Over 20 rebellious states, in legislative acts reminiscent of the American South in 1860, have flexed their muscles and asserted their 10th Amendment rights since the beginning of 2009.
They are telling Barack Obama that his biggest ever Federal Government expansion bloat is over reaching and offensive to the states and their people's individual rights. These states have introduced 10th amendment reaffirming bills and They warn that Obama is off course in a terribly wrong start. These states have reaffirmed their rights as states and people under the protection of the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment says, in simple English that even Washington should be able to understand and comprehend, that powers not given to the Federal Government by the "people" and the states, still belong to the "people" and the states, and not the Federal Government. The word, "people" is very important. The "people" referred to in the 10th Amendment are the very same "people" that are also specifically named in, and whose rights are also protected in the First, Second, and Ninth Amendments.
Legislatures in these states have fired a warning shot across Obama's bow, and warned against his big government expansions and over reaching in its powers over the states will not be tolerated. These bills and resolutions are not so subtle reminders that Congress, Obama, and those in his administration have forgotten that they work for the people, and not the other way around.
The Legislature in Arizona is acting on a bill that declares their state sovereignty. The people of Arizona's bill asserts their 10th Amendment right during martial law to call back their own servicemen to protect Arizona state, "…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state."
Obama's government bloating "stimulus" bill, that no Congressmen actually had time to read, included nearly 9,000 pork projects in it's 1,000 plus pages. Obama falsely claimed that the bill contained no pork. The Bill also forces states to act in implementing it's provisions.
Many are upset with the Bill rewarding failing companies by giving them taxpayer money. Others are upset by Obama rewarding people who have failed mortgages by bailing them out while ignoring those who pay their bills, and forcing them to pay for other's failures.
One big, fat, prime slice of useless pork (" a porky little thing" that Americans don't care about," as Charles Schumer said with a smirk) includes Senator Harry Reid's pet pork project, which is an 8 billion dollar train to be built with taxpayer money. This so-called MagLev train (magnetic levitation) is estimated to cost $12 billion. It will run from appropriately, Disneyland, to Las Vegas, Reid's home state. He has been trying to railroad this train through the halls of Congress for years, but the porky scheme was always previously derailed, until now.
A traditional train route between California and Las Vegas was canceled in 1997 because of low ridership. Harry Reid disregards that failure, and wants to gamble with the taxpayer's money that a magnetic marvel miracle will make it work this time.
In addition to the bills and resolutions put already put forth, Montana has taken an interesting additional different course. The Montana Legislature has proposed a law that would exempt all firearms, ammunition, and gun parts made in Montana, and kept in Montana, from Federal regulations . The law could exempt purchasers of these Montana made guns from pre-purchase background checks. And now, Attorney General Holder has announced that Obama wants to make a "few firearms changes," including reinstituting the Assault weapons ban of 1994.
Montana House Bill 246 specifically says that, "A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
The argument is that since these products are made in Montana and stay in Montana, and never cross state lines, then they cannot be regulated by the US Government under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
The sponsor of the Bill said it just isn't about guns. Rather, its about state's rights.
The Bradys and other gun control groups must have become apoplectic about the Montana Gun Freedom Bill.
One Montana firearms manufacturer affected by the proposed law is Cooper Firearms of Montana, which in October,2008 fired its founder CEO Dan Cooper, after pressure from gun owners who were angry that he supported Democrat Barack Obama.
California's resolution, put forth during the Clinton regime lays out their cards by saying:
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Million Dollar Firearms Farce
There's new anti gun zaniness from Illinois. This is amid a groundswell movement for issuing concealed handgun permits to it's currently disarmed citizens. Some panicked Legislators, in their infinite wisdom, have a bill pending that will require a million dollar liability insurance policy for every firearm owned in the state.
This gun control tactic is a complete non starter. No insurance company has ever, or will ever offer an insurance policy to cover intentional, willful illegal acts.
This bill must have been concocted after some gun controllers drank one too many at a convention. It must have sounded really good at the time.
Here's the proposed law.
430 ILCS 65/4.5 new
430 ILCS 65/8 from Ch. 38, par. 83-8
Synopsis As Introduced:
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.
Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.
Effective January 1, 2010.
This gun control tactic is a complete non starter. No insurance company has ever, or will ever offer an insurance policy to cover intentional, willful illegal acts.
This bill must have been concocted after some gun controllers drank one too many at a convention. It must have sounded really good at the time.
Here's the proposed law.
430 ILCS 65/4.5 new
430 ILCS 65/8 from Ch. 38, par. 83-8
Synopsis As Introduced:
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.
Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.
Effective January 1, 2010.
Don't Publish Concealed Handgun Permit Holder's Names
The Memphis Commercial Appeal has published a database by zip code of people who have a concealed handgun permit in Tennessee. One of the justifications they use is saying that if a child will be "spending the night with" another child, then a parent could check to see if the other parent had a concealed handgun permit. If so, then the parent can call that person, and "have a chat with them." Anti gun employers can also check their employees names for political incorrectness and punish gun permit holders in their own special ways. Of course, criminals can use the list to their advantage too.
The paper also says that when a gun is used in a crime, it becomes everybody's business. That statement is true; however, The fact is that concealed handgun permit holders and their guns are rarely involved in crime. No one can prove the opposite with verifiable facts.
The newspaper also says that the list omits street addresses and birth dates to lessen the chance that the database could be used for theft purposes. It might come as a shock to the newspaper's editors that not all theft is done by total strangers.
Many thieves don't need street addresses to steal. They already have them. Those who do need street addresses can often find them in various internet databases. Its obvious that the thieves would know by checking what houses they should target, and what houses to avoid. God forbid that a burglar should be shot while plying his trade.
A recent story in the newspaper even gleefully announced that "Anti gun groups finally have Exhibit A," after a permit holder shot and killed someone February 6th in a parking lot dispute.
The key words in the article are "finally have Exhibit A." The article, in it's bias, neglects to say that this shooting is the only major incident in the history of the gun permit law in Tennessee. There are bad people in every group. Fortunately, among gun permit holders, the number is minuscule. When they surface, they should be punished harshly.
And, another anti-gun group, the Jamaican government has added a twist to the gun control argument. A Jamaica newspaper reported in January that the government of Jamaica makes it hard for Jamaicans to get gun permits by maintaining a position that thieves specifically target gun owners to steal their guns. This is quite the opposite of the Memphis newspaper's stance. By the way, the concealed handgun permit application fee there is $6,000.00, which puts it far out of each for most.
The Tennessee Legislature has taken quick steps after the newspaper published names to push a bill forward to make those names confidential.
If nothing else, publishing gun owners names has made people feel unsafe. That includes both gun owners on the list who may have guns in the home, and those who are not on the list, who may not have guns in the home. Those not on the list are afraid of their homes being targeted as a safe place to rob. Under either interpretation, the newspaper's actions are irresponsible.
The paper also says that when a gun is used in a crime, it becomes everybody's business. That statement is true; however, The fact is that concealed handgun permit holders and their guns are rarely involved in crime. No one can prove the opposite with verifiable facts.
The newspaper also says that the list omits street addresses and birth dates to lessen the chance that the database could be used for theft purposes. It might come as a shock to the newspaper's editors that not all theft is done by total strangers.
Many thieves don't need street addresses to steal. They already have them. Those who do need street addresses can often find them in various internet databases. Its obvious that the thieves would know by checking what houses they should target, and what houses to avoid. God forbid that a burglar should be shot while plying his trade.
A recent story in the newspaper even gleefully announced that "Anti gun groups finally have Exhibit A," after a permit holder shot and killed someone February 6th in a parking lot dispute.
