Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle,
shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times
against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

By now, I’m sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called “American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA)” talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees
you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what
he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.

That’s the Barack Obama I know.

Sincerely,
(original signed)

Richard A. Pearson
Executive Director
Illinois State Rifle Association
October 10, 2008

420 E. Locust
P.O. Box 637
Chatsworth, IL 60921
Phone: (815) 635-3198 or (815) 635-3166
Fax: (815) 635-3723
Website: www.isra.org

Hat tip: Vic Conner

Posted at www.redstatepatriot.com

« Close It

"Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the Court's dissenters -- that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects 'collective rights' of states," Korwin notes. That position had little to support it in the historical record, but was favored by people seeking to ban firearms from public hands. The "collective rights" theory, a recent creation, was dismissed with ridicule by the Court (equating it to Alice in Wonderland). The Amendment itself speaks of "the security of a free state," and "the right of the people."

As the first book released about the landmark gun-rights decision, "The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed" describes the events leading up to the case, and precisely what the Court said, word-for-word and in plain English. If Obama follows the Court's decree, the civil rights of the general public should be fairly well safeguarded with respect to owning and using firearms.

If he instead follows the lead of his endorsers in the Brady Campaign, gun rights as America has known them for more than two centuries could easily end. His campaign positions so far suggest the latter, if he is elected. His widely available voting record is 100% consistent -- voting for every restriction on law-abiding gun use, and against every proposed protection for innocent individuals.

Virtually all recent gun-law proposals fall into those two categories -- bans on honest ownership and rights, or support for honest ownership and rights. New laws targeting criminals are rare, since every imaginable criminal activity with guns is already against the law and carries severe penalties.

The only thing left, according to leading experts, is to ban guns for non-criminals, a policy choice adopted in some circles. Gun bans on criminals have had embarrassingly little effect on street gangs, the drug war and career criminals in general. Facing abject failure of crime-related social policies, and unable to disarm criminals, many politicians are turning instead to civil-disarmament schemes. Working against this trend, "Disarm Criminals First" says one campaign slogan in the Marksmanship Movement.

The three publicly announced elements of the Brady-Obama anti-gun positions include:
1- Ban the freedom to sell firearms from one innocent person to another, euphemistically called the "gun-show loophole";
2- Allow all law enforcement officers to fish through gun-dealer records looking for paperwork or other violations, and compile data as they see fit, euphemistically known as "repealing the Tiahart Amendment" (which prevents them from doing so currently); and 3- permanently ban an enormous list of perfectly legal firearms and accessories based on looks, names and operating characteristics, euphemistically called an "assault-weapons ban."

First, knowledgeable observers know assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware, plus the ban seeks to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms. Second, it's already completely illegal for criminals to buy firearms under any circumstances, so the proposed private-sale ban would only affect innocent citizens. And third, the Tiahart Amendment protects the innocent from government registries and abuse, so all three proposals, as noted above, have virtually no effect on stopping crime, but do crush freedoms Americans currently enjoy.

A long wish list of other gun-freedom repeals have been previously announced by Brady, Obama and their supporters, but have not shown up in the candidate's platform yet. See some of them here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm
and many more here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/Left-wing%20Gun%20Plan.htm
including (as listed during the Clinton administration):

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.
2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.
3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.
4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).
5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).
6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).
7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.
8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).
9. Ban on manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.
10. Banning all military style firearms.
11. Banning machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.
12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.
13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.
14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
15. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms. (7.62x54R and .303).
16. Eventual ban of handgun possession.
17. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).
18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.
20. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo.
21. A national license for ammunition.
22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
26. Special Licensing of ranges.
27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
29. Banning Gun Shows.
30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

a. Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
b. Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.
c. Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and paintball).
d. The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
e. Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.
f. The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

[Backgrounder: Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. The website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and
relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. "Gun Laws of America" for news-media review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are available for
interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, "It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules."

By Alan Korwin
Oct. 16, 2008

Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

« Close It

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.
16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.
17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.
18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

While the national corporate media has covered the outcome of this case, their analysis has been (and will be) long on the sensationalism of the arguments between these two sides, and very short on what the opinion actually says. For those who are interested in the actual language and analysis of the Heller decision, as well as some educated guesses as to the likely directions this decision will take us in the future, this analysis will deal with the issues of importance that stand out to both practicing criminal defense attorney and political science professor.

The most important things about Heller, other than the mere fact that it squarely addresses the Second Amendment, are that it is far more comprehensive than the national media are explaining. This is no mere overturning of the District of Columbia's pervasive gun ban, it absolutely establishes that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to own and use firearms, as separate and distinct from any government controlled military organization. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, carefully analyzes each and every word of the Amendment, and does so from both a linguistic, legal, and historical perspective. He defines "arms", "bear", "people", "right", "keep", "militia", "state", and fully deconstructs how they are put together. There is nothing left to define here, no words about which the meaning can be speculated, and no syntax structure left to be manipulated. Short of outright overturn of the decision (which every Supreme Court abhors to do), the individual nature of this right is now set in stone. Further, Justice Scalia (rightly) heaps scorn on some of the more obtuse and insultingly disingenuous arguments that have been made to eviscerate the meaning of the Second Amendment over the last few decades. We begin our examination of Heller with its disposal of those "chestnuts".

