2nd Ammendment under assault

Ladies and Gentlemen. The Democrat controlled congress and the Obama administration are moving forward with their plans to restrict your 2nd Ammendment rights. There is a bill in the House right now that will do just that. Specifically, it will institute a national gun registry.

This is the type of legislation that gun owners were warning about. Yet there were many gun owning Obama supporters that kept trying to tell us that it will all be ok. He supports gun ownership. Blah, blah.



I present to you. H.R. 45 a.k.a. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not
been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means--

(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

I don't think that means what you think it means

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The high court seems destined to hand us over to anyone or anything; as long as the liberals hold a majority. It's utterly amazing what you can find in the constitution if you are looking very hard... like rights to trial for aliens...

Tags: Supreme Court, liberals, US Constitution, Lord Nazh

In G-d We Trust Licencse

There has been a lot of controversy over the 'In G-d We Trust' license plates that some states issue. The ACLU and various left organizations contend that the plates are unconstitutional because they violate either preferential treatment to one group or another or church-state 'barrier' concerns.

The biggest legal argument going is the fact that the tags are not a 'specialty' tag (thus costing more) and that makes them more likely to be chosen by the motorist [which is what the offended orgs do not want]. However, no matter what happened, if they charged a small fee for the tag; then these same 'victims' would be using the same arguments because of the money collected for a religious tag. It's a classic catch-22 being played out in many a court system.

One small battle in this ongoing saga has been played out and it seems the good guys have won (this time). In Indiana a judge ruled that the tag did not provide preferential treatment and dismissed the ACLU lawsuit. Of course the ACLU will appeal and continue it's very best at eroding the morals and rights of all the US citizens it can.

With willing help from most left-leaning individuals, the ACLU is happily making this a generic, clean place to live where the only offended people will be the dead; who, unfortunately, will be the only people able to do anything.

INDIANAPOLIS — A judge has upheld the issuance of Indiana license plates bearing the message "In God We Trust," dismissing a constitutional challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller wrote in a 13-page opinion that the plates were comparable to standard plates issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and were created specifically as such by the Legislature.

"Courts are not to second-guess the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to calculations of this sort," Miller wrote, contrasting the `In God We Trust' plates with other specialty plates that require the payment of administrative fees.

Miller said the issuance of the plates did not violate the section of the Indiana Constitution that forbids the Legislature from granting special privileges or immunities not available to all citizens.

The ruling, issued April 10, denies a motion for summary judgment in the suit by the ACLU on behalf of Mark E. Studler, an Allen County resident who has an Environmental Trust plate for which he had to pay extra fees.

Fox

Tags: ACLU, US Constitution, victimhood, left, lawsuit, Indiana, Fox, Lord Nazh

Post of the Day

To follow up from the Quote of the day post, here's basically a response (although it wasn't written in response to her):

I legally carry a concealed handgun on a daily basis. I don’t take my decision to carry lightly.

I’m not a police officer, a private investigator, a bail bondsman or a bounty hunter. I don’t deal with criminals on a daily or professional basis. I’m just an ordinary guy.

I don’t carry merely because it’s my right, although I’m within my rights to do so and I also believe that any right not exercised is a right in danger of being lost.

I don’t carry just because I enjoy firearms and shooting sports, although I do.

I don’t carry because I frequent “bad” areas of town, although in this day and age, any area of town can be “bad” at times. Crime can and does happen when you least expect it. [link]

Read the rest of the post, it is a good post on the reasons to carry a firearm (when legally permitted).

Gun Control - Where We're Headed !!! and ... Second Amendment Second Reading !!!

Ok - so our friends from across the ponds seem to think us Americans would do better to engage in more gun control (read: gun confiscation).

So I thought I'd post these gems that I saved many years ago.

The first one is from Robert Waters and it is called
"Gun Control - Where We're Headed!!"

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. (link)

Go read the whole thing...

You can then draw your own conclusions as to which society you'd rather live in.

The second article is by Daniel Polsby who argues that we should treat the Second Amendment as normal Constitutional Law and not as some bastard child that isn't deserving of sitting at the same table as the others...

Normal constitutional argument begins with text.

The first question to consider, then, is:

What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? There seem to be two main theories of what sense is conveyed by the language of the Second Amendment. The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words to say something like:

"In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons."

This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut from left (e.g., Rep. Charles Schumer of New York) to right (e.g., President Nixon) and most political shades in between.

But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."

Nor do the words of the amendment assert that;

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way:

"Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security."

Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. (link)

Go read the whole thing...

I think Polsby's argument is pretty much rock-solid.

Filed:Constitution, 2nd Amendment, gun laws, Thaiphoon