Barack Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice will likely bring rough times for gun owners. She has proven herself to be anti Second Amendment, and joined her New York Appeals Court in January in ruling that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the States to protect citizens from infringements by local and state governments.
She is a poster child for a proverbial loose cannon who will disregard and ignore the law to advance her own personal opinions, agenda, and preferences in cases before the court as she has done in the past. Just ask the white Connecticut firemen whom she ripped apart in their discrimination case.
The Senate Republican leadership has announced that there will be no filibuster in her appointment future. She will be confirmed. But, its never too late to contact your Senator to say no to her.
Here's what Sotomayor said in her anti Second Amendment ruling in Malone v Cuomo.
"The Second Amendment provides: “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.”
U.S. Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008).
It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886)(stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006).
Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present
the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we “must follow Presser” because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.’” Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v.
Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997).
Thus, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not
violate the Second Amendment."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Gun Rights Records Of Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Frontrunners Are Dismal
Barack Obama will be making his Supreme Court replacement nomination soon. Although six people have been named as possible replacements, Obama could nominate another. There are no specific Constitutional qualifications for the job. SCOTUS Justices don't even have to be lawyers.
Here are some positions on gun rights taken by these six possible front runners.
Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is now our Homeland Security chief. She has an anti gun record. She vetoed an Arizona bill that would have allowed a defensive display of firearms by Arizonans when confronted by a criminal. She also vetoed a bill that would ave made concealed weapons permits valid for the holder's life. She is also responsible for the slanderous Homeland Security report about the "terrorist" right wing.
2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has said that it is the job of the Court to "make law." This has the effect of acting as a super legislature, rather than just interpreting the law. She was one of two judges on her Court who ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. She has a similar personal background as Barack Obama.
California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno has an anti gun record in California. He joined with the majority of his Court in ruling that California Counties have the right to ban gun shows on their property.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The Solicitor General's office supervises and conducts government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Her view of the Heller case is that there was no reason for the Court to rule any other way than it did against restrictive D.C. Gun laws. She believes that the Solicitor General's office will continue to defend against constitutional challenges to various federal firearms regulations.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was a vocal opponent of proposed concealed carry laws in 2002. She was among those predicting shootouts at every traffic accident. She recently said that her anti concealed carry posture was proved wrong by law abiding Michigan concealed permit holders. Some consider her a "moderate" Democrat. She may not be liberal enough for Obama for her to get this job.
Obama's statements have made it clear that he is looking for an "activist" to join the Court. He certainly isn't looking for an originalist interpretation of the law.
By replacing a liberal with a liberal, at least the appointment of an Obama radical won't tip the balance of the Court. Based on Obama's criteria for activism, Sonia Sotomayor may be perfect for Obama.
Here are some positions on gun rights taken by these six possible front runners.
Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is now our Homeland Security chief. She has an anti gun record. She vetoed an Arizona bill that would have allowed a defensive display of firearms by Arizonans when confronted by a criminal. She also vetoed a bill that would ave made concealed weapons permits valid for the holder's life. She is also responsible for the slanderous Homeland Security report about the "terrorist" right wing.
2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has said that it is the job of the Court to "make law." This has the effect of acting as a super legislature, rather than just interpreting the law. She was one of two judges on her Court who ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. She has a similar personal background as Barack Obama.
California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno has an anti gun record in California. He joined with the majority of his Court in ruling that California Counties have the right to ban gun shows on their property.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The Solicitor General's office supervises and conducts government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Her view of the Heller case is that there was no reason for the Court to rule any other way than it did against restrictive D.C. Gun laws. She believes that the Solicitor General's office will continue to defend against constitutional challenges to various federal firearms regulations.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was a vocal opponent of proposed concealed carry laws in 2002. She was among those predicting shootouts at every traffic accident. She recently said that her anti concealed carry posture was proved wrong by law abiding Michigan concealed permit holders. Some consider her a "moderate" Democrat. She may not be liberal enough for Obama for her to get this job.
Obama's statements have made it clear that he is looking for an "activist" to join the Court. He certainly isn't looking for an originalist interpretation of the law.
By replacing a liberal with a liberal, at least the appointment of an Obama radical won't tip the balance of the Court. Based on Obama's criteria for activism, Sonia Sotomayor may be perfect for Obama.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Anti Gun Groups Spank Obama For Delay Of New Gun Laws
Anti gun groups such as the Freedom States Alliance and the Bradys are enraged over Barack Obama's apparent backing off repealing the Tihart Amendment, which would allow invasive Federal tracking of Firearms. The Bradys and FSA want to use the data to file new anti gun lawsuits against gun dealers and other nefarious purposes.
