tiahrt has fought to protect the privacy of every firearm owner in America with the Tiahrt trace data amendment that has been attacked by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and liberal gun control organizations.
Representative Todd Tiahrt, U.S. House of Representatives
Montana Sen. Baucus: Supports 2nd Amendment by attending Supreme Court gun rights arguments
Montana’s senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus today was present at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments for a case that may have far reaching affects on gun owners in Montana and across the country. The high court is considering a case that is expected to establish whether or not state and local governments are required to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to own a gun.
“I’m extremely interested in the outcome of this case,” Baucus said after the hearing. “Oral arguments were compelling. The bottom line is that all law biding citizens have the right to bear arms — whether it’s for hunting in the great outdoors or for protection. It’s spelled out right in the Constitution, and we’ve got to protect it. You can bet I’ll be keeping a close eye on this case as it moves forward.”
LIBERTY ALERT: Your Health Care Privacy is at Stake!
March 3, 2010Hey everyone,
Please take a few minutes and read this special op-ed by Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman titled, “House Bill 1330: The All-Payer Database is a Transparency Trojan Horse.”
Here are the nuts and bolts of this devastating legislation:
“House Bill 1330 would create an “all-payer health claims database” in Colorado. Bill supporters claim government can reduce health care costs through “transparent public reporting of health care information.” In fact, the bill is a transparency Trojan Horse. It will make your most personal actions transparent to government officials, officials who have no business keeping track of what kind of health care you buy or what you pay for it.
The bill authorizes the state to collect information on every health care transaction in the state, including information from private medical records, insurer files, and hospitals.
People who refuse to comply can be fined. There is no limit to the fines that may be assessed.”
Point blank, our privacy and basic civil liberties are at stake here folks.
House Rep. Kefalas and Kagan, Apuan, Court, Fischer, Gagliardi, Levy, Miklosi, Pace, Primavera, Rice, Riesberg, Solano, Tyler, Vigil are sponsoring it on one side. Senator John Morse is sponsoring it on the Senate side.
If you’d prefer to listen to a 15 minute podcast on this monstrosity, you can listen here.
If the state government is mandated to collect all of our private medical information in the name of “transparency,” we’ve clearly deviated from what the word means. Transparency is a mechanism that allows the citizens to account for government’s actions, NOT for the government to keep track of its citizens’ most private information! This government is supposed to serve us, not spy on us!
As soon as I find out the next step this horrible piece of legislation is taking, I will let all of you know. I have a couple sources who are closely following it and will provide me up to the minute information.
Please stay tuned!
Thanks for listening,
Justin Longo
Legislative Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
“Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.” -Mises
==============================================
Please forward this e-mail to friends and family who are concerned about defending our freedoms!
Urge others to sign up to receive these free alerts at:
You can read past “LPCO Liberty Alerts” at:
Sign-up to receive free e-mails from the National Libertarian Party at:
Support the Libertarian Party of Colorado by joining the 1776 Club:
My contact information:
Justin Longo
Legislative Director, LPCO
Phone: (703) 994-7104
LegislativeDirector@LPColorado.org
Wyoming: Carry Reform Bill Heading to the Governor!
March 1, 2010And someday I will finally figure out why any permit of any kind is needed to exercise a right…
Please Contact the Governor Today!
On Friday, February 26, the Wyoming State House passed Senate File 26 on third and final reading. The bill will now move to the desk of Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) for his consideration.
Sponsored by State Senator Cale Case (R-25) and State Senator Eli Bebout (R-26), SF 26 would reform Wyoming’s concealed weapons permit laws regarding eligibility, reciprocity, and issuance of permits. This bill would limit the Attorney General’s ability to determine reciprocity by taking away his/her power to determine if that state has similar laws authorizing permits.
It is critical that we respectfully urge Governor Freudenthal to sign SF 26. Contact information can be found here.
SOURCE: NRA /ILA
Coming to YOUR State soon!: The epic fail Obama’s minions are hard at work!