For at least a couple of decades, we've been forced to endure the catchphrase that the Second Amendment only would allow private ownership of muskets and muzzleloaders, since that was what the founders were calling firearms. This was what would be called a "compromise position" uttered by the self congratulatory, semi-educated, through a haze of clove cigarette smoke. Justice Scalia harshly brought them to reality with the following:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 19th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima faciae, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The second venerable "chestnut" that has long been a lamppost for gun opponents to slouch against during any debate, has been to claim that the Second Amendment is only a "collective" right, indicating that it has to do with "militia service" or some existent group organized by the government, such as police forces, National Guard Units, or the proverbial "posse". While Justice Scalia spends considerable time on the exploration of the "militia" idea, before disposing of the gun opponents agenda for that phrase, he deals a swift death blow to the idea that the Second Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. He notes that the Second Amendment specifically says the "right of the people", and goes on to add that;

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology.[direct quote removed] All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

In footnote here he says that Justice Stevens contention that the right is conditioned on membership in a militia, and is "primarily collective in nature", Justice Scalia calls "deadwrong", citing McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479(1985) which defined the historical origins of another individual right set forth in the Bill of Rights. Writing for the majority Justice Scalia notes that, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right." In fact, he says, "We start therefore with the presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The opinion spends much of its length dealing with just how, precisely; the "militia" concept is entwined with the right to bear arms. In short, he says that the Second Amendment is divided into two distinct parts. The part that talks about "militia" is what he calls a "prefatory clause", a phrase used only to clarify or justify the important part of the statement, the "operative clause". The operative clause here is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

He clearly states that the operative clause is based on the long standing conflicts in England, where the government sought to disarm groups that opposed it, to better establish tyranny, and is the codification of a pre-existing right. Hence, the word "infringed", making it clear that the people already have a right to keep and bear arms. Had the amendment been designed to give a heretofore unknown right to the people, it would have read something like, "…does hereby grant to the people a right to keep and bear arms". (The founders were followers of the philosophy of the 18th century liberals philosophers, like John Locke, and believed that humans had inalienable rights, not that humans were only to be "given" rights by a sovereign.)

He says that the prefatory clause does not serve as a limit on the operative clause, and that "…operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues….[if]the prologue itself should be one of the factors that go into the determination of whether the operative provision is ambiguous [that] would cause the prologue to be used to produce ambiguity rather than resolve it."

He notes that the Constitution itself empowers congress to make a Navy and to raise Armies, but that the militias are something different. He argues that the plain language and history indicate the militias were pre-existing to the government, and were composed of all able bodied men, armed with their personal weapons. He conveys that there were many reasons the founders felt that a militia would be "necessary to the security of a free state", among them repelling invasion. Though he does not mention it specifically, it is worth noting that Admiral Yamamoto advised the Japanese military ruling council against a land invasion of California, primarily because the large number of armed citizens would make it an ungovernable quagmire. This shows that the founders belief that the security of the nation would be bolstered by having an armed populace was borne out, at least through the 20th century. Scalia also draws attention to the writings of Hamilton describing that a nation of armed, able bodied men, are better able to resist tyranny, and also spends some time discussing the history of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants for control of the monarchy, as the origins of this knowledge of armed resistance to tyranny. Thus he illuminates that the prefatory phrase about the militia is merely explanatory as to the operative phrase of just why it is so important that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The fundamental right established, the remaining three elements of this decision, upon which so many people waited so anxiously, were how the court was to deal with "crime", "regulation", and the types of "arms" protected.

Justice Scalia repeatedly referred to the right to use firearms to protect oneself in the home or on ones property. Over and over again, this entered into his analysis at all levels. This established two things never before addressed by the Court. First, that the 2nd Amendment is now related to an individual's right of self defense, not merely as a mechanism for defense of the nation against foreign aggression or domestic tyranny. Secondly it clearly establishes the right of a person to use a firearm in self defense. This second point, while it has escaped comment in the popular media, was hammered home, by repetition, throughout the opinion. By choosing this language, Judge Scalia laid a bulwark against any future efforts to undermine this right of self defense, such as is currently happening in England. There, many recent cases have found persons convicted for using deadly force to defend themselves from violent attack. It seems likely Judge Scalia took this opportunity to prevent such a perversion of justice from finding roots here in America. He goes so far as to call it the "core lawful purpose of self defense".

The court acknowledges the difficulties posed to communities by "handgun violence" but says that the Constitution leaves communities with a variety of tools for combating the problem, "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". To wit, governments and communities can't absolutely prohibit handguns, "held and used for self defense in the home".

As to the right of the government(s) to regulate ownership of firearms, the court clearly states that some regulations are permissible.. The court notes that like most rights, this right is not unlimited. Just as there are permissible limits on the freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice ones religions, so too there are reasonable limits that can be placed on ones right to keep and bear armaments. Scalia and the court note that the longstanding prohibitions which prevent convicted felons, or the mentally ill from owning firearms is permissible, as are restrictions preventing the carrying of firearms into sensitive locations. Specifically named are schools, and government buildings. Likewise the opinion specifically permits laws which impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Scalia says these are merely examples, and are not to be seen as the complete list, so we can presume that many more specific restrictions will not be undone by this opinion. It seems the BATF officers who conduct checks on gun stores and licensed dealers will not need to be updating their resume's, nor will the wand wielding inspectors at our courts, schools, and airports. However, the strong wording on the right to use a firearm to defend oneself in the home makes it likely any "school zone" bans which overlap anyone individuals private residence are likely defunct.

Lastly, the court did give some guidance in the area of the types of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, the area of great interest to both the enemies of gun ownership and firearms enthusiasts alike. Over the last couple of decades, this has been the central arena in the battle over guns in the US. Though this decision in no way creates a definitive list of what specific guns can be regulated or to degree, there is some pretty strong language limiting the governments reach in this regard.. On several occasion in the opinion, the court specifically upholds the ban on sawed off shotguns, as an example of the type of permissible regulation of weapons that are "unsafe" and not typical of the weapons used by the average soldier. The opinion cites the colonial regulations on the storage of gunpowder to minimize fire damage, and a singular colonial era regulation on keeping a loaded firearm for its danger to firefighters. This analysis would indicate that the government may prohibit ownership of particularly unusual or dangerous armaments. Do not expect regulations prohibiting flame throwers, rocket launchers, explosives or heavy weapons to be invalidated. However, this does not seem to extend to any weapons commonly used by the average soldier, or citizen. The popularity and utility of handguns, for use in personal self defense is given a great deal of discussion, and it seems that any "handgun" ban is going to be absolutely unconstitutional. Justice Scalia notes that many people prefer handguns for defense within the home because of their ease of handling in close quarters, and the fact that they free a second hand to do such necessary tasks as dialing the police, and though he doesn't mention it, hold a flashlight.

