Time for NRA Members to Lobby the NRA to Support Ron Paul

NRA members who support Ron Paul need to contact the NRA and urge them to support Ron Paul. In an unusual move, the NRA has stated that it plans to endorse one of the Republican candidates running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. The NRA has never done this in previous presidential elections. They have always waited until the general election before endorsing a candidate.

However, the NRA needs to hear from members. The NRA likely favors Fred Thompson. Unless the NRA gets a flood of messages from NRA members who support Ron Paul, the NRA is going to endorse the wrong candidate. No candidate running is stronger on the 2nd Amendment or the U.S. Constitution than Ron Paul. We must let the NRA know that we expect nothing less than for them to support the best person for the job and that person is Ron Paul.

You can contact the NRA here.

Here is a video on Ron Paul on the 2nd Amendment.

Florida Student Arrested for Asking Kerry Question Was Assaulted by Police

The Florida student who was arrested by police for asking John Kerry a question was assaulted by police. Here is a youtube video that proves it.

Disturbingly, a Fox News story reports that "Police are recommending a felony charge for disrupting a public event."

The police officers walk up behind the student as he is peacefully asking a question and grab him and start to drag him away. There was definitely a crime committed, however the crime was committed by the police and not the student. As soon as the police illegally assaulted the student, they were not longer acting under the guise of the law. Applying the reasonable man test, it is completely reasonable for someone to defend themselves when illegally assaulted as the student was.

The police in question should be arrested and charged with assault.

Constitution Class

Free online Constitution Class by Michael Badnarik

Contact CNN for GOP YouTube Debate

The WarOnGuns is asking supporters of the right to keep and bear arms to contact CNN and ask them to play this question for the GOP YouTube debate that they are hosting. The question is from Tom Gresham and Clint Smith. They ask the candidates what the first three gun control laws they would repeal out of the 20,000+ gun control laws on the books if they were the President.

It would be rather interesting to see the GOP candidates answer this question. On the federal level, I would like to see the 1934 National Firearms Act, 1964 Gun Control Act, and the Gun Free School Zone Act repealed. And that is just my first three federal gun laws that I would like to see repealed. I would also like to see the ban on carrying and possessing firearms at National Parks repealed (although this is just federal policy not law).

Since I live in Maine, there aren't a whole lot of gun control laws that need to be repealed at the state level, but there are a few. First, I would repeal Title 20-A, Section 6552, which bans possession of firearms on school property (because I am pretty sure such a law does not deter people such as Cho Seung-Hui). I would also repeal the ban on the possession of concealed firearms without first obtaining government permission.

Of course, there is only one Republican candidate running that publicly supports and defends the U.S. Constitution and that candidate is Ron Paul. He is probably the only candidate that would be able to list at least three gun control laws that he would repeal. Here is an interesting YouTube video of Ron Paul at the Iowa Straw Poll.

Revitalizing the Militia

Dr. Edwin Vieira is the author of a very timely book titled "Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States. Volume I, The Nation in Arms." It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to anybody concerned with "homeland security" and individual liberty. In it, Dr. Vieira urges for the revitalization of "the militia of the several states."

Even if you don't agree with the author's position of the need to revitalize the "militia of the several states" in the name of "homeland security", it is still a very informative and well documented book for anyone interested in the Constitutional basis of the "well-regulated militia." You can buy the book here.

In my preceding posts below I have pasted several articles which can be found on the NRA's website. These articles discuss the 2nd Amendment and what role the founders of our country felt the citizen militia had. Specific portions which discuss the citizen militia are highlighted in green.

Unfortunately, in today's world the citizen militia gets alot of bad press. My purpose for posting the articles below is to show that the concept of the citizen militia and its importance is not an extreme position to take. Without rebuilding a positive image of the citizen militia in the publics' eye it will be impossible to revitalize it.

Our country faces many challenges. A revitalized citizen militia could help to play a vital role in preserving freedom and liberty in these challenging and dangerous times.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?ID=2724

Friday, March 09, 2007

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. (Read NRA's amicus curiae briefin Parker v. District of Columbia) According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Read the majority opinion here

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Firearm Facts 2007

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The right to keep and bear arms is derived from and inseparably linked to the right of self-defense. Thus, by nature it is an individually possessed right, as are all rights protected in our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and those whom the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) referred to as “approved commentators” could not have been more clear about the nature of the right and the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee wrote, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”

Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Constitutional scholars have noted that there is no historical basis for the claim that the Second Amendment protects only a so-called “collective right” of states to arm militias. Author, attorney and constitutional expert Stephen P. Halbrook has written: “If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.” (That Every Man Be Armed, Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984)

Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm, testifying before Congress in 1995, told anti-gun Rep. John Conyers, “It is very hard, sir, to find a historian who now believes it is only a ‘collective right.’ [T]here is a general consensus that in fact it is an individual right.”