The key words in the article are "finally have Exhibit A." The article, in it's bias, neglects to say that this shooting is the only major incident in the history of the gun permit law in Tennessee. There are bad people in every group. Fortunately, among gun permit holders, the number is minuscule. When they surface, they should be punished harshly.
And, another anti-gun group, the Jamaican government has added a twist to the gun control argument. A Jamaica newspaper reported in January that the government of Jamaica makes it hard for Jamaicans to get gun permits by maintaining a position that thieves specifically target gun owners to steal their guns. This is quite the opposite of the Memphis newspaper's stance. By the way, the concealed handgun permit application fee there is $6,000.00, which puts it far out of each for most.
The Tennessee Legislature has taken quick steps after the newspaper published names to push a bill forward to make those names confidential.
If nothing else, publishing gun owners names has made people feel unsafe. That includes both gun owners on the list who may have guns in the home, and those who are not on the list, who may not have guns in the home. Those not on the list are afraid of their homes being targeted as a safe place to rob. Under either interpretation, the newspaper's actions are irresponsible.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Its Time For Concealed Handgun Carry In Illinois
There's a world that exists outside of myopic Chicagoland and beyond the view of the Daley "political machine" that runs it. There are actually normal, sane, thinking people in the heartland of Illinois and the rest of America away from the "Chicago Machine" that aren't like Mayor Daley, Rod Blogojevitch, Roland Burris, and Barak Obama. It defies logic to believe that many Chicagoans don't agree with Chicago's gun laws and the "machine mentality."
There are also people outside the Windy City machine who have the unmitigated gall to believe that they can run their own lives, pay their own bills, and protect and raise their own families better than the cogs in the "Chicago Machine" say they can.
Hardly a day goes by without a story in the Chicago news media about a shooting, or multiple shootings, in this city that does not allow any handguns to be possessed by any of its citizens. How can daily shootings happen in one of the biggest handgun free zones in America? How is it possible that criminals will still rape, rob, and shoot in total disregard of the city's gun laws in such an unarmed and sheltered city?
Past experiences and recent news has shown that the "Chicago Machine" extends it's sticky tentacles into the Governor's office, the State Legislature in Springfield, and even the United States House and Senate.
The convoluted and ineffective "Chicago Machine" anti handgun logic is shown in the namesake and the body of the Chicago inspired anti gun plan in the recently introduced H.R.45, titled "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009." Blair Holt, was shot and killed with a handgun already made illegal in Chicago. How can possession of handguns be made more illegal?
This bill, introduced by "former" Black Panther member and U.S. House member Bobby Rush, of where else but Chicago, is an attempt to extend the failed "Chicago Machine" mentality into our national laws. Fortunately, the Bill of the "former" Black Panther who spent his own six months in jail on gun charges has yet to find a cosponsor.
In reality, it does look like more gun laws are needed in Illinois. But, not the kind that the "Chicago political machine" or the land of Oz Bradys want. The people of Illinois, like the rest of us, deserve to carry concealed handguns.
Illinois House Bills 245 and 462 would let Illinois residents obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm outside of their home. HB 245 has the Illinois State Police issuing the permits, and HB 462 would give the job to the county sheriff.
Its called the Family and Personal Protection Act. Who wouldn't love a law with a name like that?
The Illinois Sheriff's Association recently passed a resolution supporting concealed carry for its citizens for the first time in their 81 year history. Generally, law enforcement officers nationwide believe they have nothing to fear from concealed handgun permit holders. The Sheriffs stand in being for concealed carry in Illinois speaks loudly for a change.
Anti gun groups like Brady always have dire predictions about the safety of police and shootouts at every traffic accident when there are legal handgun carried. The sheriffs' resolution makes those claims more Brady lies. It is time for Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, and other anti gun group heads to get real jobs, and stop living off their transparent lies.
Even the editorial staff of one Illinois newspaper has come around. The Galesberg Citizen- Register newspaper recently editorialized for the change saying that law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms.
The time has come for laws allowing concealed handgun carry everywhere, even in holdouts of Illinois and Wisconsin. But the concealed carry laws must be uniform throughout the state. Sometimes, in passing a state concealed permit law, compromises are made. That's how laws pass. However, sometimes these compromises allow local municipal gun laws that are totally different from the state's law.
Municipalities should not be able to trump state law by passing their own more restrictive gun laws. There is no doubt they would do exactly that to circumvent state law. They have done that before in other states.
There are two "musts" for new Illinois Gun laws. First, the laws must state clearly that the issuing authorities "Shall Issue" permits, and not "May Issue" permits. "May Issue" laws are discretionary and still prevent permits going into the hands of the majority of the common citizens. The recipients of "May Issue" permits usually only go to the politically well connected.
And the laws must be uniform statewide. Cities that have passed their own gun laws that are counter to state gun carry laws have created confusion everywhere they are in effect. A person with a gun permit cannot travel between the many cities and municipalities on an interstate or state highway, and possibly know the local gun laws in each town passed through unless they are uniform statewide. They can be made unknowing criminals.
Illinois should incorporate a preemption provision into their own new carry law that will not allow municipalities to enforce their own local laws that replace Illinois state law within their boundaries.
A good model for preemption is found in neighboring Michigan. State law there is clear that Michigan municipalities must follow the state's concealed handgun law, with no exceptions. The law says, "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state." That sounds clear and concise, doesn't it?
But, municipalities will still need to be spanked sometimes to get them in line. With the passage of the Michigan's concealed carry law, the City of East Lansing immediately disregarded it and passed a local ordinance that banned handguns in city parks, city parking lots, and other city property.
An appeal was heard by the state's Appellate court, and a stay was issued that prevented the city from enforcing the anti gun ordinance in the meantime while the case awaited hearing in court. The city attorney's office should have known better. The city lost, and the taxpayer's money was squandered in defending the law in court.
But, costs did't matter because it was the taxpayers money.
State law trumped East Lansing's gun ordinance, and the ordinance was repealed.
It may be that the writing is on the wall for Illinois and Wisconsin too.
There are also people outside the Windy City machine who have the unmitigated gall to believe that they can run their own lives, pay their own bills, and protect and raise their own families better than the cogs in the "Chicago Machine" say they can.
Hardly a day goes by without a story in the Chicago news media about a shooting, or multiple shootings, in this city that does not allow any handguns to be possessed by any of its citizens. How can daily shootings happen in one of the biggest handgun free zones in America? How is it possible that criminals will still rape, rob, and shoot in total disregard of the city's gun laws in such an unarmed and sheltered city?
Past experiences and recent news has shown that the "Chicago Machine" extends it's sticky tentacles into the Governor's office, the State Legislature in Springfield, and even the United States House and Senate.
The convoluted and ineffective "Chicago Machine" anti handgun logic is shown in the namesake and the body of the Chicago inspired anti gun plan in the recently introduced H.R.45, titled "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009." Blair Holt, was shot and killed with a handgun already made illegal in Chicago. How can possession of handguns be made more illegal?
This bill, introduced by "former" Black Panther member and U.S. House member Bobby Rush, of where else but Chicago, is an attempt to extend the failed "Chicago Machine" mentality into our national laws. Fortunately, the Bill of the "former" Black Panther who spent his own six months in jail on gun charges has yet to find a cosponsor.
In reality, it does look like more gun laws are needed in Illinois. But, not the kind that the "Chicago political machine" or the land of Oz Bradys want. The people of Illinois, like the rest of us, deserve to carry concealed handguns.
Illinois House Bills 245 and 462 would let Illinois residents obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm outside of their home. HB 245 has the Illinois State Police issuing the permits, and HB 462 would give the job to the county sheriff.
Its called the Family and Personal Protection Act. Who wouldn't love a law with a name like that?