The FAS is especially mad about Obama's deletion of his and Biden's stated desire to repeal the Tihart Amendment from Obama's official White House Web Site. The following quote is from the Freedom States Alliance press release that bitterly stated, "Perhaps most galling is that on President Obama’s official White House.gov web site, under his urban policy agenda, the President advocated for removing the Tihart restrictions. That official White House.gov web page under urban policy has now changed."
The Bradys also took a shot at Obama in a statement by Brady President Paul Helmke when he said, "We are profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for 'openness' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tihart Amendments. This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms."
These and other anti gun groups are seemingly oblivious to recent Gallop Poll results showing that the majority of Americans do not support stronger gun control laws, or perhaps they are just in a state of denial. It may be a matter of financial survival for the anti gun groups as well. As support for gun control wanes among the American public, so does financial support for radical anti second Amendmnet groups such as the Bradys and the FSA. But, there's always billionaire George Soros who can bail them out. The name "Freedom States Alliance" in itself is certainly an oxymoron for such an anti-Constitutional rights group.
This is not the first time that these groups have been disappointed in Obama. Attorney General Eric Holder and the anti gunners were sucker punched by Obama when Obama, Polosi, and Harry Reid disavowed Holder's comments on bringing back a new Assault Weapons ban. Obama says that he is too busy doing "other things."
But, over the years Obama has made too many speeches showing his true anti gun nature and instincts. As long as Obama is the fox guarding the proverbial hen house, gun owners must remain vigilant.
The FAS is especially mad about Obama's deletion of his and Biden's stated desire to repeal the Tihart Amendment from Obama's official White House Web Site. The following quote is from the Freedom States Alliance press release that bitterly stated, "Perhaps most galling is that on President Obama’s official White House.gov web site, under his urban policy agenda, the President advocated for removing the Tihart restrictions. That official White House.gov web page under urban policy has now changed."
The Bradys also took a shot at Obama in a statement by Brady President Paul Helmke when he said, "We are profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for 'openness' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tihart Amendments. This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms."
These and other anti gun groups are seemingly oblivious to recent Gallop Poll results showing that the majority of Americans do not support stronger gun control laws, or perhaps they are just in a state of denial. It may be a matter of financial survival for the anti gun groups as well. As support for gun control wanes among the American public, so does financial support for radical anti second Amendmnet groups such as the Bradys and the FSA. But, there's always billionaire George Soros who can bail them out. The name "Freedom States Alliance" in itself is certainly an oxymoron for such an anti-Constitutional rights group.
This is not the first time that these groups have been disappointed in Obama. Attorney General Eric Holder and the anti gunners were sucker punched by Obama when Obama, Polosi, and Harry Reid disavowed Holder's comments on bringing back a new Assault Weapons ban. Obama says that he is too busy doing "other things."
But, over the years Obama has made too many speeches showing his true anti gun nature and instincts. As long as Obama is the fox guarding the proverbial hen house, gun owners must remain vigilant.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Firearms Rights Action- Montana Tells Feds To "Go To Hell"
The sticky tentacles have been cut off the Federal gun regulation octopus in the Big Sky State. The Bradys are apoplectic once again. Montana exercised its 10th Amendment state sovereignty as the Governor signed a law that exempts guns, accessories such as magazines, silencers, and ammunition made in the state of Montana from all Federal firearms regulation. The guns and ammunition can't leave the state of Montana, and all guns made there must have "Made In Montana" stamped on them. There are no background checks, no serial numbers, and no paperwork.
The gun law is a gloves off slap in the face of the Federal Government and gun control groups.
The state believes that since the Montana made guns don't cross state lines, then they are immune to all Federal Interstate commerce law's regulation. The state believes that just as the second amendment's "well regulated" militia, doesn't refer to the National Guard, which was created a hundred or so years after the Second Amendment was written, regulation of interstate commerce doesn't apply because nothing travels interstate between the states. Montanans believe that when the State was admitted to the Union that the Second Amendment was a contract between the State, The people, and the United States and that it guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
The Montana firearms industry isn't big. There are just a few specialty gun makers there, and a few that make western re-creations. But, of course the implications are huge. Alaska and Texas are considering similar legislation. Colonel Travis would be proud of Texas. The state will go and further will arrest any Federal agents in Montana who try to enforce Federal gun law over Montana made guns and ammo.
