International Effort To Grab Your Guns
by Tom RemingtonMarch 17, 2010
For those interested, you may also want to read up on treaties and treaty law.
Related Articles
Tenth Amendment Push Backs Spreading Across America
by Tom RemingtonMarch 17, 2010
Is this all a case of too little too late or are there any legal teeth in the growing actions of states all across the Union in passing legislation that in effect tells the federal government to take a hike?
On this very blog, I have been vigilant in posting information about states proposing, passing and signing legislation in attempts to nullify federal authority of gun control laws forced onto them. But this push back we are witness to is now reaching beyond the Second Amendment. States are passing bills declaring the federal government can’t force them to “buy into” federal run health care. Utah has effectively told the federal government it’s taking back some of it’s lands. Other states don’t want anything to do with federal ID cards, they’re ignoring federal marijuana laws, have put the feds on notice that their local police departments have more authority than they do and that National Guard troops can be recalled by states.
These are just some samples of a movement that has at least 26 states proposing, passing or signing “Firearms Freedom” bills that tell the federal government to back off. This spreading action is a pretty good indication that states are fed up with an overreaching federal government but will it do any good? More importantly does any of this hold any legal strength? The New York Times has more.
It is unfortunate that Americans have sat by essentially doing nothing while states’ rights have been usurped. It is obvious the stealing of rights has gone too far and some want to reclaim that power and sovereignty. Only time and years of litigation can answer many of the questions. The immediate affect might come at the polls in November.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Another gem from the inimitable Olek Volk
by GunRights4USMarch 16, 2010
As someone who carries in the workplace EVERY DAY, this particular picture really resonated with me.
Why is the department of education buying shotguns?
by GunRights4USMarch 10, 2010
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14" - PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT - XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID - 14"
By the way... YOU can't own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches according to the National Firearms Act of 1934! So what are they doing buying "sawed off" shotguns!!!
Alan Gura And Alan Gottlieb On McDonald v. Chicago
by Tom RemingtonMarch 4, 2010
Related Articles
McDonald v. City of Chicago: How Limited Will The Right Be?
by Tom RemingtonMarch 3, 2010
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. It appears from comments made during arguments that probably the court will incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment via the “Due Process Clause” and not entertain the idea of opening a can of worms by incorporating with the “Privileges or Immunities Clause”. On the surface it would appear that gun rights advocates will win another victory in that a ruling of incorporation would say that the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment extend beyond the scope of the federal government and forces the states and local communities to honor that right. But how much?
District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that citizens have a right to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. The ruling made it clear that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. What didn’t get decided in Heller was what, if any, restrictions on those guaranteed rights were allowable. It appears McDonald will not tell us that either.
There is no clear cut established “gun right”. It is not defined. The only thing that has shaped gun rights or gun restrictions, has been state and local laws through our jurisprudence. As we have seen, some of those restrictions have gone so far as to deny certain citizens the right to possess a gun at all, as was the case in Heller, in the District of Columbia and McDonald, in Chicago.
If SCOTUS should rule to force Chicago to abide by the Second Amendment through the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the question becomes, how much? Will the court offer any ruling as to where Chicago should begin?
In oral arguments, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the NRA, suggested that there should be a “carry over” of Second Amendment laws along with the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.
Personally, I believe the Court will react much the same way it did in Heller. They will make a ruling of whether Second Amendment rights extend to the states and then leave it up to the courts to hammer out what will then become “reasonable” restrictions on guns.
After Heller, even though the High Court ruled that a ban on gun ownership was unconstitutional, the District of Columbia did not make it easy for anyone to get a gun and register it. I foresee the same events in McDonald.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
Personal ruminations on SCOTUS and the 2A
by GunRights4USMarch 2, 2010
How silly.
Either I have the right to keep and bear arms… or I don’t.
The plainly written and clear meanings found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been steadily subverted over the years by lawyers and judges that tell us that UP means DOWN and RIGHT means WRONG. The most glaring example I can think of is the right to privacy that the in-Justices found years ago when they ruled on Roe vs. Wade. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear in either of these documents, but the Wizards of Law tell us they’re there nonetheless.
Yet we have crystal clear verbiage from the Founders that culminates with the phrase “shall not be infringed”, and I still see infringement on my 2A rights everywhere I look!
It doesn’t say infringements are okay if “within reason”. But there are thousands and thousands of gun laws in every direction covering what kind of gun you can own, who can possess guns, where you can carry guns (or can’t), who can buy guns, how many you can buy in a given period, etc. And usually the anti-gun camp claims to only want “reasonable” restrictions.
I also hear a lot from both the Pro and Anti side of the debate about “sporting purpose”. Who dreamed that up? What the hell is “sporting purpose” and tell me how it’s relevant or where it appears in the 2A?
There’re a lot of things in this world I don’t know. But there are a few things I DO know and no amount of propaganda or coercion will EVER sway my opinion on the following truths:
1. The Second Amendment was written to make it clear that government power has its boundaries, and the citizenry would forever have the means to enforce those boundaries if government should forget them.
2. The right to defend myself and my family (and not just in my home) is what the Founders called an unalienable right. That is to say it is a Natural Right that supersedes all Human authority.
3. Many people cry and wring their hands over what effect some piece of gun regulation is going to have over their lives. That includes many so-called “gun people”, because they know that whatever laws come down the pipe, they’re going to obey them.
4. My line in the sand is citizen disarmament. And it’s not drawn in sand, it’s drawn in stone. The rotten, corrupt scumbags that pretend to be our masters can write whatsoever laws they like. But when it comes to legislating my right to keep and bear arms, they are on IGNORE mode where I am concerned.
My final word on the topic is simply this: No one needs to fear me if they have no plans to hurt me or my family, or they have no intentions to rob me of God-given liberties like the right to keep and bear arms. But putting my rights, my person, or my family in peril will draw a most vigorous response from me. Of that I can guarantee!
Sheriff Richard Mack on Freedomizer Radio
by Greg FarberFebruary 27, 2010
Pt1 Sheriff Mack on Freedomizer Radio
Pt2
Pt3
Pt4
Pt5
When they have the guns and you do not have any guns, they will do this to YOU.
by Greg FarberFebruary 10, 2010
Communist Obama and his leftist Marxist lackey squads would do this to you, if you are unarmed and you disagreed with them, they are setting this up for a future coup now. WAKE UP! This is who the left really are.. Communists.
Reports of extrajudicial killings by Nigerian security forces circulated widely in the aftermath of clashes last year between the police and members of Boko Haram, a group that called for the enforcement of Islamic law, or sharia, across Nigeria.
Now Al Jazeera has obtained exclusive footage that appears to show Nigerian security forces ordering a number of people to lie in the road and then shooting them at close range.
Human rights groups allege that many of those killed following the clashes were unarmed civilians.
The footage obtained by Al Jazeera would appear to confirm those accusations.
VERY BRUTAL NEWS CLIP, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Nigeria Security Forces Kills Unarmed Muslims
THE SECRET END RUN AROUND SOVEREIGNTY IN AMERICA
by Greg FarberFebruary 2, 2010