The Illinois Sheriff's Association recently passed a resolution supporting concealed carry for its citizens for the first time in their 81 year history. Generally, law enforcement officers nationwide believe they have nothing to fear from concealed handgun permit holders. The Sheriffs stand in being for concealed carry in Illinois speaks loudly for a change.
Anti gun groups like Brady always have dire predictions about the safety of police and shootouts at every traffic accident when there are legal handgun carried. The sheriffs' resolution makes those claims more Brady lies. It is time for Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, and other anti gun group heads to get real jobs, and stop living off their transparent lies.
Even the editorial staff of one Illinois newspaper has come around. The Galesberg Citizen- Register newspaper recently editorialized for the change saying that law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms.
The time has come for laws allowing concealed handgun carry everywhere, even in holdouts of Illinois and Wisconsin. But the concealed carry laws must be uniform throughout the state. Sometimes, in passing a state concealed permit law, compromises are made. That's how laws pass. However, sometimes these compromises allow local municipal gun laws that are totally different from the state's law.
Municipalities should not be able to trump state law by passing their own more restrictive gun laws. There is no doubt they would do exactly that to circumvent state law. They have done that before in other states.
There are two "musts" for new Illinois Gun laws. First, the laws must state clearly that the issuing authorities "Shall Issue" permits, and not "May Issue" permits. "May Issue" laws are discretionary and still prevent permits going into the hands of the majority of the common citizens. The recipients of "May Issue" permits usually only go to the politically well connected.
And the laws must be uniform statewide. Cities that have passed their own gun laws that are counter to state gun carry laws have created confusion everywhere they are in effect. A person with a gun permit cannot travel between the many cities and municipalities on an interstate or state highway, and possibly know the local gun laws in each town passed through unless they are uniform statewide. They can be made unknowing criminals.
Illinois should incorporate a preemption provision into their own new carry law that will not allow municipalities to enforce their own local laws that replace Illinois state law within their boundaries.
A good model for preemption is found in neighboring Michigan. State law there is clear that Michigan municipalities must follow the state's concealed handgun law, with no exceptions. The law says, "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state." That sounds clear and concise, doesn't it?
But, municipalities will still need to be spanked sometimes to get them in line. With the passage of the Michigan's concealed carry law, the City of East Lansing immediately disregarded it and passed a local ordinance that banned handguns in city parks, city parking lots, and other city property.
An appeal was heard by the state's Appellate court, and a stay was issued that prevented the city from enforcing the anti gun ordinance in the meantime while the case awaited hearing in court. The city attorney's office should have known better. The city lost, and the taxpayer's money was squandered in defending the law in court.
But, costs did't matter because it was the taxpayers money.
State law trumped East Lansing's gun ordinance, and the ordinance was repealed.
It may be that the writing is on the wall for Illinois and Wisconsin too.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Send A Tea Bag To Obama- And Your Legislators Too
King George's Parliament passed a series of laws, called the "Intolerable Acts" by the colonists, to punish them for their involvement in the Boston Tea Party. 90,000 pounds of tea was dumped into Boston Harbor from three British ships. The colonists were understandably upset by the fact that the Crown was passing a series of laws that oppressed the people.
Similarly, many modern day Americans are upset by this nation's current turn to a socialist state with taxpayer bailouts to failing corporations, lip service to tax relief, and the possible nationalization of banks. Taking a cue from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, some Congressmen have even suggested nationalizing the nation's oil companies. Do we really want Nancy Polosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid making our country's business decisions and running our nation's private businesses? Government has never been able to run anything efficiently, let alone, profitably. They are incapable of starting now.
There was a real "Chicago Tea Party" on the Board of Trade on February 19th" that was a focal point of the feelings of many. In a live report on the normally staid CNBC, Rick Santelli said, "The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard..." This was a grassroots warning shot across the bow of a ship of state, running without a rudder.
Americans are getting get fed up with the rapid move to socialism in our country. Our leaders have turned this country in a direction that was unimaginable even a year ago. Socialism is not in our DNA. It never has been, and it never will be.
No, "Spreading the wealth around," is not a good thing. It is not in our fiber to forcefully take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. Charity is in the heart, and not forced by law. Those who are forced to bear the burden by oppressive tax rates will decide that it is not worth the effort to produce, only to have the majority of the fruits of their labor confiscated by their government, only to be redistributed. The productive ones will simply fold their economic cards, and drop out.
It is time to show those of both parties that we, the people who elected them, are extremely displeased, and mad with the socialist, nanny state direction they are steering our country into. It is time for a new "Tea Party." It is time to stand our ground. It is time for the American people to make a bold statement.
The colonists acted by dumping 45 tons of tea into Boston Harbor. That got the Crown's attention. There is no tea on ships to dump, but there are teabags. Why not send a tea bag to Obama and your representatives, each and every one, from the DC House and Senate to your state legislators?
There's no 45 tons of tea waiting to be dumped into the sea today, but there are tea bags that can be sent out as a potent symbol. 45 tons of tea is just under two million bags of tea in today's modern teabags. Two million teabags, or more, sent to government leaders will be a loud, modern message of our displeasure and much louder than the spark lit by the CNBC Santelli report.
Similarly, many modern day Americans are upset by this nation's current turn to a socialist state with taxpayer bailouts to failing corporations, lip service to tax relief, and the possible nationalization of banks. Taking a cue from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, some Congressmen have even suggested nationalizing the nation's oil companies. Do we really want Nancy Polosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid making our country's business decisions and running our nation's private businesses? Government has never been able to run anything efficiently, let alone, profitably. They are incapable of starting now.
There was a real "Chicago Tea Party" on the Board of Trade on February 19th" that was a focal point of the feelings of many. In a live report on the normally staid CNBC, Rick Santelli said, "The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard..." This was a grassroots warning shot across the bow of a ship of state, running without a rudder.
Americans are getting get fed up with the rapid move to socialism in our country. Our leaders have turned this country in a direction that was unimaginable even a year ago. Socialism is not in our DNA. It never has been, and it never will be.
No, "Spreading the wealth around," is not a good thing. It is not in our fiber to forcefully take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. Charity is in the heart, and not forced by law. Those who are forced to bear the burden by oppressive tax rates will decide that it is not worth the effort to produce, only to have the majority of the fruits of their labor confiscated by their government, only to be redistributed. The productive ones will simply fold their economic cards, and drop out.
It is time to show those of both parties that we, the people who elected them, are extremely displeased, and mad with the socialist, nanny state direction they are steering our country into. It is time for a new "Tea Party." It is time to stand our ground. It is time for the American people to make a bold statement.
The colonists acted by dumping 45 tons of tea into Boston Harbor. That got the Crown's attention. There is no tea on ships to dump, but there are teabags. Why not send a tea bag to Obama and your representatives, each and every one, from the DC House and Senate to your state legislators?
There's no 45 tons of tea waiting to be dumped into the sea today, but there are tea bags that can be sent out as a potent symbol. 45 tons of tea is just under two million bags of tea in today's modern teabags. Two million teabags, or more, sent to government leaders will be a loud, modern message of our displeasure and much louder than the spark lit by the CNBC Santelli report.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Iowa National Guard To Search For Firearms Dealer
You might expect something like this in Chicago, with its political machine, but in the country's heartland?
The Iowa National Guard is going to hold a 3 day exercise by invading Arcadia, Iowa and get "training" in using urban military operations. This military maneuver
is bound to raise many eyebrows.
The ostensible purpose of the Guardsmen's training mission which will happen April 2nd through 4th, is to gather intelligence, and then search for, locate, and "arrest" a person suspected of being an "illegal weapons dealer."