The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.

In U.S. v. Emerson (2001) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject only to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions” that “are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” While the Department of Justice recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms is an individually-held right other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right. (www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)

The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia” has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militia “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militia consist “of the whole people.”

The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the “well regulated militia” referred to in the Second Amendment. “The Militia of the United States” is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., §311; 32 U.S.C., §313), with the Guard established as only its “organized” element.

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

America`s Founding Fathers On The Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=53

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

George Mason, of Virginia:

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason`s declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

William Grayson, of Virginia:

"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." -- Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." -- Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Patrick Henry, of Virginia:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention

For more information, see Halbrook, Stephen P., "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment," Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, Fall, 1991; and "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right," Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

NRA And The Second Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

Those who founded our state and federal governments conferred upon them extensive powers but reserved to the people certain individual freedoms. Citizens demanded that our original federal Constitution be amended to include a Bill of Rights with specific provisions to safeguard cherished individual liberties.

The language and intent of the framers of the Second Amendment were perfectly clear two centuries ago. Based on the English Common Law, the Second Amendment guaranteed against federal interference with the citizen`s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Too, the revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address the second concern--the need for the people to maintain a citizen--militia for national and state defense without adopting the bane of liberty, a large standing army. An armed citizenry instead of a standing army was viewed as preventing the possibility of an arbitrary or tyrannical government.

As Patrick Henry put it, the "great object is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," which was lacking in other countries, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," authored the Second Amendment. It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.

The Founding Fathers distrusted a government which wouldn`t trust the people regardless of the level of government. The authors of the Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were at issue. Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." and Albert Gallatin, later to serve as Jefferson`s Treasury Secretary, said "lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

Since the adoption of the Second Amendment--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"--there have been two methods of trying to destroy that fundamental freedom.

The anti-gunners` first approach is, simply, to deny that a key provision of the Bill of Rights was ever intended to protect individuals. They can never cite an 18th century source for their claim that the Bill of Rights, or any provision of it, was intended to protect the "rights" of anyone but individuals. Yet they constantly assert, with the acquiescence of the news media, that only some vague "right of states to have militias" was meant. Sometimes they also allege that modern firearms were unforeseen. They ignore the fact that states had "powers," not "rights," and that a number of states guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms as well. And media types--who can spread lies around the nation in a fraction of a second, when it took over a week for news to travel throughout the early U.S.--insist the Founding Fathers could never envision guns which could be fired about twice a second rather than twice a minute.

There are those today who assert that the Second Amendment is out of date and obsolete in a modern age. If the Second Amendment is to be viewed as nothing more than a dusty 18th century relic, buried by scientific advances, then what about the First Amendment? How can those civil libertarians who forcefully denounce each and every abridgement of the First, remain absolutely silent before each and every attempted infringement of the Second?

The direct and blunt and anti-developmental approach is easy to reject for anyone willing to read history. The second--and in some ways more serious--threat to our freedoms is the incremental approach. Some lawmakers have deserted gun owners, claiming to support the right to keep and bear arms but also saying that right must be "balanced" with the needs of society as a whole.

Some also claim that banning certain guns, or parts of guns, or features of guns doesn`t constitute a serious infringement of rights. They claim society`s "greater good" outweighs the individual right to own a semi-auto with a large-capacity magazine, or a large capacity magazine itself, or . . .

The incremental approach, where the individual`s constitutional guarantee is weighed against some alleged governmental or societal need, inevitably leads to the loss of rights, sometimes to their total destruction.

The incremental approach can similarly undermine a freedom by claiming the reasons for it no longer exist. An answer to the question, if all they want is a few rifles and handguns, or a few restrictions, why not give it to them?" is that that`s not what they want. Since none of the infringements is aimed at the problem of criminal violence, each and every one is doomed to failure. The anti-gunners are sure to follow up each failure, not with an admission their policies were misguided and should be repealed, but, instead, with a call for still more restrictions on the grounds the earlier restrictions weren`t enough. Thus, every infringement, far from reducing the pressure for more restrictions, simply increases the pressure for the next curtailment of the freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died.

For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.

NRA believes that the Second Amendment speaks to far more than a right to enjoy firearms for hunting and target shooting, the phony "sporting purposes" notion to which so many cling. Such notions trivialize an essential freedom which NRA is honor bound to defend, a constitutional safeguard as worthy of defense as freedom of speech.

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Isn't the "well regulated militia" the National Guard?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=192&issue=010

Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia," and that this "militia" is the National Guard. This is not only inconsistent with the statements of America's Founders and the concept of individual rights, it also wrongly defines the term "militia."

Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose.

America's Founders defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . ." Making the same point, Tench Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large." George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia who had to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied adult males. The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States." The other part included other able-bodied adult men, plus some other men and women.

However, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers' independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America's armed citizenry.

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

The Second Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=177

The Second Amendment guarantees: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.

James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one’s home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...."

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm

The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."

Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment or Strengthen the Citizen Militia?

The 2nd Amendment, in addition to enumerating the right to keep and bear arms, also states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Why is it that our founders believed this?

I believe that it is true today that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, however we neither have a well-regulated militia, nor a populace that believes this to be true.

It is time for 2nd Amendment advocates to have a public discussion about the need for a well-regulated militia and why it is vital to freedom and liberty. Until we put the idea of a well-regulated militia back into a good light with the public, and strengthen and revitalize the militia, we will continue to see the 2nd Amendment, and other liberties, attacked and ultimately destroyed.

Since the Parker decision, in which a federal court upheld the 2nd Amendment, I have read several articles, including this one, calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

The author of the above article, for one, is misinformed on the purpose of the militia. He states:
"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

First, the right to organize militias is not exclusive to the states. It is the peoples' right. How would the militia prevent tyranny in government, if the government had the exclusive right to organize it? The purpose of militia's was not exclusively for the protection of the states against the federal government, but for the peoples' protection against government in general (and against foreign invasion as well).

Additionally, the author states that today, people don't believe that militias, and individual arms ownership is vital to protect liberty. The author is probably right to some degree on this point, but that doesn't mean he is correct in his assumption that a well-regulated militia and individual arms ownership is NOT vital to liberty.

The founders of our country understood that a well-regulated militia and individual arms ownership is vital to liberty and hence they added the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. And they were looking back at history over many centuries to come to their conclusions.

2nd Amendment supporters are quick to defend the right to keep and bear arms, but we must not forget the other part of the amendment, which states that a well-regulated militia (the people, an armed citizenry, citizen militia)is necessary to the security of a free state (our nation, our homeland, our country,).

The future of freedom and liberty in our nation are dependent on us having a serious debate on this issue and coming to the right conclusions. With the anti's bringing up the issue of repealing the 2nd Amendment, I say it is time for us to bring up the issue of strengthening and revitalizing the concept of citizen's militias.

Here are some links to articles written by Dr. Edwin Vieira for more information in regards to revitalizing the concept of citizen's militias:
http://www.gunowners.org/opevtb.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm

School's Out on Safety

School's Out on Safety, that is the title of Wayne LaPierre's latest blog article on NRANews.com. In it LaPierre talks about how the Gun Free School Zone Act disarms law abiding citizens and how our schools are at risk due to the lack of security this act provides. LaPierre says, "Over the next few days, right here in this blog, I intend to open a national dialogue about school safety and protecting our children.I also want to hear from you and get your thoughts. Because when it comes to safeguarding America's children, every reasonable solution should be on the table for consideration."

Well, I have some thoughts for LaPierre. How about repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act. For one, it is completely unconstitutional. GOA recently issued an alert on this issue concerning a bill introduced by Ron Paul to repeal this act. Repealing this act is the answer.

The "Gun Free School Zones Act" makes it illegal to posses a firearm within 1000 ft of any school unless you have a permit issued from the particular state you are in. The original Gun Free School Zone Act was struck down and then repassed to "fix" its unconstitutionality.

For those interested in learning more about the "Gun Free School Zones Act" firearm ban within 1000 ft of any school here are several links.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

http://libertyrocks.wordpress.com/2006/09/28/gunfreeschoolzones/

I am quite sure this law gets broken by law abiding citizens, most of whom don't even realize they are breaking the law, (ignorance is no excuse, right?) many thousands of times per year. Gun grabbers are just waiting for the "right time" to really begin to enforce this law. Anyone who open carries and does not otherwise have a permit issued by the state they are in to posses firearms should certainly be aware of this congressional act of tyranny.

Hopefully, Lapierre in the next few days, will come out strong and advocate for the repeal of the Gun Free School Zone Act.

Action Item: Gun Rights Under Assault in Maine

A recent NRA alert announces that:

Legislative Document 1111 (AMENDED) “The Maine Burglar Protection Act” introduced by State Senator Ethan Strimling (D-8), has now been amended to mandate the locked storage of all firearms in the home. If this measure becomes law, Maine residents will be required to lock-up ALL of their firearms – leaving gun owners and their families defenseless against criminals!

Here is the link to the NRA page, although it mistakenly says Pennsylvania instead of Maine at the top of the page.

