Posts Tagged ‘2nd Amendment’

Trump vs. Clinton on Gun Rights

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

A fifth liberal Justice could kill the individual right to bear arms.
May 24, 2016 7:22 p.m. ET

Donald Trump is famous for his flights of political exaggeration, but every so often he lands on the truth. Witness his claim to the National Rifle Association on Friday that “the Second Amendment is on the ballot in November” and that Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

This has offended Mrs. Clinton’s media bodyguards who claim she merely favors background checks and minor regulation. Mrs. Clinton took to Twitter to claim that Mr. Trump is “wrong,” and “We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence.”

Let’s go to the audiotape. http://on.wsj.com/1OM0Ozz

If Mrs. Clinton “gets to appoint her judges, she will, as part of it, abolish the Second Amendment,” Mr. Trump told the NRA. He added that Mrs. Clinton had rebuked the Supreme Court for its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller establishing that the Second Amendment included an individual right to bear arms.

At a private fundraiser last year Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court for being “wrong on the Second Amendment.” One of her policy advisers, Maya Harris, tried to muddy that position this weekend by telling Bloomberg Politics that Mrs. Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.”

But that is a fudge. Heller explicitly allowed that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion did not sort through every possible regulation, but it did say that the individual right covers guns that are “in common use for lawful purposes.” And it overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. By implication Heller would also disallow the Clinton Administration’s ban on semi-automatic rifles used for hunting. That ban has since expired, though Mrs. Clinton supports reinstating it.

The question Mrs. Clinton is ducking is whether she agrees with Heller’s ruling that individuals can bear arms. The political left has long held that such a right under the Second Amendment belongs only to a “well regulated Militia.”

This distinction matters because Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller on precisely this point about an individual right. And apparently they still do. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a “future, wiser court” overturn Heller.

Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter in 2009, but she joined the liberal bloc on guns. The Supreme Court has over the years applied the Bill of Rights to the states as relevant cases presented themselves. Once Heller established an individual right to bear arms, every Court precedent called for applying it to the states in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. The vote should have been 9-0. Yet the four liberals still dissented in McDonald—confirming Justice Ginsburg’s Harvard boast that they are waiting to overturn Heller.

Justice Elena Kagan (who replaced John Paul Stevens) hasn’t had a chance to rule on the individual right to bear arms, but don’t expect her to be different. If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals will get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.

2nd Amendment Outrage!!

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Bill to STOP Gun Registration Passed Committee

DATE:       March 9, 2010
TO:           USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM:      Marion P. Hammer
                USF Executive Director
                NRA Past President

SB-530 by Sen. Thad Altman  was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee  today, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 and PASSED unanimously by a VOTE of 9-0.

The bill is now ready for the calendar and hopefully soon for the Senate Floor.

SB-530 is a bill to STOP Florida adoption agencies from forcing potential adoptive parents to register their firearms with the agency as a condition of adoption.  Further, it will stop agencies from forcing these parents to follow gun control regulations regarding storage of firearms and ammunition created by the agency.

This outrageous behavior has been going on too long and it is time to stop it once and for all.

Sen. Altman’s bill will stop this gun registration and regulation.

VOTING FOR THE BILL:

negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov,
baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov,
fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
gelber.dan.web@flsenate.gov,
haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov,
peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov,
richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov,
ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov,

BACKGROUND

Adoption agencies in Florida are effectively profiling prospective adoptive parents who own firearms.

Agencies have been treating applicants for adoption, who chose to exercise the constitutional right to own a firearm, differently than non-firearms owning applicants.

As a condition of adoption, prospective parents who own firearms must agree to regulations and restriction imposed by the agency.

At least one agency requires prospective parents who own a firearm or firearms, to store the firearms and ammunition separately in locked cabinets – rendering the right of self-defense and defense of family virtually impossible.

Further, applicants who own firearms are required to register their firearms and ammunition with the agency. 