The weekend "drill" will include military convoys into Arcadia, reconnaissance missions, street patrol, roadblocks, voluntary searches, and house to house questioning of cooperating participating Arcadians.
The national Guard will also use a Blackhawk helicopter to command and control from overhead. There may be simluated helicopter medical evacuations.
The "drill" will end, of course, when the suspected arms dealer suspect is arrested, just like in the movies where the "good guys" always win in the end.
This looks and sounds suspiciously like domestic street sweeping training for military law enforcement, illegal in the United States. Training like this regularly takes place, but it is normally held in areas on military bases.
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the "cooperating" citizens gave the military false and misleading information to send them on a wild goose chase. It would certainly add some realism to the exercise.
Attorney General Holder and his cronies will undoubtedly take a keen interest in this Urban military street maneuver. This "drill" is a not so subtle poke at the "Posse Comitatus" Act, which was meant to curb power of the Federal Government in using the US Military for law enforcement here in the states.
Illegal weapons sales within the United States can be violations of both federal and state laws. Enforcement and jurisdiction for this type of law breaking is restricted solely to state and federal sworn law enforcement agencies.
In the political climate of today, it is interesting that this "drill" targets a seller of arms, and not a scimitar toting fanatical mid east terrorist. No wonder red flags go up, and there is citizen concern and harsh criticism when exercises of this type are executed in any US city. This whole military exercise smells worse than road kill.
Such training is at the least, misguided. Troop convoys, Military roadblocks, house to house questioning, searches, and a military armed show of force for a State or Federal lawbreaker appear eerily ominous, especially in a training mission.
The Iowa National Guard is going to hold a 3 day exercise by invading Arcadia, Iowa and get "training" in using urban military operations. This military maneuver
is bound to raise many eyebrows.
The ostensible purpose of the Guardsmen's training mission which will happen April 2nd through 4th, is to gather intelligence, and then search for, locate, and "arrest" a person suspected of being an "illegal weapons dealer."
The weekend "drill" will include military convoys into Arcadia, reconnaissance missions, street patrol, roadblocks, voluntary searches, and house to house questioning of cooperating participating Arcadians.
The national Guard will also use a Blackhawk helicopter to command and control from overhead. There may be simluated helicopter medical evacuations.
The "drill" will end, of course, when the suspected arms dealer suspect is arrested, just like in the movies where the "good guys" always win in the end.
This looks and sounds suspiciously like domestic street sweeping training for military law enforcement, illegal in the United States. Training like this regularly takes place, but it is normally held in areas on military bases.
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the "cooperating" citizens gave the military false and misleading information to send them on a wild goose chase. It would certainly add some realism to the exercise.
Attorney General Holder and his cronies will undoubtedly take a keen interest in this Urban military street maneuver. This "drill" is a not so subtle poke at the "Posse Comitatus" Act, which was meant to curb power of the Federal Government in using the US Military for law enforcement here in the states.
Illegal weapons sales within the United States can be violations of both federal and state laws. Enforcement and jurisdiction for this type of law breaking is restricted solely to state and federal sworn law enforcement agencies.
In the political climate of today, it is interesting that this "drill" targets a seller of arms, and not a scimitar toting fanatical mid east terrorist. No wonder red flags go up, and there is citizen concern and harsh criticism when exercises of this type are executed in any US city. This whole military exercise smells worse than road kill.
Such training is at the least, misguided. Troop convoys, Military roadblocks, house to house questioning, searches, and a military armed show of force for a State or Federal lawbreaker appear eerily ominous, especially in a training mission.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Canada Cuts Off Free Firearms To Instructors
Many Canadian firearms instructors believe that a new Canadian regulation will make training in safe use of firearms impossible. Canadian firearms instructors typically were given firearms to use as training aids from police departments. They were free, but with big strings attached. The training aids "prop" guns must all be deactivated.
As part of the requirements to be a Canadian basic instructor, each must have five deactivated long guns with different actions. They must also have two deactivated handguns. They must also have deactivated ammunition.
A new Canadian regulation forbids police or any public agency from providing seized guns to firearms instructors to use as training aids in the future.
The policy that was ended allowed instructors to receive forfeited guns from the police and take them to private machining companies who would deactivate them.
The instructors would pay for the firearm's deactivation.
The machinists would turn a working firearm into a "harmless" — but realistic — "prop" as a training aid. At $75 per deactivation, the cost was minimal. The instructors would pay only for the "gunsmithing."
Instructors will now have to buy the rifles and handguns themselves, and immediately destroy them to be able to use them in training others. They will have to pay for the gun, plus the "gunsmithing" cost of permanently deactivating (destroying) it.
Costs of guns to be destroyed for the instructors can reach into the thousands of dollars.
Many instructors believe that startup costs will now be prohibitively high for new instructors to enter the firearms training and safety profession.
Making entering the firearms training profession as expensive as possible, and cutting the number of new firearms instructors and training instruction, and use of a non functioning firearm and ammunition, fits perfectly into the Canadian scheme of gun control. After all, why bother with firearms training when Canada doesn't want the citizenry to own and use firearms anyway, especially in self defense?
Canada has a severe problem with drug gangs, and all the gang related shootings, armed robberies, and killings that go with the illegal drug trade.
I doubt that armed drug thugs bother to go to firearms training classes.
Rather than direct all available resources toward fighting violent criminals, and allowing citizens to protect themselves from armed thugs, Canada has once again taken the politically correct low road to continue to do everything possible to keep the law abiding Canadians disarmed, untrained in firearms use, and at the mercy of those violent criminals who obey no laws.
As part of the requirements to be a Canadian basic instructor, each must have five deactivated long guns with different actions. They must also have two deactivated handguns. They must also have deactivated ammunition.
A new Canadian regulation forbids police or any public agency from providing seized guns to firearms instructors to use as training aids in the future.
The policy that was ended allowed instructors to receive forfeited guns from the police and take them to private machining companies who would deactivate them.
The instructors would pay for the firearm's deactivation.
The machinists would turn a working firearm into a "harmless" — but realistic — "prop" as a training aid. At $75 per deactivation, the cost was minimal. The instructors would pay only for the "gunsmithing."
Instructors will now have to buy the rifles and handguns themselves, and immediately destroy them to be able to use them in training others. They will have to pay for the gun, plus the "gunsmithing" cost of permanently deactivating (destroying) it.
Costs of guns to be destroyed for the instructors can reach into the thousands of dollars.
Many instructors believe that startup costs will now be prohibitively high for new instructors to enter the firearms training and safety profession.
Making entering the firearms training profession as expensive as possible, and cutting the number of new firearms instructors and training instruction, and use of a non functioning firearm and ammunition, fits perfectly into the Canadian scheme of gun control. After all, why bother with firearms training when Canada doesn't want the citizenry to own and use firearms anyway, especially in self defense?
Canada has a severe problem with drug gangs, and all the gang related shootings, armed robberies, and killings that go with the illegal drug trade.
I doubt that armed drug thugs bother to go to firearms training classes.
Rather than direct all available resources toward fighting violent criminals, and allowing citizens to protect themselves from armed thugs, Canada has once again taken the politically correct low road to continue to do everything possible to keep the law abiding Canadians disarmed, untrained in firearms use, and at the mercy of those violent criminals who obey no laws.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
San Diego ends JROTC Air Rifle Program
First they end dodge ball. The San Diego School District took a bow to political correctness when it ended the Junior ROTC air rifle program that had been in existence for decades.
Students, teachers, and parents were outraged when they discovered that the program existed, and mobilized to end the program. The irony is that they weren't
even aware that the program even existed...for years. The regular programs of the JROTC are not affected...yet, that is.