This law will eventually be challenged in the US Supreme Court when the Federal Government fights it to regain lost control. Losing any power is not in politician's blood, especially in the Obama administration.
There are exceptions to the Montana law.
"Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device."
Possible anti gunner arguments to void the law by claiming that it is interstate commerce:
1. These products are made from non-Montana steel, aluminum, plastics, lead, and other components which had to cross state line to get to the Montana manufacturer...etc.
2. The US Attorney argues that the Court must follow Wickard v Fillmore- 317 U.S. 111 (1942) a depression recovery era case where a wheat farmer produced twice his farm's wheat allotment. The farmer argued that the other half of his wheat was for personal consumption, that it would stay in the state, and it would not enter interstate commerce.
WARNING: TWISTED SUPREME COURT LEGAL LOGIC FOLLOWS BELOW:
The US Supreme Court in using bizarre logic to find against the farmer said that if he hadn't grown the extra wheat, then he would have had to have bought it through interstate commerce for personal use.
In a "sky is falling argument," the Court said though his theoretical small purchase of wheat might not be substantial, if a lot of farmers did this, then it would become substantial and affect the price of wheat and; thus, his production of wheat was federally regulated under the Commerce Clause.
This case allowed almost anything to be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
The danger in a liberal court is a ruling against Montana using the same bizarre logic and the "Stare Decisis" legal theory of following prior rulings, strange as they are.
The gun law is a gloves off slap in the face of the Federal Government and gun control groups.
The state believes that since the Montana made guns don't cross state lines, then they are immune to all Federal Interstate commerce law's regulation. The state believes that just as the second amendment's "well regulated" militia, doesn't refer to the National Guard, which was created a hundred or so years after the Second Amendment was written, regulation of interstate commerce doesn't apply because nothing travels interstate between the states. Montanans believe that when the State was admitted to the Union that the Second Amendment was a contract between the State, The people, and the United States and that it guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
The Montana firearms industry isn't big. There are just a few specialty gun makers there, and a few that make western re-creations. But, of course the implications are huge. Alaska and Texas are considering similar legislation. Colonel Travis would be proud of Texas. The state will go and further will arrest any Federal agents in Montana who try to enforce Federal gun law over Montana made guns and ammo.
This law will eventually be challenged in the US Supreme Court when the Federal Government fights it to regain lost control. Losing any power is not in politician's blood, especially in the Obama administration.
There are exceptions to the Montana law.
"Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device."
Possible anti gunner arguments to void the law by claiming that it is interstate commerce:
1. These products are made from non-Montana steel, aluminum, plastics, lead, and other components which had to cross state line to get to the Montana manufacturer...etc.
2. The US Attorney argues that the Court must follow Wickard v Fillmore- 317 U.S. 111 (1942) a depression recovery era case where a wheat farmer produced twice his farm's wheat allotment. The farmer argued that the other half of his wheat was for personal consumption, that it would stay in the state, and it would not enter interstate commerce.
WARNING: TWISTED SUPREME COURT LEGAL LOGIC FOLLOWS BELOW:
The US Supreme Court in using bizarre logic to find against the farmer said that if he hadn't grown the extra wheat, then he would have had to have bought it through interstate commerce for personal use.
In a "sky is falling argument," the Court said though his theoretical small purchase of wheat might not be substantial, if a lot of farmers did this, then it would become substantial and affect the price of wheat and; thus, his production of wheat was federally regulated under the Commerce Clause.
This case allowed almost anything to be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
The danger in a liberal court is a ruling against Montana using the same bizarre logic and the "Stare Decisis" legal theory of following prior rulings, strange as they are.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Self Defense Castle Doctrine Expanding In The USA
"Make My Day" is used to describe the "Castle Doctrine" law of self defense. Anti gun groups like to call it "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later." When Florida passed their Castle Law, the Bradys put up billboards in the state that warned tourists that they would be shot without provocation because of the law. They also stationed operatives in Florida airports who passed out brochures with a similar message. Like other wild Bradyesque claims, there was not much truth in their allegations. It was an attempt to create anti gun hysteria.