A work session has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 11 at 1:00 PM in State House room 436. The NRA is urging gun rights supporters to attend this work session.

Requiring gun owners to lock up their firearms is unconstitutional. What right does any government have to dictate this? What if I desire to store my firearm for quick access in the event I need it for self defense? Should the government also regulate how I store household chemicals which can also be lethal if misused? How about my kitchen knives?

This bill is ludicrous. When will these anti-gunners give it up? Probably never.

In addition to the above bill the above work session will also hear a number of other bills. Among them is a bill that I have been pushing hard for in support of. That bill is LD 146 - Introduced by State Representative Richard Cebra (R-101) - "An Act To Enhance Self-Defense." I have discussed that bill in a previous post: "Six States Ready for Vermont Carry."

These bills are being heard by the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee whose contact information is below.

Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Members:
Senator Bill Diamond (D-Cumberland), Chair
Senator Earle L. McCormick (R-Kennebec)
Senator Roger L. Sherman (R-Aroostook)
Representative Stan Gerzofsky (D-Brunswick), Chair
Representative Patricia A. Blanchette (D-Bangor)
Representative Anne M. Haskell (D-Portland)
Representative Stephen P. Hanley (D-Gardiner)
Representative Dawn Hill (D-York)
Representative Bryan T. Kaenrath (D-South Portland)
Representative Richard M. Sykes (R-Harrison)
Representative Christian D. Greeley (R-Levant)
Representative Gary E. Plummer (R-Windham)
Representative Joseph L. Tibbetts (R-Columbia)

The following is a portion of the email that I sent to each of the above Committee members urging them to support LD 146 "An Act to Enhance Self-Defense."

I am writing to urge you to support LD 146 An Act to Enhance Self-Defense. This bill would allow a law abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm for self defense without first obtaining permission from the government. Passing this bill would put Maine in line with our Constitution. Article 1 Section 16 of the Maine Constitution states:

"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

This bill would not allow convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence, or those under a domestic restraining order to carry a concealed firearm as those individuals are prohibited by federal law from even owning or possessing any firearm.

This bill would also increase the maximum possible sentence for violent crimes committed with firearms and other weapons. This is the proper place for gun control. Laws should be passed to put violent criminals in jail and not to infringe on law abiding citizens' Constitutional rights and the natural right of self-defense.

The Supreme Court of Vermont has already found that requiring a law abiding citizen to first obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm is unconstitutional. Citizens of Vermont can carry concealed firearms without first obtaining a permit and their rate of violent crime and homicide is lower then Maine's. There is no evidence to support that any prohibition on concealed firearms has ever reduced violent crime. In fact, there is much evidence to support that most prohibitions on concealed weapons were the result of states attempting to disarm minority citizens, especially in the time around the Civil War period and its aftermath. See "The Racist Roots of Gun Control"by Clayton E. Cramer.


I believe the Maine law that requires a law abiding citizen to first obtain a permit in order to exercise a Constitutional right and a natural right is unconstitutional. Gun Owners of America makes a very strong argument why "Vermont-style" concealed carry legislation should be adopted saying that:

"Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege." The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right."

You can view their full article here.


For additional reasons why government in general should not license firearm owners see this article by Stephen P. Halbrook, a well respected scholar: "NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT."

Again, I urge you to support LD 146 An Act to Enhance Self-Defense.

Newspaper Misinformed on Maine Gun Bill

The author of a Sun Journal newspaper article titled "Driving with a lethal weapon" apparently is rather misinformed of who would be able to legally carry a concealed firearm if LD 146, An Act to Enhance Self-Defense, were passed.

The author states that the bill would "allow anyone to have a loaded firearm or crossbow in a vehicle, not just those with concealed weapons permits." The bill essentially would eliminate the current Maine law against carrying concealed weapons. However, the author of the article is apparently unaware that federal law currently prohibits convicted felons from owning or possessing a firearm. Additionally, federal law prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence (or even anyone under a domestic restraining order) from owning or possessing a firearm. So, LD 146 would not allow "anyone" to carry a concealed firearm.


The author also seems to be unaware that both the federal Constitution and the Maine Constitution specifically enumerate that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Rumford police chief, Stacy Carter, also seems to be unaware that our nearby neighbor Vermont allows law abiding citizens to carry firearms without government permission and their crime rate is lower than ours. He had this to say about the bill:

"This just goes against the normal public safety concerns, to have anybody running around out there with concealed weapons."

Chief Carter also seems to be unaware of our Constitutional protections to keep and BEAR arms. The Vermont Supreme court has ruled that requiring law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm is unconstitutional. It would seem to reason that if this practice is unconstitutional in Vermont it must also be unconstitutional in Maine as well. But then again, who cares. It is just a piece of paper anyway.