Of great interest in light of the recent battles fought over "assault style weapons", was a singular paragraph of great depth and analysis, that this author has yet to see addressed in the popular media. It is almost a summation of the entire analysis of the 2nd Amendment;

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias of the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large….But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This seems to say that like the analysis of the right of speech to be extended to our fax machines and cell phones, the right to militarily useful weapons should be protected. Light machine guns, and squad automatic weapons are probably not protected and may be "infringed", but the average infantryman's rifle, "M-16 rifles and the like", appear to be protected specifically by the Second Amendment. At least, for as long as the Supreme Court stands as it does today.

That said, the opinion does expose some weaknesses in the protection if affords. The exceptions made for regulation and licensing of firearms would be deeply disturbing if adopted on a wider scale than by the small political areas that will now be losing their comprehensive bans. The weakness in the decision, specifically, is that there is great deference shown to "licensing", which is treated as an acceptable accommodation to the right, for the District of Columbia. If licensing is a permissible way to regulate handguns, then by analogy, it would be permissible for the Federal government to potentially require licensing of all firearms. To allow this to occur would build a fatal weakness into our basic freedom, since registration makes later confiscation, by tyrant or invader, not only possible but likely. Historical examples of registration based confiscation are common, and not limited to the activities of the Nazi's, both in Germany and immediately upon conquest of a neighboring state which "enjoyed" a gun registration scheme.

Also, there is the phraseology that places it within governmental power to regulate the commercial sale and interstate commercial transport of arms. This may be the single greatest threat to our continued enjoyment of the benefits of the Second Amendment. There have been and continue to be ongoing attempts to prohibit or limit the person to person sale of firearms, without involving a "licensed" intermediary. These efforts to "close the gun show loophole" are largely unopposed by the firearms manufacture and retail industries, because they see the used gun market as competition to their revenue flow. However, this simple custom in the law is the razor thin edge between our current system and de facto national registration. This is not merely speculation, for this author personally seen basic, simple, felony criminal cases in Arizona, which directly demonstrated the existence of national gun registration as early as the year 2003.

In the several months before these cases went to trial, the prosecution was able to send the serial number of a pistol to the BATF, who contacted a licensed gun dealer in an outlying city in Arizona. That dealer FAXed the firearm purchase form, which had been filled out nearly 10 years prior, at the purchase of the pistol by an individual now accused of the crime. During trial, the local deputy county prosecutor was able to produce a copy of the actual form filled out by the defendant, with his handwriting, and signature, from a lawful purchase nearly a decade old. Bear in mind, this was not a federal crime, or even a high profile crime (the accused had no criminal record, and there were no injuries). If a low level, local, prosecutor, chasing down a simple local crime, can easily acquire the purchase forms from a lawful firearms purchase, nearly a decade old, from merely a manufacturers serial number, how is that not a national registration scheme already in place? The only current limitation on this registration scheme is that if a "gun confiscator" came to the addresses on each of those forms, the persons named could now answer, "I sold it to some guy 5 years ago". If the Heller decision permits laws to be passed which require all purchases to be either from licensed dealers, or that the transaction be done through a licensed dealer, the we automatically have national gun registration. The first and most important step for confiscation by either invader or tyrant.

While Justice Scalia concludes the majority opinion by writing "it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it will unfortunately require ongoing activism and vigilance to make sure another government body does not make it moot.

By David Roth

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

• ban all handguns
• ban the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms
• ban the Right-to-Carry in every state, nationwide
• ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection

And he voted against a “self-defense exception,” which absolves folks of violating gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend off criminal attack in the home.

Go to Obama’s website and you’ll see his claims of respect for your rights—claims which are, at best, misleading.

Obama’s website claims, “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”

But as the bumper sticker says—“The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting.”

In 1996, Obama’s Illinois state senate campaign answered a questionnaire indicating his support for a blanket ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.

In 2000, Obama sponsored a “one-gun-a-month” law to ration the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Illinois.

Obama has supported bans on ammunition magazines, gun-lock mandates, renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and California-style gun registration. He voted against confirmation of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court, and then refused to sign the pro-gun “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by 55 other senators and 250 House members in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case.

In July 2005, Obama voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act—a vote against the rights of every law-abiding gun owner, dealer and manufacturer in America, and a vote against our national defense.

Obama even proposed a federal law banning licensed firearm dealers from operating within five miles of any school or park, nationwide! Imagine a map with a five-mile circle drawn around every school and park in the United States. Unless you live in the wilderness interior of Alaska, you probably couldn’t find a law-abiding gun dealer anywhere under Obama’s ban!

Yet, while Obama’s disdain for Second Amendment freedom appears limitless, his attitude toward armed, violent criminals has been one of benign neglect, at best.

In 1999, on a vote in the Illinois senate on whether to try teenage gang-bangers as adults when they fire a gun on or near school grounds, Obama voted “present” —the functional equivalent of “NO”!

In 2001, when Illinois lawmakers tried to control rampant gang violence by making gang members eligible for the death penalty when they commit murder to help their gang, Obama voted against the measure.

Responding to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire, Obama said he believed federal mandatory-sentencing laws used to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished!

And if those same violent criminals attack you, Obama opposes your fundamental, God-given right to protect yourself. He opposes your Right to Carry. In fact, according to Obama’s own hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, Obama supports federal legislation to ban the Right to Carry for everyone but police officers!

Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home for self-defense; and when Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill that would exonerate citizens for violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend themselves in their homes, Obama voted “NO”!

Even attorney Walter Dellinger, who tried to defend the Washington, D.C., gun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court, admitted, “It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying.”

In other words, Barack Obama’s position is even more anti-gun than the District of Columbia’s! Obama’s record is clear—his concept of “hope and change” will surely result in anti-gun/anti-freedom changes bringing more hopelessness for the most helpless in our society.

Now is the time to act! Every gun owner in America must be alerted to Obama’s record.

Please, tear out this page (from the American Hunter magazine), copy it and distribute it to fellow gun owners, hunters, shooters, family and friends. Spread the word and get ready for the most important election battle of our lifetime.