In non-Castle Law states, the law requires a person to get away from the threat, or try to get away. Self defense is not allowed until that point. This requirement of duty to retreat from the threat generally extends to other situations outside that do not involve being in buildings, such as street mugging, carjacking, or robbery attempts. There is no duty to retreat from the threat of an intruder or danger he poses in Castle Law states.
Castle laws generally work like this:
A person has to be making, or have already made an attempt to illegally or forcefully enter your home while someone is there. This also applies to vehicles or place of business.
The threatening person must be breaking the law.
In most jurisdictions the occupant must believe that the other is going to commit a crime or honestly and reasonably believe that there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the occupant.
The person in jeopardy cannot have instigated the break in or attack.
Some state laws, such as Michigan, have a legal presumption that when you encounter a stranger in your home, that by the person's just being there, he means to do you harm.
Once a person invokes the state's Castle Law for self defense, there is an automatic rebuttable legal presumption that the person acted in self defense.
The local prosecutor has the authority to decide whether a claim of self defense is justified, and whether or not a case goes to trial. In that event, the jury is the ultimate authority. Some jurisdictions have an implied, non binding and informal Castle Law because the prosecutor uses common sense when the facts warrant it. Prosecutors in Montana had such a philosophy even when the law was officially codified there this year.
People who use self defense under the Castle Law are generally immune from lawsuit from the people they defend against. Check your state laws.
These states have some type of version of the Castle Law. Check the laws of the state you are interested in for more information.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas
In non-Castle Law states, the law requires a person to get away from the threat, or try to get away. Self defense is not allowed until that point. This requirement of duty to retreat from the threat generally extends to other situations outside that do not involve being in buildings, such as street mugging, carjacking, or robbery attempts. There is no duty to retreat from the threat of an intruder or danger he poses in Castle Law states.
Castle laws generally work like this:
A person has to be making, or have already made an attempt to illegally or forcefully enter your home while someone is there. This also applies to vehicles or place of business.
The threatening person must be breaking the law.
In most jurisdictions the occupant must believe that the other is going to commit a crime or honestly and reasonably believe that there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the occupant.
The person in jeopardy cannot have instigated the break in or attack.
Some state laws, such as Michigan, have a legal presumption that when you encounter a stranger in your home, that by the person's just being there, he means to do you harm.
Once a person invokes the state's Castle Law for self defense, there is an automatic rebuttable legal presumption that the person acted in self defense.
The local prosecutor has the authority to decide whether a claim of self defense is justified, and whether or not a case goes to trial. In that event, the jury is the ultimate authority. Some jurisdictions have an implied, non binding and informal Castle Law because the prosecutor uses common sense when the facts warrant it. Prosecutors in Montana had such a philosophy even when the law was officially codified there this year.
People who use self defense under the Castle Law are generally immune from lawsuit from the people they defend against. Check your state laws.
These states have some type of version of the Castle Law. Check the laws of the state you are interested in for more information.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Have Your Concealed Handgun Permit Yet?
Contrary to the anti gun claims of "shootouts" at every car accident and a return to the Wild West, the advent of concealed legal handgun carry has come faster than many people thought that it ever would. Being among the first to liberalize handgun laws, the state of Florida opened a veritable floodgate of changes in almost every state's laws to allow concealed carry. Of the 18 million Floridians, over 1 million have concealed carry permits. Permit holders in Florida are the usual law abiding people found in the general population of licensees, and the bane of criminals. God forbid that a thug should be shot while plying his trade. There has been a minuscule amount of revocations in all states, mostly concerning alcohol/driving related crimes. Anti gun groups joyfully point to this minority to show the flaws of legal carry. Yet, they ignore the daily news of people protecting themselves from criminals with handguns they carry legally.
39 states are currently "shall issue" states where government officials are required by state law to issue carry permits to those who have jumped through the legal hoops and background checks to get the permit. 9 states are still "may issue" states, where the state officials have the discretion to issue or not. Most of these officials require a showing of a "need" for a permit. In almost all cases, simple self defense is not a sufficient reason.
The new Orange County, California sheriff has embroiled herself in controversy by revoking many current permit holders when she came into office. These unfortunate people didn't show the "need" for one that she required in her opinion. Politically connected people always had an advantage in getting permits in this type of jurisdiction.
Just Illinois and Wisconsin are the remaining holdouts. The Illinois Sheriff's Association came out in favor of concealed permit issue there. This was the first time they were in favor of concealed permits since the 1920's. It seems like there is a groundswell throughout the state outside of Chicago for loosening of gun carry restrictions.