The Well-Regulated Militia

Dr. Edwin Vieira thinks it is time to revitalize the "well-regulated militia."

Here is an interview with Dr. Vieira and Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America about the "well-regulated militia."

I have to say that I agree with Dr. Vieira and Mr. Pratt. The well-regulated militia is a much better answer to our security needs than a Department of Homeland Security. Our founders seemed to know intuitively that the well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, precisely because it eliminated the need for an overbearing centralized government providing the "security" for us.

The well-regulated militia, in addition to eliminating the need for the overbearing central government providing "security" via a Department of Homeland Security, would be much more responsive and timely to local security needs. Just look at the governments response (both federal, state, and local) after Hurricane Katrina. In fact, with no well-regulated militia, the local government response in the wake of the disaster, was to disarm the militia (the people) in an act of desperation and tyranny.

When our founders stated that "a well-regulated militia" was "necessary to the security of a free state" they seem to have known what they were talking about. Now, over 200 years later, we seem to be relearning the same lessons.

Gun Law News Featured in Fox News Article

Congratulations to Jeff at Gun Law News for some well deserved recognition. And thanks for all the work you do. I am sure your effort must be very time consuming. But, the work you do is very valuable to the rest of us gun bloggers, and very valuable to anyone interested in the right to keep and bear arms.

The Fox News article recognizes the influence that bloggers have had on the right to keep and bear arms. And I do believe they have had a significant influence. Bloggers are the modern day equivalent of the pamphleteers of the 18th century. Michelle Malkin, in a recent Fox News appearance, stated quite enthusiastically, that the silent majority in this country is no longer silent. While she did not elaborate, she most certainly was referring to the blogosphere, of which she is a part of.

As you stated in your interview with Fox News, "There are a lot of small-time players. But if you total all those up you have a substantial mass and the market looks at that." And Gun Law News plays a substantial role in giving those "small-time players" a much louder voice and giving those same "players" a much larger viewing audience than most individual bloggers could garner on their own.

I visit Gun Law News almost daily to review your compilation of news by pro 2nd Amendment bloggers. I almost certainly could not review the number of pertinent right to keep and bear arms articles written by bloggers as I do by utilizing your website.

The Fox News article states, "A massive and seemingly mobilized online community has sprung among gun rights advocates..." Gun Law News has played a substantial role in that mobilization, and the no longer silent, majority pro-gun bloggers have had their collective voices multiplied many times over thanks to your efforts. Thanks again for all the work you do.

Why the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on Parker

Cam Edwards has a link to a Symposium on Parker where some of the top 2nd Amendment scholars comment on the Parker case. At least one of them, Randy Barnett, of Georgetown University, predicts the Supreme Court will not hear the case. Cam Edwards, of NRANews.com, predicts the appeals court ruling will cause the introduction and passage of a bill in Congress to repeal the D.C. law, thereby negating any need for the Parker case to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Why does the NRA want this bill passed instead of having the Parker case heard by the Supreme Court? One, is that this bill may make gun control a big issue for the 2008 elections. That certainly would be good for pro 2nd Amendment advocates. But again, why not let the Supreme Court hear the case now?

The anti-gunners certainly don't want the Supreme Court to hear the Parker case. The Supreme Court would likely agree with the appeals court ruling that the 2nd Amendment enumerates an individual right. That is bad for the anti's, no doubt. It erases at least 40 years of their destructive behavior. But the real problem for pro 2nd Amendment advocates is that the Supreme Court ruling will not go far enough. It would also likely agree too much with the appeals court ruling in regards to the 2nd Amendment allowing "reasonable regulation" of firearms ownership, which is the vast majority of gun control laws that we argue against. This would be similar to the Emerson ruling, or John Ashcroft's Justice Department paper on the 2nd Amendment, where at the end, after declaring the 2nd Amendment enumerated an individual right, both declared that essentially all current gun control laws were constitutional. Most Americans who believe the 2nd Amendment enumerates an individual right, are not themselves ready for the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and that is why the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the Parker case.

Until we are ready to accept the fact that a law abiding American should be able to own an M16 without paying a $200 tax or filling out a federal form, or carry a concealed handgun throughout this country without government permission, then we as 2nd Amendment supporters are not ready for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. The last thing we need as Supreme Court jurisprudence is the fact that all current gun control laws are indeed constitutional. We don't want to have to wait another 70 years for the Supreme Court to get it right on the 2nd Amendment.

Update on the Arms Trade Treaty

IANSA and a host of other anti-gun, anti-freedom, and anti-sovereignty organizations who make up the "Arms Trade Treaty Steering Committee" have a new paper out titled "Assessing the feasibility, scope and parameters of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT): an NGO perspective".