February 28, 2010It has been said that California leads the way when it comes to social change. Usually for the worse… I would however submit that as distorted and stupidly off course as my home state most often is? New York is just as much a leader in the destruction of freedom and Liberty. I mean think about it? This is a State that continually elects people like the straw purchase felon Michael Bloomberg, and the overtly treasonous to his oath to uphold the Constitution Charles Schumer!
New York, the State, is actually pretty conservative, if not outright Libertarian. However, democracy, being what it is? New York City rules the entire state. That’s a fact Jack! I think that is pathetic. Further, I think that the rest of New York should just pull up stakes, and secede from the city. Tell them to go take a hike,and form their own state. Much as my home state of California should be split into three entities… Or become parts of Nevada or Arizona…
Take a look at just what the minions of epic fail obama are trying to pull off in New York… As pissed as I get at the NRA? This should have been FRONT page at Gun Owners of America!
Read on faithful readers…
| Laundry List of Anti-Gun Bills Introduced in the Empire State |
| Friday, February 26, 2010 |
Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the laundry list of anti-gun bills pending consideration in Albany prior to the Assembly’s annual “gun day.” The package includes the following bills:
As the anti-gun agenda awaits activity, a few other measures deserve our support. They include Assembly Bill 5118A and its Senate companion, S 2430A, which would grant a tax exemption to conservation clubs and rod and gun clubs owning land having an assessed value of $500,000 or less. These bills are in the Assembly Real Property Tax Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee respectively. NRA-ILA also supports Assembly Bill 7463A and its Senate Companion, S 3299A, which would expand hunting opportunities by allowing the use of a rifle to hunt deer or bear in certain parts of Chautauqua County. These bills are pending in the Assembly and Senate Environment Committees, respectively. Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the anti-gun bills pending in the Assembly and to support AB5118A/S 2430A, AB7463A/S 3299A in both the Senate and Assembly. State Assembly Members can be reached by phone at (518) 455-4100. To find your Assembly Member, please click here. Your State Senator can be contacted through the Senate switchboard at (518) 455-2800. To find your State Senator, please click here. |
ACORN: Nuts by another name…
February 27, 2010What to do when you are a criminal organization that operates in the open and uses various “methods” for political and social “advancement?” At least as they see it? Why, change your name, and carry on as usual of course!
Around the Nation: ACORN Cracks Up
The friendly neighborhood nuts at ACORN are back in the news, but reports recounting the demise of the community organization may be a little premature. Offices across the land are turning out the lights and turning off the phones. One ACORN official wrote in an e-mail, “Last one to leave turn out the lights and wipe the server.”
However, many of ACORN’s administrators, employees and structure have been simply re-branded: The New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice in Boston, and so on. Each group will continue to be intertwined and work in concert, just under new identities.
Former ACORN officials are still bitter about the apparent demise of the organization, blaming “a pro-corporate agenda” and “a 24-hour propaganda channel” for exposing ACORN’s zeal to assist bootstrapping criminals. Nor are leftists spared ACORN’s wrath, as one observer noted that the movement “stood by while ACORN got gutted.”
In either case, the agenda will be the same once the successor organizations get on their feet, just in time for the 2010 elections. The fundraising is already under way and former ACORN leaders hope a new set of names will allow them to escape public scrutiny.
Pathetic Politicaly correct prosecutors: Honor Killing in AZ
February 27, 2010Arizona prosecutors have decided not to pursue the death penalty in the case of Faleh Al-Maleki, the Iraqi immigrant who struck his 20-year-old daughter Noor — and the woman who was protecting her — with his vehicle. Noor, whom Al-Maleki had accused of being too “Westernized,” died of her injuries, and her father has been charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident.
Public defender Billy Little asked the judge to take “special precautions” that the D.A. wouldn’t seek death because Al-Maleki is a Muslim. The irony is that Al-Maleki committed his crimes because by his own reckoning, his daughter was not true to her Muslim faith.