President’s Column
By John C. Sigler
NRA President

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

This decision provides a roadmap for how Congress should withdraw jurisdiction from judicial supremacists in other fields, too. The Second Circuit decision is a sweeping affirmation of Congress's power to stop future and pending lawsuits in federal and state courts.

This ruling broke an alarming trend of judicial supremacy and stopped outrageous lawsuits that tried to impede the sale of guns because of illegal acts committed by New York City residents and others. Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg was left empty-handed in his attempt to sue businesses concerning crimes committed by residents of his city.

The lawsuit cited the harm from gun sales while ignoring evidence that the benefits far outweigh the harm. The trial court sided with Bloomberg, but the appellate court said "no" and put an end to the nonsense.

Congress had legislated the basis for this decision by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. The PLCAA protects against a "qualified civil liability action," defined broadly to include almost any lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer or seller based on "the criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm distributed in interstate commerce. On the day it was signed into law by President Bush, gun manufacturers moved to dismiss this case, and the Second Circuit has now enforced the law.

The appellate court rejected an argument that this law denied access to the courts. New York City can and does sue all the time, but Congress properly rejected the ridiculous notion that the city could sue businesses over a typically beneficial product that was later used illegally.

Should General Motors and Ford be held liable for crimes committed by drunk drivers, or baseball bat suppliers be sued for criminal beatings inflicted with their products? Of course not, and it was an outrage that courts even entertained such actions against gun manufacturers and suppliers.

If Congress had not effectively withdrawn jurisdiction, gun manufacturers would be reluctant to produce guns and many might go out of business. This intimidation would deter the lawful sale of guns.

That's exactly what the gun-control advocates have long wanted: legislation from the bench that they could not persuade real legislatures to pass. A majority of legislators, who are elected, see the absurdity of gun control and recognize the valuable self-defense function of guns.

The role of judges should be (as Chief Justice Roberts repeated in his confirmation hearings) like that of baseball umpires: calling the balls and strikes, but not changing how many strikes constitute a strike-out. Judges should interpret ambiguous laws fairly but not legislate from the bench.

Gun control has become so unpopular that not even the Democratic presidential candidates dare brag about their views. Instead the anti-gun crowd hopes to get what it wants from supremacist judges.

The misuse of the courts to obtain a result contrary to the will of the American people should not be allowed on other vital issues. Congress should also take away from judges issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, and the definition of marriage.

Take another example. Federal courts should not entertain lawsuits by illegal aliens against local ordinances that enforce our immigration laws.

This refreshing gun decision by the Second Circuit signals the way for Congress to return the judiciary to its proper place in our constitutional separation of powers system. In the previous Congress, the House did pass bills to curb court mischief about the Pledge of Allegiance and the definition of marriage, and now it's time for the Senate to step up to the plate and take action against judicial supremacists.

May 21, 2008
by Phyllis Schlafly
http://mail.hughes.net/cp/ps/Main/login/Authenticate?s=1211409060068&v=1211409060068

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Chicago fights rise in teen murders -
Recent wave of violence includes 20 students killed since September
The Associated Press
March. 27, 2008

CHICAGO - The morning trip to school for dozens of teenagers here had all the normal signs: bleary eyes, oversized jackets zipped up against the chill, the seemingly endless wait for the bus.

But there was tension underlying the routine: The trip was under the watchful eyes of parents, an alderman, a principal and police.

The escort to and from Crane Tech High School this week, dubbed "Operation Safe Passage" is just one of the ways Chicago is dealing with a wave of violence that has stunned the city.

Since September, 20 Chicago Public Schools students have been killed, 18 by gunfire. Last school year, 24 of the more than 30 students killed were shot to death, compared with between 10 and 15 fatal shootings in the years before.

"The loss of life that we've seen among our young people is ... devastating," said school district spokesman Michael Vaughn. "This gun nonsense has reached a crisis level."

Dramatic increase

The number of violent deaths involving students in the nation's third-largest school district has increased so dramatically in the last two years that police are increasing school patrols and soon will be the first department in the country with live access to thousands of security cameras mounted outside — and inside — schools.

Chicago Public Schools is one of the only urban districts to track how many students are killed by guns — though none of the slayings have occurred on school property.

Nationally, homicide was the second-leading cause of death for young people ages 10 to 24 in 2004, and of those killed, 81 percent were killed with a firearm, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Chicago's overall homicide rate, like that in other major cities, dropped to a record low in 2007. But the murders that do occur are hitting young people hard, frightening students and parents, and prompting everyone from Mayor Richard M. Daley to activists to call for action.

Operation Safe Passage began this week. It provides escorts for students from the ABLA Homes public housing development to Crane Tech High School. Many of the 120 students from the housing project have not been to school since March 7 because they fear retaliation after a reputed gang member from ABLA shot and killed another student who lived on a rival gang's turf.

Three of Michelle Johnson's children attend Crane, and she says the escorts help — somewhat.

"For right now, I feel it's kinda safe," said Johnson, who added that she is willing to take her children to school every day until the situation improves.

Police to have access to school cameras

Daley recently announced a new resource for police — access to the 4,500 security cameras mounted inside and outside about 200 elementary and high schools.

The real-time video from the cameras once was available only to school officials, but now police and the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications will be able to see it as well. Daley said indoor cameras will be used only in emergencies.

Daley also has rolled back the curfew times for minors by half an hour, to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.

Many observers insist the issue isn't a school problem but a symptom of overall violence in the city. In fact, students in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods say school — with metal detectors, private security guards and uniformed police officers — is the one place they feel safe.

Antigun activists and officials say the violence highlights a dangerous reality: Arguments among young people that used to be resolved with fistfights now end in gunfire.

"They're just shooting out of rage," said the Rev. Michael Pfleger, an outspoken priest on the city's South Side whose church is putting up a $2,500 reward for information each time a CPS student is killed. The Chicago Board of Education has promised to match with its own $2,500 reward.