The agency not only requires applicants to separately list the firearms and the ammunition they own on a form created by the agency, but also requires them to report to the agency exactly where the firearms and ammunition are stored.

These agencies have set themselves above the law and have ignored the statutes.

State law regulates the safe storage of firearms.  F.S. 790.174, regulates how firearms must be stored and provides criminal penalties when firearms are accessed by minors due to a failure to store firearms safely.

State law prohibits agencies from attempting to regulate firearms.  F.S. 790.33 prohibits any regulation of firearms except by the Legislature.  The Legislature exclusively occupies the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition.

State law prohibits registration of firearms.  F.S. 790.335 prohibits the compiling of and retention of  lists of firearms owners and firearms.  Forms required by some adoption agencies constitute a registry of firearms and firearms owners.

Under  790.335(4)(a), office managers and officials who are a party to the collection and storage of firearms registration documents commit a felony of the third degree.

Under 790.335(4)(c) these agencies or organizations, as licensed agencies acting on behalf of the government, who register firearms are subject to a fine of up to $5 million.

While some adoption agencies have attempted to claim their firearms regulations and forms were authorized or required by DCF, DCF actually repealed those regulations in April, 2008.

This bill makes it clear that adoption agencies may not condition adoption on a person’s exercise of a constitutional right or a person’s willingness to disclose private information concerning lawful firearms ownership – nor may adoption agencies impose restrictions on firearms ownership.

This bill codifies in law, that adoption agencies may not violate rights, profile or discriminate against firearms owners who seek to foster or adopt children.

Prospective parents seeking to adopt and make a home for a child are particularly vulnerable to abusive tactics of agency officials and personnel who appear to have a predisposition against firearms owners.

Forcing prospective parents to submit to requirements that usurp their legal rights and violate their privacy is nothing short of coercion.  It must be stopped.

Feds sued to keep out of state’s gun affairs

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Feds sued to keep out of state’s gun affairs
Complaint filed seeking affirmation of Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Posted: October 03, 2009
11:25 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In the second major front in the war over gun rights that has developed in just days, a lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms.


Montana statehouse

The action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect today.

WND previously reported on the precedent-setting move taken over the course of recent months when the 2009 Montana Legislature approved the bill and the plan was signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check

, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Tennessee already has a similar law, and similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

An organization called the Firearms Freedom Act has created a map of such activity nationwide:


Map of gun law activity assembled by FirearmsFreedomAct.org

The move comes at a time the nation has a president who has placed anti-gun activists in several influential positions, including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before the U.S. Supreme Court threw it out.

 

Get “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense” and learn why you have a responsibility to be armed.

Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

“The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889,” the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

David Codrea, a Gun Rights Examiner writer, noted the federal government already has started attacking the move.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, he wrote, previously had written to Federal Firearms Licensees, warning that they could be prosecuted for following the state laws in Montana and Tennessee

“What if an FFL was not acting in his capacity as a federal licensee to manufacture for personal use, or to transfer firearms strictly within a state? Or what if a person so engaged was not a federal licensee at all?” Codrea asked.

Then he answered: “ATF’s determined intent to hold all accountable under federal law has not wavered. In a letter to MSSA president Gary Marbut, Richard Chase, Special Agent in Charge, Denver Field Division, states: ‘The manufacture of firearms or ammunition for sale to others within Montana requires licensure by ATF.'”

In a statement the SAF said, “The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause.”

The lawsuit seeks a “declaratory judgment” and is “brought for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy between the parties.”

“Passage of the MFFA was an express exercise by the State of Montana of powers reserved to the states and to the people under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the lawsuit said.

“The MFFA is also authorized under the conditions of the compact with the United States that Montana entered upon admission to the union. The United States Congress therefore has no authority, under the limited powers granted to it by the United States Constitution, to preempt the MFFA.”

The arguments continued, “Under the 10th Amendment, all regulatory authority of all such activities within Montana’s political borders

 is left in the sole discretion of Montana. Federal law therefore does not preempt the MFFA and cannot be invoked to regulate or prosecute Montana citizens acting in compliance with the MFFA, so long as they do so solely within the political borders of Montana.”