If you want their perspective, I highly recommend you read the 28 page paper. Pay particular attention to when the paper mentions "arms transfers" or "international arms transfers." It is quite clear from reading the paper that they desire the regulation of not only international arms transfers, but all transfers, including privates sales of firearms and other "dual-use goods" between law abiding citizens in our country. In their words:

"To be effective, an ATT should contain a comprehensive system to control the cross-border movement of all conventional weapons, munitions and associated parts, technology and equipment. This should cover the import, export, transit and trans-shipment and brokerage of all conventional arms including: heavy weapons; small arms and light weapons; parts and components for the aforementioned; munitions including ammunition and explosives; technology used for manufacturing conventional arms; weapons used for internal security; and dual-use goods intended for military, security or policing purposes."

There you have it folks. These people want the U.N. to control (i.e. ban) civilian use of firearms, ammunition, reloading equipment, mace, pepper spray, handcuffs, police batons, knives, tactical flashlights, scopes, binoculars, camouflage clothing, etc.

How will these transfers be controlled?

Well states will be obligated by international law to:

1. "authorise all arms transfers that are relevant to their jurisdiction;"
Not international arms transfers, but "arms transfers."

2. "assess all arms transfers, taking into account the following criteria:

-Express prohibitions where States must not transfer arms in certain situations;"

-including prohibitions where "the weapons are likely to be used to commit serious violations of international human rights law..."

-"other factors and emerging norms that must be considered when assessing arms transfers."

3. "A monitoring and enforcement mechanism..." with "appropriate penalties for offenders."

In addition to the above reference to international human rights law, the paper references human rights and international humanitarian law with respect to arms transfers several times throughout the paper. In another instance the paper argues that:

"The overriding need to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in all arms transfers is particularly clear. Under the Principles and Purposes of the UN Charter all Member States have an obligation to encourage and promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Human rights include not only civil and political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights- all of which are necessary for sustainable development."

American citizens should be very alarmed by the language in this paper. IANSA and other organizations have argued that civilian possession of firearms essentially violate peoples "human rights" and therefor they have called for the disarmament of civilians. In this ATT paper, they are advocating that the bureaucrats and petty tyrants at the UN be allowed to declare by decree that civilians may not possess firearms and other "dual-use" items. IANSA's Rebecca Peters is the same person who led the charge in Australia for the ban and confiscation of thousands of firearms possessed by law abiding citizens. This is the same Peters, who in a debate with Wayne Lapierre of the National Rifle Association, argued that Americans should follow the same rules as everybody else. In the same debate she argued that a woman who is about to be raped by a depraved criminal should not be allowed to carry or use a handgun in self defense. She is the same person who does not believe civilians should posses any firearm that shoots over 100 yards. My BB gun could probably shoot that far.

I am not a politician or diplomat, therefor I do not have to be diplomatic here. This ATT is a threat to American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty. The non-American citizens who advocate the views in this paper should not be allowed in the United States and should be arrested and deported if they do. They are subversives who desire to undermine the liberties of men and women of a free society. They are blinded by their desire for a socialist, utopia society, where they (the bureaucrats and petty tyrants) get to decide what is in the best interests of the "common good."

The question is, will we as Americans, who still value freedom and liberty, allow them to get away with this act of tyranny (passing an ATT). This ATT, if it passes, will be the beginning of the end. The beginning of the end of American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty. I certainly hope we are up to the challenge, for we face a very determined enemy.

Scrap the Bill of Rights? At least one politician gets it.

If only Bob Barr would run for President. He seems to be about the only politician who gets it (freedom and liberty that is). If not President, then he would be a really good choice as Vice Presidential running mate. Perhaps a Duncan Hunter and Bob Barr ticket.

I fear that if more politicians in Washington D.C. don't start "getting it", then American citizens are really going to start getting it.

Duncan Hunter in the News

I just watched yesterday's Hannity and Colmes Show on Fox News and I was surprised by the attention that Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter received.

Sean and Allen featured the results of a straw poll that was held in Spartansburg, South Carolina on 3/1/07 for Republican candidates. I was very surprised to see that Duncan Hunter received the second highest number of votes and was not that far behind the winner, Rudy Giuliani. The results were as follows:

Sam Brownback 68- Tom Tancredo 4
Rudy Giuliani 123- Mitt Romney 59
Mike Huckabee 18- Tommy Thompson 0
Duncan Hunter 110- John Cox 1
John McCain 86- Newt Gingrich 4
Ron Paul 1

Up to this point, I really thought that Hunter was a no name without really any chance of winning. The results seemed to really surprise Sean and Allen as well. During the course of the show it was mentioned that many conservatives had issues with the credentials of Giuliani, McCain, and Romney and that they were searching for a candidate in the mold of Ronald Reagan. But again, they both seemed very surprised by the results.