Tio Hardiman, executive director of the anti-violence group CeaseFire, said many young people consider a firearm their only protection. The way to reduce violence is to stop petty arguments among young people before they escalate into gunfire, Hardiman said.

"A lot of young guys in the community, first of all, would rather get caught with a gun than without a gun," Hardiman said. "There's a need a dire need for more conflict resolution training."

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23824652/

« Close It

Some of the most memorable and shocking misfortunes are shootings in schools. There is a problem already. These are referred to as “shootings” as in, the threats shot their victims as if they were fish in a barrel. Shootings should be avoided by taking necessary action. If citizens on campus could have access to firearms these “shootings” would be referred to as “shootouts” as in, the threats tried to shoot their victims but several of the “fish” fought back with an equal deadly force and stopped the threat. Many seem to refuse to learn from past experience in the case of a school shooting. School shootings occur because the attackers know that no one will have a chance at fighting back. Schools are “Gun Free Zones.” Of course, this only applies to law abiding citizens.

Instead of allowing qualified persons in schools to carry firearms to assure safety, students and teachers lock themselves in little rooms and squeeze together. The logic behind this must be to assist the attackers in taking more lives. By grouping themselves together, the attackers can easily mow down three or four defenseless students with one shot. Those that invented the lockdown procedure believe in a false sense of security.

Zero-tolerance policies for guns by schools are an affront to U.S. Constitution and everything this country stands for. This must come to an end.

Incidents such as Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings may have been prevented if law abiding citizens with FBI background checks and training were allowed to possess firearms on school grounds. Violent crimes are less likely to be committed when the attacker knows that their victims will defend themselves with deadly force.

Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, brings up an interesting point based on common sense thinking tactics: “Sure, blame the gun. Keep on ducking real responsibility for children's safety and moral education. Teach people to be afraid, but not how to protect themselves. Keep on hating inanimate objects and the law-abiding people who own them.” Another common mistaken belief is caused by the false sense of security that everyone will follow the rules. The truth is simple. Why would a criminal with intentions of breaking the law obey gun control laws? Laws banning firearms are only followed by law abiding citizens.

Prior to the enactment of the 1995 “Gun-Free School Zone” legislation signed by President Bill Clinton, teachers could bring firearms onto school grounds. Between 1977 and 1995 there was only one school shooting in states that had right-tocarry laws. Then the carnage began first in October 1997, in Pearl, Mississippi. No firearms on campus set the stage for mass killings. When there is nobody prepared to defend lives with deadly force an evil person sees an opportunity for a free ride.

During a school lockdown, some students feel safe.

School administrators believe that the perception of security is more important that providing real security for students.

Massad Ayoob, a law enforcement officer, renowned expert on firearms and self defense techniques estimates that one out of twenty teachers and administrators would be willing to carry firearms on campus.

Patrick Johnston describes several incidents that occurred within six weeks of each other in the United States public school system:

• A drifter walks off the street into a Colorado public school and kidnaps a half a dozen girls before sexually molesting then shooting one of them.
• Three Wisconsin teenagers are taken into custody for plotting a bomb attack on their school.
• A teacher is gunned down in Vermont as a man searches angrily from classroom to classroom for his ex-girlfriend.
• Another student in a rural school shoots his principal. (Johnston) What do all of the incidents have in common? These crimes were committed within the boundaries of safe “gun-free zones.” All of these hostiles shared one puzzle piece of knowledge that allowed them to choose their target and go through with their plans. No one was going to stop them.

Gun-Free Zones are extraordinarily dangerous places. All “gun-free zones” amount to are “selfdefense prohibition zones” for law abiding citizens, and therefore become “free-fire zones” for psychopaths, “terrorists,” and other homicidal criminals (Vieira). Schools are the most well known “gun-free zones.” If a picture of a laser gun is sketched by a student, there will most likely be serious consequences to pay for. The idea on firearms in schools must be reversed before any more occurrences transpire, causing more deaths of beloved students and children. The U.S. constitution, the constitutions of forty four states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states are acquainted with the right to use arms in selfdefense in one way or another. Right-to-carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individual citizens to carry firearms for protection.

Why should the United States school systems remain vulnerable by not adapting to the only practical trend that succeeds in protection? It is time to restore liberty and safety at all our schools.

By Brett Hoeppner
January 9, 2008

Brett Hoeppner is an AP Honors Sophomore at Cactus Shadows High School, SCTP National Champion in Skeet Shooting, Arizona Junior Olympic Silver Medalist in International Skeet and a Life Member of the NRA.

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2008/080109-02/GuestEditorial.html

Red State Patriot response: Linda Bentley reported in the January 30, 2008 Sonoran News that Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, after reading Brett Hoeppner’s convincing guest editorial about the fallacy of gun-free-school zones, introduced a bill that would allow concealed weapons on school grounds by persons in possession of a valid permit.

« Close It

A key step in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence was the Bush Administration’s decision to adopt the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. This theory holds that the Supreme Court’s Miller decision was, in essence, incorrect, and that the right to keep in bear arms means what it says -- that an individual has a right to own guns. The Department of Justice in 2001 reversed the Clinton Administration’s previous position on the right to bear arms, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Yet for the past seven years, the Administration has stood its ground and consistently instructed its United States Attorneys to argue for the individual right to bear arms, if they could given the law of their Circuit.

So it came as an absolute shock to many supporters of an individual right to keep and bear arms when the Solicitor General filed a brief in the Heller matter opposing the plaintiffs’ claims. This remarkable brief brings back memories of the Administration’s position in the Grutter and Gratz cases, where the Administration argued that, while the schools’ affirmative action policies were unconstitutional, the rationale behind them was not.

The Solicitor General’s brief in Heller similarly tries to split the baby. It argues, strenuously, that the Constitution does protect and individual’s right to bear arms. It also argues that, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. It then suggests a more restrictive test for the right than that used by the Court of Appeals: that a court should consider the practical impact of the regulation on the right to bear arms and the
government’s interest in the enforcement of the regulation, rather than the Court of Appeals’ more categorical approach to regulations of “Arms.” In other words, it argues for a kind of intermediate scrutiny. The Solicitor General suggests that the Court adopt a different test than that used by the Court of Appeals, and then remand the case for further review.