Apparently, this low profile group of air rifle shooting students did no drive by shootings as a result of the air rifle training. But of course, we know that closing the program down has gone a long way to help curb gun violence in the San Diego area.
San Francisco voted to completely end the 60 year old JROTC program, but extended its life to early in 2009.
The Department of Defense has said that nationally, Junior ROTC member have a 12% greater graduation rate higher than non JROTC members, have higher grades, and fewer disciplinary problems. Ending the air rifle program apparently will help lead to an eventual dumbing down of students.
JROTC clubs frequently travel to meets, and can earn scholarships. But not in San Diego anymore.
Many of us can remember bringing guns onto school grounds and into the halls of the schools for legitimate purposes, such as working on them in vocational education shops. Guns were kept in the cars for hunting use at the end of the school day. Not an eyebrow was raised in the early 1960's.
Gun safety, and discipline in gun use, of course, was part of the air rifle curriculum. Apparently, the District believes that teaching young people gun safety is not important anymore.
A Colorado High school drill team member was suspended for having ceremonial rifles in her car on the school parking lot. They were chrome plated, and welded inoperable no less for use in drill team routines at school events in her car on the school parking lot. School administration was furious.
This type is just one type of political correctness that's the standard in today's public education school environment.
Public school kids can't even hit back when assaulted by classmates. I'm not suggesting using guns to end kid's fist fights by any means. But in today's schools, both the attacker and the victim who fights back are suspended.
Appropriate, measured response for any physical attack is appropriate whether in a public school or on the street. That's what I taught my kids, that's what my father taught me and that's what I expect my kids to teach the grandkids.
Getting along with everyone is an ideal of public school educators.
This "getting along syndrome" in public school is drilled into our school kids by liberal anti gun faculty and administrators from kindergarten through high school graduation. It is a reason why students willingly lined up against the wall to be sheepishly executed by the Virginia Tech killer.
This "getting along syndrome" is another symptom of the failure of today's public education.
Students, teachers, and parents were outraged when they discovered that the program existed, and mobilized to end the program. The irony is that they weren't
even aware that the program even existed...for years. The regular programs of the JROTC are not affected...yet, that is.
Apparently, this low profile group of air rifle shooting students did no drive by shootings as a result of the air rifle training. But of course, we know that closing the program down has gone a long way to help curb gun violence in the San Diego area.
San Francisco voted to completely end the 60 year old JROTC program, but extended its life to early in 2009.
The Department of Defense has said that nationally, Junior ROTC member have a 12% greater graduation rate higher than non JROTC members, have higher grades, and fewer disciplinary problems. Ending the air rifle program apparently will help lead to an eventual dumbing down of students.
JROTC clubs frequently travel to meets, and can earn scholarships. But not in San Diego anymore.
Many of us can remember bringing guns onto school grounds and into the halls of the schools for legitimate purposes, such as working on them in vocational education shops. Guns were kept in the cars for hunting use at the end of the school day. Not an eyebrow was raised in the early 1960's.
Gun safety, and discipline in gun use, of course, was part of the air rifle curriculum. Apparently, the District believes that teaching young people gun safety is not important anymore.
A Colorado High school drill team member was suspended for having ceremonial rifles in her car on the school parking lot. They were chrome plated, and welded inoperable no less for use in drill team routines at school events in her car on the school parking lot. School administration was furious.
This type is just one type of political correctness that's the standard in today's public education school environment.
Public school kids can't even hit back when assaulted by classmates. I'm not suggesting using guns to end kid's fist fights by any means. But in today's schools, both the attacker and the victim who fights back are suspended.
Appropriate, measured response for any physical attack is appropriate whether in a public school or on the street. That's what I taught my kids, that's what my father taught me and that's what I expect my kids to teach the grandkids.
Getting along with everyone is an ideal of public school educators.
This "getting along syndrome" in public school is drilled into our school kids by liberal anti gun faculty and administrators from kindergarten through high school graduation. It is a reason why students willingly lined up against the wall to be sheepishly executed by the Virginia Tech killer.
This "getting along syndrome" is another symptom of the failure of today's public education.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Surplus Military Rifles and Ammuniton From The Civilian Marksmanship Program
Get them while you still can.
The Civilian Marksmanship Program has a number of M1 Garand battle rifles, M1 Carbines, M1903, M1903A3 for sale. There are a small number of the collector folding stock M1A1 paratrooper carbines that are available by auction to members.
Some .22 rifles and ammunition are also available.
There is a limited amount of non corrosive surplus 30-06 ammunition, some in spam cans, some loose in .30 cal. cans, some boxed, and some in en bloc clips in spam cans.
Prices start at $60.00 for 192 in en bloc clips- contained in 4 bandoleers in a spam can.
M1 Garands range in price from $495.00 in fair to good condition and in other various conditions and grades to the fabled M1D without accessories and scope for $2,300.00. They are sold out of the M1D now, but expect more this year.
There are just a few M1903 and M1903A3 rifles available at $500.00. These are Springfield and Remington.
M1 Carbines are in very used condition and are returns to the US government from several foreign governments. The barrels are not import marked, but may have arsenal markings stamped or painted on their stocks. They are priced at $419.00 for an Inland, $479.00 for Underwood, Saginaw, and, National Postal Meter IBM is priced at $495.00. Paratrooper M1A1 Carbines are available at auction on the website.
Various .22 target rifles are available, such as:
A Savage Mark I-FVT Government Unused)is $223.
.,.,and other target rifles
The CMP is chartered by the US Government and promotes firearms safety training and practice for all qualified US citizens. They hold national shooting competitions at Camp Perry.
There are some requirements for CMP membership required for purchases.
Proof of U.S. Citizenship:
Proof of Age:
Membership in CMP Affiliated Organization:- memberships are available for as little as $20.00 per year.
Marksmanship or other Firearms Related Activity:
You must provide proof of participation in a marksmanship related activity or otherwise show familiarity with the safe handling of firearms and range procedures.
There are exceptions to this requirement by providing proof of
Current or past military service.
- Current or past law enforcement service
- Participation in a rifle, pistol, air gun or shotgun competition (provide copy of results bulletin).
- Completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live fire training (provide a copy of the certificate of completion or a statement from the instructor).
- Distinguished, Instructor, or Coach status.
- Concealed Carry License.
- Firearms Owner Identification Cards that included live fire training.
- FFL or C&R license.
- Completion of a Hunter Safety Course that included live fire training.
- Certification from range or club official or law enforcement officer witnessing shooting activity
No proof of marksmanship required if over age 60. proof of club membership and citizenship required for all ages. Proof of marksmanship activity is not required for purchase of ammunition, parts, publications or memorabilia.
Be Legally Eligible to Purchase a Firearm:- and pass the NICS check
Proof of citizenship, age, CMP-affiliated club membership and competitive shooting participation, and any copy of any license, permit, or Firearms Owner ID card required by your State or locality submitted with your initial “Universal” application will be kept on file by the CMP for future purchases. If any item of proof above has expired, you must submit proof of current status with any subsequent application.
The Civilian Marksmanship Program has a number of M1 Garand battle rifles, M1 Carbines, M1903, M1903A3 for sale. There are a small number of the collector folding stock M1A1 paratrooper carbines that are available by auction to members.
Some .22 rifles and ammunition are also available.
There is a limited amount of non corrosive surplus 30-06 ammunition, some in spam cans, some loose in .30 cal. cans, some boxed, and some in en bloc clips in spam cans.
Prices start at $60.00 for 192 in en bloc clips- contained in 4 bandoleers in a spam can.
M1 Garands range in price from $495.00 in fair to good condition and in other various conditions and grades to the fabled M1D without accessories and scope for $2,300.00. They are sold out of the M1D now, but expect more this year.