WND also reported this week on a second front in the battle over guns when the Supreme Court agreed to hear a landmark Second Amendment case challenging Chicago’s ban on handguns and onerous registration procedures on other firearms.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago claiming the city enforces a handgun ban identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller and that the ban violates residents’ Second Amendment rights.

In Heller, the court rejected a lower court position that claimed the Second Amendment applied only to state “militia,” such as the National Guard. However, the 5-4 ruling referenced the federal jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and not states and localities.

This case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenges a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual’s right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities like Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “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.”

Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiffs argue that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the Second Amendment is “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities. 

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

By Chuck Baldwin

March 3, 2009
This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html
 

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.'”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Right to Carry in National Parks

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

This month, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announces the final amended version of its changes to rules on carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located.  

Thank God that this rule change was implemented before the inauguration of the most serious threat to 2nd amendement rights in our nation’s history, Barak Obama.

Gun sales are up!

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

It’s been a week and a half since Barack Obama was elected president. He won’t take office for another two months. But he’s already got one big group of Americans on their feet.

What is Barack Obama’s position on the right to bear arms? Sen. Obama’s campaign Web site says he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” It promises he will “protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns.”

Seeking to reassure gun owners, Mr. Obama told a campaign audience in Ohio in October: “I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

But the crowds mobbing America’s gun stores this week say a large number of Americans — including first-time gun buyers — don’t believe him.

In 2003, while serving in the Illinois Legislature, Mr. Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess” so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons,” reports Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as ‘assault weapons.’ ”

In an April television debate, Mr. Obama argued someone else on his staff improperly filled out a 1996 questionnaire stating support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns — even after ABC News’ Charlie Gibson told Mr. Obama, “Your writing was on the questionnaire.”

And the National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out mailers last month warning that — while in the U.S. Senate — Mr. Obama voted for versions of a measure that could have bankrupted gun manufacturers by allowing them to be sued for misuse of their products (“equivalent to holding car makers responsible for drunk driving”), as well as for a 500 percent tax increase on guns and ammo and a ban on virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.

Americans aren’t waiting to see which Barack Obama takes office in January. They’re voting with their feet — and their billfolds.

Glen Parshall of Bargain Pawn in North Las Vegas reported Wednesday that sales are “through the roof. I can’t get anything. I mean handguns, rifles, ammo, you name it. Ammo’s doubled in (wholesale) price in the past week if you can find it. I had a line of people waiting for me this morning when I showed up for work, waiting to buy AR-15s. Everybody’s fearful of the messiah, very, very much fearful. …

“In October, before this all started, my sales were approximately double what they were last October. This week it’s up more than that, and it’d be a hell of a lot higher if I had anything. People are looking for handguns, looking for rifles, looking for magazines.”

DeWayne Irwin, owner of Cheaper Than Dirt, a large gun store in Fort Worth, Texas, tells the Chicago Tribune, “People are terrified of losing their right to protect themselves. The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point, people are buying ammunition, high-capacity magazines, Glocks — it’s all flying off the shelf.”

What we’re seeing in the gun stores this week is not a nation arming itself for revolt, but Americans in a thoroughly defensive mode, stocking up now to avoid the Democratic gun bans they believe are coming. What many Americans fear is that Barack Obama — aided by congressional allies such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York — will revert to his true, pre-campaign nature come Jan. 20, and once more move to take away Americans’ guns.

After all, Democrats have tried before. In fact, a notable public figure attributed the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 to the fact that Democrats had tried to take away Americans’ guns.

Who was that insightful analyst?

Bill Clinton.

NRA Copyright 2008

Obama showing his anti-second amendment colors

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

So why would the application for employment that is being utilized by the Obama administration contain the following question?

Question 59: Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage?

This is obviously an exclusionary question. Can’t run the risk of hiring any “subversives” … The alarming message here is that the Obama camp obviously takes it for granted that registration is mandatory … A window into the future?