The Daley political machine, in its infinite wisdom, has denied those in the Windy City the right to self defense. Of course, everyone knows that Chicago is a truly gun free zone, and there are no citizens terrorized by thugs carrying guns as a direct result of the Daley gun philosophy. Wisconsin's governor continues to oppose concealed carry there and a veto is currently a dead end for change.
Gun purchases are still increasing according to the latest FBI figures. The number of people going through a Brady background check hit a high in March this year, and was up by 29.2% over a year ago
Most states have reported huge increases in those applying for permits. Looking at just a few representative states, here's what was found. In Georgia, there were 67,640 applications in 2007, and 121,219 in 2008. That's an increase of 79.2%.
In Michigan, the State reported that in July of last year it had approved 171,586 applications with 6,088 still pending and in March, 2009 had 185,500 applications approved with 10,138 still pending.
Oklahoma officials said that a record 21,000 plus people applied for Oklahoma concealed permits in 2008.
Earlier this year the State of Florida was overwhelmed with a backlog of 95,000 new applications for concealed handgun permits. The State approved spending $3.9 million dollars to hire 61 more temporary workers to process the applications. Hats off again to Obama for creating more jobs.
39 states are currently "shall issue" states where government officials are required by state law to issue carry permits to those who have jumped through the legal hoops and background checks to get the permit. 9 states are still "may issue" states, where the state officials have the discretion to issue or not. Most of these officials require a showing of a "need" for a permit. In almost all cases, simple self defense is not a sufficient reason.
The new Orange County, California sheriff has embroiled herself in controversy by revoking many current permit holders when she came into office. These unfortunate people didn't show the "need" for one that she required in her opinion. Politically connected people always had an advantage in getting permits in this type of jurisdiction.
Just Illinois and Wisconsin are the remaining holdouts. The Illinois Sheriff's Association came out in favor of concealed permit issue there. This was the first time they were in favor of concealed permits since the 1920's. It seems like there is a groundswell throughout the state outside of Chicago for loosening of gun carry restrictions.
The Daley political machine, in its infinite wisdom, has denied those in the Windy City the right to self defense. Of course, everyone knows that Chicago is a truly gun free zone, and there are no citizens terrorized by thugs carrying guns as a direct result of the Daley gun philosophy. Wisconsin's governor continues to oppose concealed carry there and a veto is currently a dead end for change.
Gun purchases are still increasing according to the latest FBI figures. The number of people going through a Brady background check hit a high in March this year, and was up by 29.2% over a year ago
Most states have reported huge increases in those applying for permits. Looking at just a few representative states, here's what was found. In Georgia, there were 67,640 applications in 2007, and 121,219 in 2008. That's an increase of 79.2%.
In Michigan, the State reported that in July of last year it had approved 171,586 applications with 6,088 still pending and in March, 2009 had 185,500 applications approved with 10,138 still pending.
Oklahoma officials said that a record 21,000 plus people applied for Oklahoma concealed permits in 2008.
Earlier this year the State of Florida was overwhelmed with a backlog of 95,000 new applications for concealed handgun permits. The State approved spending $3.9 million dollars to hire 61 more temporary workers to process the applications. Hats off again to Obama for creating more jobs.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Obama's International Firearms Plans For You
In our last blog, we referred to a firearms treaty that Barack Obama wants the USA to become entangled with. The western hemisphere treaty, "Inter American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Material," would impose international regulation on firearms, their owners, and the firearms industry in America.
In a broad slash of the international sword, the treaty lumps all firearms, except antiques and their replicas with "any other weapon or destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine." This latter category is already in US laws with many covered as "destructive devices. The Missiles and Missile systems provision is a back door entry to interfere with our right to nuclear deterrent and tactical weapons.
The stated purpose of this treaty is "To prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. Here's what that treaty covers.
Firearms" means the traditional definition of a firearm. It excludes antiques defined as made before the 20th century and their replicas.
"Related materials" means any component, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm." This means all internal and external parts, and magazines.
"Ammunition" for treaty purposes means the complete round, or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles used in any firearm." Say goodbye to reloading.
The treaty is generous enough to specifically not include fire extinguishers, nail guns, fireworks, signal flares, and paper caps for toy pistols.