Which raises the question: What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking? For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control. Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress. Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture? And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

There are two potential answers. The generous answer lies in the composition of the Court. It is thought that the four “conservative” Justices -- Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito -- are sympathetic to the individual right to bear arms. The four “liberal” Justices -- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter -- may be more hostile. This leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. Kennedy is notoriously difficult to predict, especially on high-profile “social issues.” It is also true that within the next few years, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will be replaced, possibly with a Republican President. So the Solicitor General may be gambling that Justice Kennedy will be easier to persuade with a lower standard, or that if the plaintiffs get a remand, the Court may be more conservative when the case comes back up, and more likely to win in the long run.

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration. Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on. No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism. Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals
appointments were Clinton appointees. Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

Regardless, this issue is in the Supreme Court of the United States. Its decisions are not easily overruled once they are handed down. Even if one gives the Administration the benefit of the doubt, it has made an awful error here by siding against the District’s citizens. The job of a conservative administration is to attempt to persuade the Court to
adopt conservative views, not to attempt to play politics or split the baby. It has foregone an opportunity to write a brief that could persuade the Justices to adopt a view of the Second Amendment that assigned scrutiny commensurate with those of other guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, in a high stakes election, which is likely to be a tough one for the Republican, the Administration has risked alienating a substantial portion of the Republican base, who are understandably incensed with the Administration, and will be apoplectic if the Court does not affirm the Court of Appeals.

The Administration seems to be playing a game of high stakes poker with an incendiary issue in an election year. One can only hope it does not get us all burned.

by Sean P. Trende
01/22/2008

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Now, appearing in the current issue of the typically ultra-liberal Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), is the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.” It is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. It would appear the facts show just the opposite. The researchers predictably conclude, just as every previous study has concluded, that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates as those which allow guns.” (Emphasis added)

The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the time-worn claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our “Right” to keep and bear arms. What these two seasoned researchers reveal is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun control laws. Logically, one could extrapolate that in America, the highest crime rates should be in places with strictest gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. And unremarkably, facts bear out that reality. However, in areas both here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership, violent crime rates are much lower.

Kates documented (in an earlier study) a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, during a period when overall gun ownership increased 103 percent, and handgun ownership went up 163 percent. Yet during that same period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.

Due to the renewal of the gun control debate in the main stream media following the recent events at Virginia Tech, researchers Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd who choose to dispense seemingly endless misinformation to the uninformed public. While the latest research study will obviously not close the debate, any more than a dozen more studies that reach the same conclusion will close the debate, Kates and Mauser make a strong case against the anti-gun mantra. Their conclusion is that gun ownership is factually not the problem – gun ownership is not the cause of violent crime. There are other critical societal issues at play and the violence would likely be far, far worse were it not for gun ownership.

The inescapable conclusion from multiple studies is that ‘Gun Control’ is nothing but ‘Victim Disarmament,’ a central provision in every piece of gun control legislation. Ask yourself thoughtfully; how many armed citizens become the victims of a crime? In contrast, how may unarmed citizens do you suppose become the victims of a crime? Arguably, the unarmed citizens have a huge propensity to become crime victims.

Reality begs the question, why would any politician want to disarm his own nation’s citizens in the face of rampant international Islamic terrorism, and particularly if strict gun control laws have been irrefutably shown to increase the incidence of both international and domestic violent crime? Why would any politician knowing these facts want to create more victims? An informed politician serving our national interest would not make that choice. But then, why would any politician advocate open borders at the expense of American citizens except in their own self-interest?

What then is the ulterior motive of gun control advocates and most entrenched politicians? Clearly, their intent is not to reduce the number of crime victims. Their only other imaginable agenda is one of self-interest. Ultimately, could it be their intent to pave the way for our forcible submission to government policies repugnant to the majority of Americans? The incremental erosion and eventual loss of individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights is unrelenting, which by itself is a recipe for national repression. Private property is all but gone; freedom of speech has become a historical footnote; freedom of religion has mutated into freedom from the Christian religion; socialism has been instituted as the national religion; and the right to bear arms is diminishing under constant attack. Only the most naive of American citizens still entertain the delusion that Congress is serving their national interest and not attempting to rule in their own self-interest.

For numerous citations, search the internet for the listed authors of the study. To save time, a very informative and substantive article can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Gun registration, followed by gun confiscation and the final destruction of the Second Amendment, is but the first part of an orchestrated campaign to ultimately strip the American people of the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights. The subversive members of Congress who would perpetrate this crime fully realize that law abiding gun owners are the single biggest obstacle to their ultimate plan for a socialist-democratic government (in which, of course, they personally will gain immensely in power and influence while the people they were elected to represent suffer).

Although all individuals everywhere have inalienable rights, it has been repeatedly proven throughout history that only those who are armed can ultimately defend their rights against governments and politicians who seek to abrogate them. So it follows that politicians with subversive objectives must disarm a free people before they can usurp the rest of their freedoms.

That is the clear intention behind their current gun registration scheme, an intention they have admitted in private, although they deny it publicly. Lying to the public, disseminating falsehoods, and "spinning" the truth so that it seems to support their political agenda when in fact it does not are the acknowledged tools of socialist politicians everywhere. Remember that these are people who believe that the ends justify the means, and that there is no objective truth, only whatever "truth" serves their political purposes. It is a viewpoint and tactic practiced and polished to its present perfection in the 20th Century by the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) movements and parties.

Our Founding Fathers were coming at the issue from the other side: their goal was to protect the individual freedoms they had risked so much to secure. They realized that only an armed populace could guarantee the continuation of a free society. They had the foresight to see that someday the Federal Government that they were reluctantly creating might itself threaten the very freedoms it was established to protect. That is why they guaranteed in the Second Amendment the individual right of the people to maintain (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns).