There are just a few M1903 and M1903A3 rifles available at $500.00. These are Springfield and Remington.
M1 Carbines are in very used condition and are returns to the US government from several foreign governments. The barrels are not import marked, but may have arsenal markings stamped or painted on their stocks. They are priced at $419.00 for an Inland, $479.00 for Underwood, Saginaw, and, National Postal Meter IBM is priced at $495.00. Paratrooper M1A1 Carbines are available at auction on the website.
Various .22 target rifles are available, such as:
A Savage Mark I-FVT Government Unused)is $223.
.,.,and other target rifles
The CMP is chartered by the US Government and promotes firearms safety training and practice for all qualified US citizens. They hold national shooting competitions at Camp Perry.
There are some requirements for CMP membership required for purchases.
Proof of U.S. Citizenship:
Proof of Age:
Membership in CMP Affiliated Organization:- memberships are available for as little as $20.00 per year.
Marksmanship or other Firearms Related Activity:
You must provide proof of participation in a marksmanship related activity or otherwise show familiarity with the safe handling of firearms and range procedures.
There are exceptions to this requirement by providing proof of
Current or past military service.
- Current or past law enforcement service
- Participation in a rifle, pistol, air gun or shotgun competition (provide copy of results bulletin).
- Completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live fire training (provide a copy of the certificate of completion or a statement from the instructor).
- Distinguished, Instructor, or Coach status.
- Concealed Carry License.
- Firearms Owner Identification Cards that included live fire training.
- FFL or C&R license.
- Completion of a Hunter Safety Course that included live fire training.
- Certification from range or club official or law enforcement officer witnessing shooting activity
No proof of marksmanship required if over age 60. proof of club membership and citizenship required for all ages. Proof of marksmanship activity is not required for purchase of ammunition, parts, publications or memorabilia.
Be Legally Eligible to Purchase a Firearm:- and pass the NICS check
Proof of citizenship, age, CMP-affiliated club membership and competitive shooting participation, and any copy of any license, permit, or Firearms Owner ID card required by your State or locality submitted with your initial “Universal” application will be kept on file by the CMP for future purchases. If any item of proof above has expired, you must submit proof of current status with any subsequent application.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Head of ND Univ. System Forbids Firearms On Campus- Gets Armed Bodyguard
A committee of the North Dakota House heard testimony on ending the ban on concealed firearms guns on North Dakota college campuses in late January.
The Chancellor of the North Dakota University System, Bill Goetz, was there to testify against the practice. He told the legislators that state college campuses ban concealed handguns for safety reasons.
He further testified that North Dakota college campuses, which don't allow guns, are safer from violent crime than any other place in the USA. He made a carrying exception for trained law enforcement.
But, when there are killings in gun free zones, like schools, college campuses, churches, and other gun free zones, they are spectacular in their scope and size.
Grouping the unarmed and those unable to defend themselves in close quarters, is an invitation to mass murder.
Just three days earlier, Goetz himself received a personal armed bodyguard at school events in the form of North Dakota State University Police Captain Scott Magnuson.
The Chancellor denied asking for a bodyguard, but said that there had been an incident where someone came uninvited into the school's President's home while his family was there.
He said there had been other events on campus that lead to concerns about security.
Chancellor Goetz believes the college community in North Dakota has the same level of protection that he has, namely, the campus police.
Of course, they can be there in minutes, when seconds count.
Immediately coming to mind is another "Chancellor" in Germany who denied guns to the public he controlled, yet had an army of armed bodyguards to protect himself. This is not to equate Goetz to the German Chancellor.
But, such examples of gun hypocracy aren't so extreme.
In places like New York City, and all over California, and other "may issue" areas, those who are politically connected are able to arm themselves legally, and with impunity.
Many Hollywood stars like Jennifer Aniston carry firearms themselves. She even used hers to hold a burglar in her bedroom at bay until police arrived. Others who disdain guns, have armed bodyguards.
If Chancellor Goetz doesn't believe he needs an armed bodyguard at school events, then he should get rid of him. If he doesn't believe that the same threat of potential deadly violence exists on college campuses in North Dakota as it does on other campuses like Virginia Tech, then he should go it alone and unarmed, like his students and faculty do.
Once he does that, then he can experience the same level of threat and concern about armed attacks that those he disarms experience on a daily basis.
The Chancellor of the North Dakota University System, Bill Goetz, was there to testify against the practice. He told the legislators that state college campuses ban concealed handguns for safety reasons.
He further testified that North Dakota college campuses, which don't allow guns, are safer from violent crime than any other place in the USA. He made a carrying exception for trained law enforcement.
But, when there are killings in gun free zones, like schools, college campuses, churches, and other gun free zones, they are spectacular in their scope and size.
Grouping the unarmed and those unable to defend themselves in close quarters, is an invitation to mass murder.
Just three days earlier, Goetz himself received a personal armed bodyguard at school events in the form of North Dakota State University Police Captain Scott Magnuson.
The Chancellor denied asking for a bodyguard, but said that there had been an incident where someone came uninvited into the school's President's home while his family was there.
He said there had been other events on campus that lead to concerns about security.
Chancellor Goetz believes the college community in North Dakota has the same level of protection that he has, namely, the campus police.
Of course, they can be there in minutes, when seconds count.
Immediately coming to mind is another "Chancellor" in Germany who denied guns to the public he controlled, yet had an army of armed bodyguards to protect himself. This is not to equate Goetz to the German Chancellor.
But, such examples of gun hypocracy aren't so extreme.
In places like New York City, and all over California, and other "may issue" areas, those who are politically connected are able to arm themselves legally, and with impunity.
Many Hollywood stars like Jennifer Aniston carry firearms themselves. She even used hers to hold a burglar in her bedroom at bay until police arrived. Others who disdain guns, have armed bodyguards.
If Chancellor Goetz doesn't believe he needs an armed bodyguard at school events, then he should get rid of him. If he doesn't believe that the same threat of potential deadly violence exists on college campuses in North Dakota as it does on other campuses like Virginia Tech, then he should go it alone and unarmed, like his students and faculty do.
Once he does that, then he can experience the same level of threat and concern about armed attacks that those he disarms experience on a daily basis.
Friday, February 13, 2009
College Student with gun permit suspended for bringing gun to campus- must write a term paper
And, I'm going to offer some help on writing that paper.
A student at Western Oregon University with a concealed handgun license was arrested and suspended after being found carrying a Derringer and seen with a knife sticking out of his pocket. The Marine Corps veteran was suspended until the end of the term.
A licensed mental health professional must determine that he is not a threat to himself or others and notify the University before he can return. The school must consider that carrying a concealed handgun permit is a sign of mental unbalance.
The Oregon Firearms Federation paid for his lawyer. He will not be prosecuted.
As part of his "rehabilitation" to reenter college, he must also write a 10 page paper that:
The paper as I suggest it be written would earn a "F" for its message. It wouldn't show appropriate political correctness that the university is looking for. But it would make an "A+" in the real world.
A student at Western Oregon University with a concealed handgun license was arrested and suspended after being found carrying a Derringer and seen with a knife sticking out of his pocket. The Marine Corps veteran was suspended until the end of the term.
A licensed mental health professional must determine that he is not a threat to himself or others and notify the University before he can return. The school must consider that carrying a concealed handgun permit is a sign of mental unbalance.
The Oregon Firearms Federation paid for his lawyer. He will not be prosecuted.
As part of his "rehabilitation" to reenter college, he must also write a 10 page paper that:
1. addresses the impact of possession of weapons on college campuses on others, and
2. the importance of following the law.
Here's some suggestions he could use when writing his 10 page paper.