If we make some noise in support of Duncan Hunter we just might be able to get another Reagan Republican. I honestly don't believe Giuliani, McCain, or Romney can beat Clinton or Obama. The Republican strategists need to realize that they can't alienate the conservative base and win the Presidency. While Giuliani, McCain, and Romney would likely win alot of moderate votes they can't win if the base of the party stays home on election day. The conservative base has realized that compromise with the far left may delay the inevitable, but it doesn't prevent it. And compromise is exactly what Giuliani, McCain, and Romney represent.

Six States Ready for Vermont Carry

In my previous post, Time for Vermont Carry to Become New England Carry , I argued that it is time for Vermont carry in Maine and New Hampshire. However, in a related post, Time for Vermont Style Concealed Carry , I also pointed out that there were six total states that were ripe for Vermont carry. In addition to Maine, and New Hampshire, those states are Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington.

Currently, LD #146, a Vermont Carry bill, is pending in Maine. However, is does not currently have the support of the NRA, or any other national gun rights group, nor has it had any attention in the media, and that certainly makes it very difficult for such a bill to get passed.

If gun owners really want Vermont Carry, we cannot, however, wait for the NRA or any other gun rights organization to act. We have been waiting for over 100 years and still we must get the government's permission to exercise what the founders of our country considered one of our most basic of human rights. The right to keep and bear arms for self defense, including carrying a handgun for that purpose, is one of our most basic rights, and it is vital to the health of a free country.

At the founding of our nation, a man, or a woman, did not have to obtain a permit from the government in order to carry a firearm for self defense, or any other purpose. The freemen (and women) of our country would have thought such a thing preposterous. Yet today, we find ourselves in just such a position. The origin of this Nazi-like gun control is rooted in the racism surrounding the Civil War and the freeing of slaves. States in the south, in most cases, did not want blacks and other minorities to be able to carry firearms without government permission. This attitude migrated north, where even the northern states did not want minorities carrying firearms without government permission. It is likely no coincidence that the one state, (Vermont) that for decades has not required a permit to carry a concealed firearm is also one of the "whitest" states in America. It is time to end this type of gun control. Our nations' founders, who knew well the rights and liberties necessary to maintain a free country, and one free of tyranny, would not have allowed our current state of affairs to stand, and neither should we.

So, if you live in New Hampshire, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Washington and you believe it is your inherent, inalienable right to defend yourself without first obtaining permission from the government I am asking you to take action. Review the Vermont carry bill currently pending in Maine (LD#146), review your state's laws on the subject, write a bill yourself, and find a pro-2nd Amendment legislator to sponsor it for you. Three, 4, 5, or 6 states with similar Vermont carry bills pending will be too much for any media outlet or legislator to ignore. If we keep waiting for Vermont carry to come to our states we will be waiting forever. It is time for us to act, and lead our country back to a nation that values liberty.

Time for Vermont Carry to Become New England Carry

At least in 1/2 of New England anyway. Maine and New Hampshire are probably the only other New England states that have any chance, at this time, of passing a Vermont Carry bill.

Maine currently has a bill pending, LD#146, which would give it Vermont style concealed carry; that is, concealed carry of a firearm without government permission. This bill, if passed, would repeal the law which outlaws the concealed carry of a firearm or other weapons. It also does not have the many restrictions that the Alaska "Vermont Carry" bill had.

Global Warming: The Debate is Over

"The climate debate is over." Now do as we tell you.

"Climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities."

It sure is easy to win an argument when your starting point is to not allow the other person to speak. Maybe we can follow Germany's lead of banning undesirable speech, and make it illegal for anyone to deny the existence of man-made global warming.

Venezuela, with it's collapsing economy is showing us what happens when government tries to interject in the market economy.

These "scientists" answers for global warming will likely interject a huge burden on our economy with very little results on the global climate. The Kyoto Protocol would have likely cost trillions of dollars without actually having a substantial effect on average global temperatures. Chances are this new global agreement will not be any different.

Forced coercion is not the answer to man-made green house gases. Sound scientific solutions and the market economy can solve this potential problem without forcing the "global will" on the people of the world. Tyranny is never the answer.

Nazis ban Nazis

Ironically, the country where nazism originated is trying to make up for its past mistakes by banning undesirable speech.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is going to lead Germany and other European countries to the same type of authoritarian government that caused the evil they are trying to prevent.

Venezuela Reinvents Wheel

Venezuela apparently has not been paying attention to 20th century history and has failed to learn the lessons of the failure of communism in the Soviet Union.