It is no accident that the Fathers placed the right to maintain and bear arms (which became the Second Amendment) right after the First Amendment (which guarantees the most basic human rights), and before the other eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They regarded it as the second most important right, the guarantor of all other rights.
This is clear to anyone who has read the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison). The Second Amendment was primarily intended to guarantee that the people could defend the First and all subsequent Amendments in the Bill of Rights against the intrusion of the federal government, should it ever become necessary. That is a responsibility that still rests upon the shoulders of all law abiding gun owners today.

Now a group of amoral socialists and venal intellectual lightweights in Congress want to destroy the work of intellectual giants like John Adams, Sam Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and the others who framed the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). These socialists don't accept that you have "an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The words "Inalienable right" mean a right not subject to the whim of government, a right with which you are born and from which you cannot be separated. They think all rights are subject to their interpretation, and usually claim that "the people" (which means everyone not in the ruling cabal) must sacrifice their rights for the "greater good" (which invariably turns out to mean what is good for the politicians in the ruling cabal).

It isn't only the Second Amendment that the socialists (that is what they are, regardless of their party affiliation) despise, they have also repeatedly assaulted the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments in their ongoing struggle to "break" the Bill of Rights. (WAKE UP MAINSTREAM AMERICA, IT ISN'T JUST LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS WHO ARE UNDER ASSAULT HERE, IT IS YOU WHO ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS.)

Ultimately we must answer to an authority higher than the political power brokers inside the Beltway who currently run the Federal Government. This is particularly true at a time when so many individuals of corrupt morality, questionable ethics, and unsavory motives populate the US Congress. Individuals who have a proven record of foolish (and sometimes criminal) behavior, lying to their constituents, and undermining the Constitution they have sworn to protect. In a just and moral government the Senators and Representatives named at the beginning of this essay and their cohorts would be removed from office for violating their oath of office. (They promised to uphold and protect the Constitution when they were sworn in as Senators and Representatives.) Their subversive actions, in the main, are not legally treasonous (the legal requirements for treason are very difficult to fulfill), but they amount to the same thing.

It is this age old tendency of government to become elitist and encroach on the rights of its own citizens, well understood by the Founding Fathers that we as citizens of the United States must find a way to resist today. And because it is the gun owners of America who must bear the brunt of the initial assaults on the rights of all the people of the United States, it is we who own guns who must first take a stand. We must somehow draw a figurative line in the sand. The practical question becomes, how shall we do so?
My proposal is that we gun owners adopt a policy popularized (in a different context, to be sure) by Nancy Reagan when she was First Lady. I suggest that we "Just say NO." NO to gun registration, and NO to gun confiscation. If the majority of the 65 million law abiding gun owners in the United States take the moral high ground and say NO, the government will be powerless to enforce its anti-gun laws on a widespread scale.

I do not suggest such a course lightly as I am a working class guy, a veteran who volunteered to serve in the armed forces of his country and emerged with an Honorable Discharge, and a citizen who gripes about, but does not cheat on, his taxes. I support my local police and I have never been arrested for any crime (let alone charged or convicted). I like to think of myself as being a reasonably moral person (but, God knows, far from perfect), and (although not a jingoist) as patriotic as the next guy. These things do not by any means make me exceptional; in fact they make me ordinary. I mention them merely to show that I am not by inclination or experience a criminal.

I realize that I am openly advocating breaking the law, should gun registration (for instance) become law. But I reason that such a law is immoral as well as unconstitutional. And it is the duty of every citizen to refuse to obey immoral laws, just as it is the duty of every soldier to refuse to obey immoral orders, whatever the personal cost. It now falls to us to put our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor on the line, following the example of the brave and noble men who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Admittedly, those in government charged with enforcing these abhorrent laws will arrest a few visible individuals who advocate just saying NO (perhaps including me) to make "examples" of them. But they simply lack the resources to arrest the biggest part of 65 million otherwise law-abiding citizens. And should they try, I have to believe that the majority of mainstream America will finally see and understand what is happening and rise to our defense by electing different politicians who will repeal the anti-gun laws and free those who were arrested for refusing to register or surrender their guns.

In urging all gun owners to "Just Say NO" to gun registration and confiscation, I am advocating a form of civil disobedience that I hope will become so widespread and visible that it will cause the opponents of freedom to pause. Make them realize that their own political demise will be the inevitable result of their actions. Perhaps if the gun owners of America take this stand it will ultimately save the Second Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights, from those who seek to destroy it. I am hoping that word of this proposal spreads rapidly to, and finds acceptance with, the majority of gun owners in every corner of this land.

Understand, I am not suggesting or advocating initiating violence or the use of force against anyone. In my view force, and particularly lethal force, should properly be used only to protect and defend one's life or property (or the life and property of another innocent person).

In any case, speaking only for myself, I have benefited from living in a free country for my entire life, some 57 years as I write these words. Because of that freedom I have been able to vote, run a small business, hunt, fish, and travel to foreign lands, and do many things that would have been impossible for a working class person in a society without the freedoms protected by the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights. If it is now necessary to stand up for freedom, to take a risk, even to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to help give succeeding generations their chance to live in a free country, so be it.

I am pledging on my sacred honor to say "NO" to gun registration and/or confiscation. I humbly ask you, gentle reader, after serious consideration and in full realization of the potential consequences, to make the same pledge. And to pass the idea along to all of the gun owners (and other freedom loving citizens) you know. As Ben Franklin said in 1776 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

« Close It

"Some of our cleverest leaders solved that. First, we passed a law requiring that everyone care for their guns and store them properly. We instituted a massive educational campaign to stress the importance of this.

"That helped, but of course there were still people who didn’t comply.

"The way we ultimately solved the problem was for the government to provide citizens with the service of taking care of their guns for them.

"We built huge buildings in every community and hired firearm experts to work there. We passed a new law requiring everyone to drop off their guns at the building closest to them every morning, and then pick them up in the early evening. Some complained this was inconvenient for them, so we created a system to pick the guns up at each home every morning and return them to the owners in the evenings.

"Having the guns all day gives our government-trained firearms experts a chance to modify those that don’t comply with gun regulations, in addition to making sure they are cleaned and stored safely.

"It’s a win-win. Folks really appreciate this service!