It is time to tell your legislators, and Barack Obama that America will not tolerate this type of treaty. We will not willingly submit to international gun law. Our forefathers were wise enough to give us the Second Amendment, and will not trash it for the pleasure of the UN, the western hemisphere, or Barack Obama.
In a broad slash of the international sword, the treaty lumps all firearms, except antiques and their replicas with "any other weapon or destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine." This latter category is already in US laws with many covered as "destructive devices. The Missiles and Missile systems provision is a back door entry to interfere with our right to nuclear deterrent and tactical weapons.
The stated purpose of this treaty is "To prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. Here's what that treaty covers.
Firearms" means the traditional definition of a firearm. It excludes antiques defined as made before the 20th century and their replicas.
"Related materials" means any component, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm." This means all internal and external parts, and magazines.
"Ammunition" for treaty purposes means the complete round, or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles used in any firearm." Say goodbye to reloading.
The treaty is generous enough to specifically not include fire extinguishers, nail guns, fireworks, signal flares, and paper caps for toy pistols.
It is time to tell your legislators, and Barack Obama that America will not tolerate this type of treaty. We will not willingly submit to international gun law. Our forefathers were wise enough to give us the Second Amendment, and will not trash it for the pleasure of the UN, the western hemisphere, or Barack Obama.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Will Obama Manage The Firearms And Ammunition Industries Next?
We keep waiting everyday to see stories that the Obama induced run on buying guns, magazines, and ammunition has stopped, or even slowed down. It hasn't. It doesn't even seem to be on the foreseeable horizon. When is that article coming? Apparently no time soon. You can find 3 or 4 stories every day lamenting the lack of guns and ammunition and continuing runs on them.
If you visit your local shooting range you will even probably see that there may be fewer regular target shooters. They are holding on to what they have. But, there are many new gun purchasers who are sighting in. Its getting to expensive to shoot like we used to do.
One ammunition supplier representative has said that his company's production line is running 24/7. He said they might catch up in 8 or 9 months. But on the upside, they have been hiring. Give Obama credit for job creation. Its still a good time to buy stock in Olin, S&W and Ruger. But, gun stock will take at least a temporary plunge with a new AWB.
Ammo can be found if you look hard enough. Dunhams, a 12 store sporting goods chain stretching from South Dakota to Pennsylvania, has ammunition. And, you will pay dearly for it. Surplus Ammunition prices are up 500% and more, and a common AK47 clone will now run $600.00 to $700.00.
With Obama's elbows up to his ears running corporations, let's sarcastically hope Obama doesn't "reluctantly" decide to manage the gun and ammunition business. He's "reluctantly" running Car manufacturers and banks, but take heart. He said this week that, "You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks." Right. What part of your life does he not want to run?
While with one hand Obama says he has no interest in intervention in our gun ownership, with the other hand he pushed ratification of the "Inter American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Material" treaty while visiting Mexico. That treaty has been stalled for ten years. He is at it again.
With this western hemisphere treaty and the UN Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition in the crime venue, which would regulate guns worldwide, gun owners have their hands full.
If you visit your local shooting range you will even probably see that there may be fewer regular target shooters. They are holding on to what they have. But, there are many new gun purchasers who are sighting in. Its getting to expensive to shoot like we used to do.
One ammunition supplier representative has said that his company's production line is running 24/7. He said they might catch up in 8 or 9 months. But on the upside, they have been hiring. Give Obama credit for job creation. Its still a good time to buy stock in Olin, S&W and Ruger. But, gun stock will take at least a temporary plunge with a new AWB.
Ammo can be found if you look hard enough. Dunhams, a 12 store sporting goods chain stretching from South Dakota to Pennsylvania, has ammunition. And, you will pay dearly for it. Surplus Ammunition prices are up 500% and more, and a common AK47 clone will now run $600.00 to $700.00.
With Obama's elbows up to his ears running corporations, let's sarcastically hope Obama doesn't "reluctantly" decide to manage the gun and ammunition business. He's "reluctantly" running Car manufacturers and banks, but take heart. He said this week that, "You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks." Right. What part of your life does he not want to run?
While with one hand Obama says he has no interest in intervention in our gun ownership, with the other hand he pushed ratification of the "Inter American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Material" treaty while visiting Mexico. That treaty has been stalled for ten years. He is at it again.
With this western hemisphere treaty and the UN Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition in the crime venue, which would regulate guns worldwide, gun owners have their hands full.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)