Here's some suggestions he could use when writing his 10 page paper.
Regarding the impact on others of carrying a concealed handgun, he could do two things.
These won't win any points with college administrators, but they don't want to hear anything but liberal lip service to the public education ideals anyway.
First, on the impact on others of carrying weapons. Write of the importance of using a concealed handgun in protecting himself and those others from attacks on campus from a mass murderer such as seen at Virginia Tech and other gun free zones.
And, point out that in a state like Oregon, where concealed handguns are permitted, that in the course of everyday life, a person can be standing next to, or in a room with, or be in an elevator next to a person carrying a licensed handgun many times during the day, and not even know it.
Second,When he writes of the importance of obeying the law, he could write that it is absolutely important to obey the law, and that he was obeying the law by carrying a handgun with a lawful permit.
He did not break Oregon law. He is exempted from the prohibition by state law itself. “166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses: ... (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: ....(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.”
The above statute is why he was not criminally charged.
Furthermore, The University is in violation of the law here. Only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms.
“166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.”
In addition to his pointing out Oregon law in this matter, he could write that a person has a right to protect himself with a lawful concealed handgun from other violent people who do not believe that any laws should be obeyed, and think nothing of killing others who they know are unarmed in gun free zones like college campuses, some shopping malls, and high school campuses.
These won't win any points with college administrators, but they don't want to hear anything but liberal lip service to the public education ideals anyway.
First, on the impact on others of carrying weapons. Write of the importance of using a concealed handgun in protecting himself and those others from attacks on campus from a mass murderer such as seen at Virginia Tech and other gun free zones.
And, point out that in a state like Oregon, where concealed handguns are permitted, that in the course of everyday life, a person can be standing next to, or in a room with, or be in an elevator next to a person carrying a licensed handgun many times during the day, and not even know it.
Second,When he writes of the importance of obeying the law, he could write that it is absolutely important to obey the law, and that he was obeying the law by carrying a handgun with a lawful permit.
He did not break Oregon law. He is exempted from the prohibition by state law itself. “166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses: ... (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: ....(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.”
The above statute is why he was not criminally charged.
Furthermore, The University is in violation of the law here. Only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms.
“166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.”
In addition to his pointing out Oregon law in this matter, he could write that a person has a right to protect himself with a lawful concealed handgun from other violent people who do not believe that any laws should be obeyed, and think nothing of killing others who they know are unarmed in gun free zones like college campuses, some shopping malls, and high school campuses.
The paper as I suggest it be written would earn a "F" for its message. It wouldn't show appropriate political correctness that the university is looking for. But it would make an "A+" in the real world.
"We Are All Socialists Now"- Goodbye Firearms
"WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW"
This is on the cover of the February 16, 2009 Newsweek magazine. When I read this, a cold chill went through me. It wasn't like the tingle running up and down the leg of MSNBC's Chris Matthews when he thinks of Barak Obama.
The article says, "In many ways our economy resembles a European one. As Boomers age, and spending grows, we will become even more French."
Do we really want to be French? Do we really want the European model for anything in the United States? We have seen the problems brought on by unfettered immigration in Europe and here. Are we prepared to live with all the benefits that Socialism brings?
The era of the nanny state has arrived where those in power believe they can take care of all our needs, raise our families and children, and protect us better than we can ourselves. They not only have a belief, but they are putting their plans in action.
What benefits will we be getting? Benefits such as European style "free" long wait for medical treatment under socialist medicine.
For example, when a colon polyp is suspected, an immediate colonoscopy is required to prevent the polyp from becoming cancerous. And, that's what we get under the current American medical system. Unfortunately, in England, with socialist health care rationing, the wait is too long, and most colon polyps become full blown colon cancer before a patient can have his procedure. But, many people are blind to socialized medicine's problems because health care is "free" and available to everyone
And, there's the European system of gun control, which is epitomized by United Nations efforts to control our Second Amendment rights.
The United Nations has been after our firearms for years.
Just consider the following from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress about the U.N. General Assembly adoption in May 2001 of a 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.
"The U.N. Convention was signed by the United States on December 13, 2000, and
transmitted to the Senate, along with two protocols, on February 23, 2004 (108th
Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Treaty Document 108-16). The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee held hearings on June 17, 2004, with no further action. The United States
took no action on the firearms protocol, neither signing it nor transmitting it to the Senate..."
"On July 9, 2001,then U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton, in a statement to the Conference, noted that Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding, are the strictly military arms —automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missile and rocket systems, lightmortars — that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions ofconflict around the world.
We separate these military arms from firearms such as
hunting rifles and pistols, which are commonly owned and used by citizens in many
countries. As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, “just as the First and
Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the
Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The United
States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of
national life. Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting. We, therefore, do not begin with the presumption that all small arms and light weapons are the same or that they are all problematic."...
"While U.N. bodies have adopted resolutions and a “firearms protocol,” these efforts
have focused on the availability of firearms manufactured and obtained illegally and on the use or misuse of these firearms in the criminal arena, including for organized crime,and/or to facilitate the spread of or prolongation of conflict. During meetings and negotiations in U.N. bodies, U.S. representatives have focused on the need to combat organized crime and to reduce out-of-control violence and conflict by limiting the availability of firearms, light weapons, and small arms that contribute to and aggravate these situations.
They have made it clear that the reduction of crime and conflict is a primary goal of the United States. They have supported U.S. Second Amendment rights of citizens to firearms. As the experience with the OAS Convention and the U.N. Protocol illustrates, any international treaties in this area would not bind the United States unless these documents were acted on favorably by the U.S. Senate, if the President decided to transmit the treaty to the Senate for its consideration."
American gun owners were fortunate when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to act on the United Nations Firearms control protocol in 2004, when the committee was Republican controlled.
This UN gun control program died in the United States in 2004. It is still on the table at the United Nations. But, will it rise from the ashes here? The Senate Foreign Relations is under the control of Barack Hussein Obama now. Ambassador John Bolton is gone, along with our government's resistance to United Nations programs like the KYOTO Treaty and this.
We have seen changes in this country in the last year that no one could have possible conceived of before. Being a part of what the United nations and Barack Obama consider the "world community," I do not look forward to what may be in the cards for us here. As for me, I choose not to be a Socialist.
This is on the cover of the February 16, 2009 Newsweek magazine. When I read this, a cold chill went through me. It wasn't like the tingle running up and down the leg of MSNBC's Chris Matthews when he thinks of Barak Obama.
The article says, "In many ways our economy resembles a European one. As Boomers age, and spending grows, we will become even more French."
Do we really want to be French? Do we really want the European model for anything in the United States? We have seen the problems brought on by unfettered immigration in Europe and here. Are we prepared to live with all the benefits that Socialism brings?
The era of the nanny state has arrived where those in power believe they can take care of all our needs, raise our families and children, and protect us better than we can ourselves. They not only have a belief, but they are putting their plans in action.
What benefits will we be getting? Benefits such as European style "free" long wait for medical treatment under socialist medicine.
For example, when a colon polyp is suspected, an immediate colonoscopy is required to prevent the polyp from becoming cancerous. And, that's what we get under the current American medical system. Unfortunately, in England, with socialist health care rationing, the wait is too long, and most colon polyps become full blown colon cancer before a patient can have his procedure. But, many people are blind to socialized medicine's problems because health care is "free" and available to everyone
And, there's the European system of gun control, which is epitomized by United Nations efforts to control our Second Amendment rights.
The United Nations has been after our firearms for years.
Just consider the following from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress about the U.N. General Assembly adoption in May 2001 of a 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.