"A great side effect that we didn’t anticipate was that it gives more freedom to everyone! No longer do citizens worry about what might happen to their guns if they left them at home during the day, so they can go to work or run their errands in peace.

"They know their guns are safe and well-cared-for. And of course they appreciate not having to do the hard work of taking care of their guns themselves."

Councilman Brown interrupts with a question: "Have you encountered any problems with this system?"
"Not really." Ms. Smith pauses. "Well, some people complain that the government experts don’t do a good job. Some say that their guns don’t work as well as they used to, or that they prefer to take care of them themselves, for whatever reasons.

"No problem. To appease these complainers, we allow them to take their guns to private, licensed companies that provide the same service. Of course, not many people take advantage of these private services, because after all they have to PAY for them, whereas the tax-funded government service is free.

Councilman Jones: "Sounds great! This is something I think we should consider here."

I look around at the mostly conservative and libertarian crowd – who, predictably go ballistic.

"You’ve got to be kidding!" says a man on the front row. "You’ll never see that here!" says another.

"You’ll take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!" shouts a man in the back row, and soon the crowd is on its feet – echoing his statement and booing the politicians.

Whew! It’s clear we won’t see this sort of thing in my community any time soon.

As I nod in agreement with the crowd, I notice an image out of the corner of my eye – a bright yellow school bus is passing by the window.

And suddenly I realize that just about everyone in the room allows government workers to come every day and take away something – something far more precious than any piece of metal.

That big yellow school bus takes our children to huge government buildings where most of their waking hours are spent. Where each day begins with an invocation of loyalty to the state. Where their most treasured spiritual values and symbols are banished. Where peer pressure replaces family values. Where the truly important questions of life can’t be asked, much less answered. Where pop culture surpasses the classics. Where socialism is taught – both in theory and by example. Where conformity and indoctrination are far more important than thinking or reading…

Libertarians and most conservatives boldly and nobly take a stand for our right to keep and bear arms. Not so we can go duck hunting, but so we can defend ourselves and our families from invasion. And so we can, if necessary, defend our liberty from the possibility of a tyrannical state.

But what if the tyranny we fear comes to pass – grown and nurtured in our very homes?

Until we have equal passion for defending our children from the invasion of their MINDS – unless we take a bold and noble stand for the separation of SCHOOL and state – we will continue to allow our children to be taken from our warm, loving arms.

by Sharon Harris

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/harris-sharon1.html

« Close It

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.
12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.
13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.
14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R and .303).
16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession..
17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).
18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.
20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.
21. A National License for Ammunition.
22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
26. Special Licensing of ranges.
27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
29. Banning Gun Shows.
30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:
Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.
Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and paintball).

PLUS:
The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.
The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

While it’s true Republicans haven’t done very much to defend your gun rights (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer little support for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will impose on you if they gain power in the next election. It’s your choice. Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box? Tell your friends.

Easy to forget after six years of Republican rule

If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and voting on election day like you’re supposed to, this message is too late and you got screwed.

Thanks for reading.
Permission to circulate this message gladly granted.
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Link to an excellent website and the original article:
http://www.gunlaws.com/index.htm

Red State Patriot commentary:

The liberal gun control lobby just won’t quit, any more than the homosexual, anti-Christian, cut and run, income redistribution for votes, amnesty for illegal aliens, anti-military, anti-national defense, socialized medicine, wildly progressive taxation, dumbing down of Americans, politically correct, attempts to concentrate power in the hands of liberals will quit.

As a retired Arizona police officer, after having faced illegal immigration and rampant crime for what feels like a lifetime, I can unequivocally tell you gun violence studies of the past two decades have been based on blatantly flawed methodology cynically knowing the populace wouldn’t know the difference. The few remaining studies were unduly influenced by arrogant liberal political agendas. The predictable study outcomes were biased conclusions incapable of statistical or medical substantiation. Democrats in particular and liberals in general arrogantly think we are too stupid to know the difference. You should be intellectually offended - but hopefully because you are reading this that begs the question.

Even the Medical Sentinel, the official Journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argued in 2001 that many of those individuals and groups who conducted these “gun” studies decided in advance what they wanted to prove, and then began their study "prejudiced" by their goal. The studies were not objective, either intuitively or scientifically. Here are a few examples of widely accepted claims based on tainted studies promoted by anti-gun special-interest groups that attempt to turn public perception of daylight into darkness:

• Women are in more danger if they own or carry guns. The truth is: women, in particular, are NOT in more danger if they carry or own guns.
• The ease of access to or availability of guns is the cause of crime. The truth is: access to or availability of guns is NOT the cause of crime.
• Mass killings could be avoided if guns were not available. The truth is: mass killings will be avoided more often if guns are available.
• Gun violence is the leading accidental cause of death of children. The truth is: only someone deaf, dumb, blind and brain dead at birth would believes assertions that are statistically the opposite of the truth. It would appear only conservatives recognize or care about the truth.

The “health establishment's” stated and unambiguous objective in 1979 was "total eradication of handguns in the United States." Nothing in that Democratic Party agenda has changed and gun-control ideologues are not taking prisoners. Every officially-sanctioned follow-up study since 1979 has been influenced by the “eradication” objective. Extrapolating, so will future gun-control studies by similar groups of agenda-driven social engineers who seek power and want to be unafraid of citizen rebellion.

Almost predictably, scientific corruption is once again solely of liberal orientation. Gun control is no different than any other form of social engineering. By promulgating preordained research that claims an inverse correlation between the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and national public safety, liberals hold true to tradition and belief that the end justifies the means. The truth is that the Democratic Party’s pre-ordained gun control agenda is absent not only facts and a basis in reality, but Constitutional justification – assuming the U.S. Constitution still means anything to anybody but a conservative.

What you need to know is that much of the information you receive from the liberal ideological research and media reporting regarding gun control is intentionally tainted, result-oriented, and based on what can only be characterized as inaccurate data, predetermined outcomes and poor science. Calling it science is a huge stretch of sanity. You would best serve your own interests to visit Alan Corbin’s website on a regular basis.

Red State Patriot

« Close It