This democratically elected, communist dictator should be a warning to us all that tyranny can occur anywhere.

The NAZI's have invaded the USA

Get Rid of Your Guns! if you live in Cook County, Illinois. The NAZI's have invaded and are confiscating your firearms.

From the Illinois State Rifle Association:

"Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction."

From Stephen P. Halbrook's NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT:

"...immediately upon coming to power in 1933, the Nazis disarmed and arrested their political opponents, invariably labeling them “Communists.” By the time of Reichskristallnacht (Night of
Broken Glass) in November 1938, the Nazis had all but completed the disarming of the German Jews, preparing the way for the Holocaust.

...one entire ethnic group was disarmed and marked for eradication, and all other “enemies” of the state were also disarmed and eliminated in one form or another. The enemies of National Socialism included major segments of the intelligentsia, Catholic and Protestant religious leaders, artists, the working class, professionals, and decent people of every kind. Those remaining of the “ordinary” people included the cowed, the intimidated, and the brainwashed.

Fourthly, the Nazis administered the Weimar law to disarm anyone they pleased, with or without a legal justification. Immediately upon coming to power in 1933, they evoked the Weimar “Emergency Decrees” and executed massive search and seizure operations against firearm owners who were political opponents, Jews, or otherwise suspect. Beginning in 1935, the Gestapo decreed that Jews should be denied firearms permits
under the Weimar criteria mandating denial to persons lacking “undoubted reliability.”

Fifth, and of ultimate significance, in March 1938, the Nazis adopted the new firearms law; in October, they disarmed Berlin’s Jews using the Weimar firearm registration records; and in November, the Nazis instigated Reichskristallnacht (the infamous pogrom involving massive search and seizure operations for firearms against Jews), Gestapo Chief Himmler decreed that any Jew with a weapon would face twenty years in a concentration camp, and Interior Minister Frick promulgated a regulation making it a five-year offense for a Jew to possess a weapon."

What was it that Charlton Heston used to say? From my cold dead hands?

I honestly don't give a shit about Cook County, Illinois. You folks reap what you sow. Just keep your damn NAZI's to yourself.

I am just a regular guy in a relatively rural state and I can tell you that shit wouldn't fly here. There may be those who would love to try though.

Talking with other regular folks here in my state I can tell you that most gun owners here feel the same way I do about government confiscation of firearms. The folks that I have talked to are just regular folks who had no idea what my views were on the subject and they felt the same way I do. Coincidence? I think not.

Democrat Light Candidates

In my previous post I discussed how John McCain, Rudy Guliani, and Mitt Romney were unacceptable candidates. Tonight on the O'Reilly Factor, Ann Coulter, the American ultra-conservative was on discussing these potential Presidential candidates as well as Newt Gingrich.

Amazingly, she actually likes Mitt Romney. Apparently, all Ms. Coulter cares about is abortion, and gay marriage, since apparently Romney is pro-life, although I believe he has flip-flopped on this issue. Coulter even mentions that guns, abortion, and gay marriage were her top issues, but I guess she is unaware of Romney's anti-gun positions, although it appears he is trying to flip-flop on that issue as well. He supported the Brady waiting period and he supported the semi-automatic firearm ban, a.k.a. the "Assault Weapons" ban. He supports Massachusetts' many, many gun laws and thinks they make his citizens safer.

How are freedom loving Americans supposed to trust this candidate? The answer is that we cannot. I don't care how electable he is. Conservatives should know more than anybody that honesty and integrity count for something.

The Republican Party must stop pandering to the left. They are not going to win elections with Democrat Light candidates. This country needs another Reagan Republican to put our country back on track. Someone that is right on the issues, someone with honesty and integrity and leadership.

Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, Condi Rice, Bob Barr. That is how the Republicans will win elections. The answer to the far left's socialism is not compromise candidates. That is not how we are going to restore the Republic and restore the U.S. Constitution.

It is important that we get one or two more conservatives/originalists appointed to the Supreme Court. That certainly has to be one of our main objectives, but that will not happen by electing Democrat Light candidates. Their flip flops are not that convincing to me, nor many other true conservatives. We cannot trust that they will appoint good judges.

And if they will not appoint good judges, then what are we electing them for? We certainly cannot trust that they will do the right thing on the issues. Does anyone really believe that Romney would not put his signature on another semi-automatic firearm ban bill?

Will the Republican Party leadership see the light in time or will they continue to sell us out? I have to be honest. I really like Ann Coulter. But, I am completely befuddled by her support for Romney.

2008 Presidential Candidates

In my previous post, Time to decide on a Presidential Candidate, I argued that pro 2nd Amendment advocates should all get behind one well qualified candidate so that we can affect the outcome of the election.<