In addition, Little’s bias is apparently acceptable. Little, in reference to the religious beliefs of County Attorney Andrew Thomas, asked for “An open process [that] provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”
This murder was based on the centuries-old tradition — still adhered to in some parts of the world — of murdering female relatives who don’t obey Islamic rules. It is, arguably, even more disturbing when the crime happens in the United States and political correctness affords special protection for her murderer.
This is prosecutorial mis-conduct at it’s worst, and all in the name of political correctness.
CSU: Above the law…
February 27, 2010| Colorado State University Approves Proposal Outlawing Concealed Carry on Campus |
| Friday, February 26, 2010 |
| As we have reported, the Colorado State University (CSU) System Board of Governors drafted a proposal that would prohibit firearms on all CSU campuses with exemptions for law enforcement, military and the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC).
On Tuesday, February 23, the Board of Governors approved the proposal. The final approved weapons policy can be found at http://csusystem.edu/pages/documents/CSUWeaponsPolicyFinalasof021710.pdf. The Board of Governors drafted the policy knowing that it would violate the Colorado state firearm preemption law and the Colorado Uniform Shall-Issue Concealed Carry Law. Current state law strictly regulates the carry or transport of firearms on schools, colleges and universities. Their vote against concealed carry and self-defense is unfortunate and disappointing. Please contact President Tony Frank TODAY by phone at 970-491-6211 or email presofc@colostate.edu and respectfully voice your disapproval with the Board of Governor’s actions. |
Obama Threatening to Pass Anti-gun Health Care by Cheating
February 26, 2010He’s like a playground bully — on steroids!
According to a recent poll, only 23% of the American people want Congress to pass the anti-gun ObamaCare bill.
And the President’s response to this? He believes Americans are just too stupid to understand what geniuses like him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to do for us.
So what is Obama’s current plan?
Cheat.
ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.
In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget. Senators could reduce the deficit with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than getting the 60 needed votes to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process — called “reconciliation” — can ONLY be used for balancing the budget.
To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.
So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)?
He lies.
He fraudulently pretends the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs and pretending he’s going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).
And he intends to use this fraud scheme to cram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people against their will.
Americans don’t want the increased taxes and gun control that have been injected into the bill. Remember, Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to claim his legislation fixed the problems that Gun Owners of America had with this legislation.
But in reality, the bill still allows the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.
ACTION: Please contact your two senators and your representative. Tell them that using the budget-balancing “reconciliation” process to pass ObamaCare is nothing but cheating.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send a pre-written message to your legislators.
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear
ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.
In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget — with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 needed to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process — called “reconciliation” — can ONLY be used for reducing the deficit.
To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.
So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked congressional accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)? He lies. He fraudulently pretends ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs (the $247 billion “doc fix”) and pretending he’s going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).
This “reconciliation” scheme is nothing more than a fraud on the American people, who, according to every recent poll, oppose ObamaCare by overwhelming majorities.
Understand this: I strongly object to this “cheat scheme.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to claim his legislation fixed the anti-gun problems in ObamaCare. But in reality, it will still allow the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.
Please oppose the use of “reconciliation” to pass ObamaCare.
Sincerely,
Chi Town and Thuggery verses The People of America!
February 26, 2010Back when the Heller vs D.C. ruling came down the masses were thrilled. I warned back then that this battle was far from over, as did Gun Owners of America, The N.R.A. and every other reputable group that supports the Bill of Rights.
The anti Liberty and Freedom crowd find themselves in a precarious position as I see it. They are claiming that local rule should prevail. That sounds a lot like a Tenth Amendment argument to me. In other words, they are talking out of both sides of their faces. Incorporation either works for everything or the entire theory falls apart at the seams.
The same people are also using the old, tired, and utterly stupid argument that firearms kill people. They don’t, people kill people.
Should Otis McDonald prevail I submit that while it would be a major step forward in the cause of Liberty and Freedom the battle will still be far from over. The Supreme Court has, after all affirmed that ex post facto law is not un-Constitutional which is beyond comprehension. If, in fact there is a “win.” You can bet that there will be wiggle room left for the purveyors of despotism to impose their agenda upon the unwashed that are the people that they Laird it over.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 