"The U.N. Convention was signed by the United States on December 13, 2000, and
transmitted to the Senate, along with two protocols, on February 23, 2004 (108th
Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Treaty Document 108-16). The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee held hearings on June 17, 2004, with no further action. The United States
took no action on the firearms protocol, neither signing it nor transmitting it to the Senate..."
"On July 9, 2001,then U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton, in a statement to the Conference, noted that Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding, are the strictly military arms —automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missile and rocket systems, lightmortars — that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions ofconflict around the world.
We separate these military arms from firearms such as
hunting rifles and pistols, which are commonly owned and used by citizens in many
countries. As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, “just as the First and
Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the
Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The United
States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of
national life. Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting. We, therefore, do not begin with the presumption that all small arms and light weapons are the same or that they are all problematic."...
"While U.N. bodies have adopted resolutions and a “firearms protocol,” these efforts
have focused on the availability of firearms manufactured and obtained illegally and on the use or misuse of these firearms in the criminal arena, including for organized crime,and/or to facilitate the spread of or prolongation of conflict. During meetings and negotiations in U.N. bodies, U.S. representatives have focused on the need to combat organized crime and to reduce out-of-control violence and conflict by limiting the availability of firearms, light weapons, and small arms that contribute to and aggravate these situations.
They have made it clear that the reduction of crime and conflict is a primary goal of the United States. They have supported U.S. Second Amendment rights of citizens to firearms. As the experience with the OAS Convention and the U.N. Protocol illustrates, any international treaties in this area would not bind the United States unless these documents were acted on favorably by the U.S. Senate, if the President decided to transmit the treaty to the Senate for its consideration."
American gun owners were fortunate when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to act on the United Nations Firearms control protocol in 2004, when the committee was Republican controlled.
This UN gun control program died in the United States in 2004. It is still on the table at the United Nations. But, will it rise from the ashes here? The Senate Foreign Relations is under the control of Barack Hussein Obama now. Ambassador John Bolton is gone, along with our government's resistance to United Nations programs like the KYOTO Treaty and this.
We have seen changes in this country in the last year that no one could have possible conceived of before. Being a part of what the United nations and Barack Obama consider the "world community," I do not look forward to what may be in the cards for us here. As for me, I choose not to be a Socialist.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
2nd Court of Appeals rules against gun rights
The Second Court of Appeals has ruled that the second amendment is not applicable to states. The Court stated that it governs the Congress and Federal Government only.
Of course, to every rule, there are exceptions. The ruling in this Second Circuit case only applies to courts in states in it's Circuit. There are 9 circuits in the United States. Go to this link to see if your state is controlled by the Second Court of Appeals. http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/
Any of the other 8 Circuit Courts are free to rule the other way.
In this case, Maloney v Coumo, Mr. Maloney had a “chuka
stick” (or “nunchaku”)which were against New York law,in his home in violation of New York law. He pled to a disorderly conduct charge. He challenged the law as being unconstitutional because it punished possession of nunchakus in one’s
home and violated his right to keep and bear arms. He also argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it didn't have a rational basis. Unfortunately, The 2nd Court of Appeals believed otherwise.
Why doesn't the 14th amendment make the 2nd applicable to the states? Common sense would say it should in light of the other parts of the bill of rights that the 14th incorporates to the states. Such as other rights such as the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, and so forth. In order to not be incorporated, there must be a "Rational Basis" for that.
The Incorporation Doctrine is where fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are enforced on the States by way of the 14th Amendment. An argument was made by Mr. Maloney that the 14th amendment incorporated the 3nd Amendment and made the the right to keep and bear arms of the second amendment applicable to the states.
There are exceptions to the Incorporation Doctrine. One incorporation exception is the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment. People in some states are charged by the prosecutors submitting a criminal "Information" to the Court instead of presenting evidence to the Grand Jury.
Regarding Mr. Maloney, the Court ruled, "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)."
The court said that the Heller case does not invalidate this longstanding principle
This is a slap in the face of Heller, where the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.
D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement also violated the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.
This ruling also make self defense impossible.
But, Justice Scalia also said that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court's opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.
In testing whether a right is a fundamental right that should be enforced against the states, the Court previously looked to the fundamental nature of the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court used that analysis in incorporating the fundamental right in the 6th Amendment to an attorney in all states in a criminal case in Gideon v Wainwright.
In that case, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances are fundamental rights made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Aren't the protections of the Second Amendment as fundamental as the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances?
It is the firm belief of gun owners that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that the other amendments are protected by the Second Amendment. It is also the firm belief that the right to defend one's self, family, and others is a fundamental right that should be applicable to the states.
The Second Circuit Court followed a principle of "Stare Decisis" where all Courts are bound to follow the previous decisions made by it, such as the Presser case.
In the past, Stare Decisis also kept laws on the books that allowed slavery, denied women the right to vote, and maintained racially separate schools.
This case can be appealed on a certiorari application to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS does not have to hear the case.
They could also hear an appeal if another Circuit rules differently on a similar case.
At this point, this decision only affects the area covered by the second Court of Appeals. Lets hope it doesn't spread like a cancer.
Of course, to every rule, there are exceptions. The ruling in this Second Circuit case only applies to courts in states in it's Circuit. There are 9 circuits in the United States. Go to this link to see if your state is controlled by the Second Court of Appeals. http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/
Any of the other 8 Circuit Courts are free to rule the other way.
In this case, Maloney v Coumo, Mr. Maloney had a “chuka
stick” (or “nunchaku”)which were against New York law,in his home in violation of New York law. He pled to a disorderly conduct charge. He challenged the law as being unconstitutional because it punished possession of nunchakus in one’s
home and violated his right to keep and bear arms. He also argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it didn't have a rational basis. Unfortunately, The 2nd Court of Appeals believed otherwise.
Why doesn't the 14th amendment make the 2nd applicable to the states? Common sense would say it should in light of the other parts of the bill of rights that the 14th incorporates to the states. Such as other rights such as the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, and so forth. In order to not be incorporated, there must be a "Rational Basis" for that.
The Incorporation Doctrine is where fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are enforced on the States by way of the 14th Amendment. An argument was made by Mr. Maloney that the 14th amendment incorporated the 3nd Amendment and made the the right to keep and bear arms of the second amendment applicable to the states.
There are exceptions to the Incorporation Doctrine. One incorporation exception is the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment. People in some states are charged by the prosecutors submitting a criminal "Information" to the Court instead of presenting evidence to the Grand Jury.
Regarding Mr. Maloney, the Court ruled, "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)."
The court said that the Heller case does not invalidate this longstanding principle
This is a slap in the face of Heller, where the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.
D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement also violated the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.
This ruling also make self defense impossible.
But, Justice Scalia also said that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court's opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.
In testing whether a right is a fundamental right that should be enforced against the states, the Court previously looked to the fundamental nature of the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court used that analysis in incorporating the fundamental right in the 6th Amendment to an attorney in all states in a criminal case in Gideon v Wainwright.
In that case, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances are fundamental rights made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Aren't the protections of the Second Amendment as fundamental as the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances?
It is the firm belief of gun owners that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that the other amendments are protected by the Second Amendment. It is also the firm belief that the right to defend one's self, family, and others is a fundamental right that should be applicable to the states.
The Second Circuit Court followed a principle of "Stare Decisis" where all Courts are bound to follow the previous decisions made by it, such as the Presser case.
In the past, Stare Decisis also kept laws on the books that allowed slavery, denied women the right to vote, and maintained racially separate schools.
This case can be appealed on a certiorari application to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS does not have to hear the case.
They could also hear an appeal if another Circuit rules differently on a similar case.
At this point, this decision only affects the area covered by the second Court of Appeals. Lets hope it doesn't spread like a cancer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)