Milita or Department of Homeland Security? Freedom or Police State?

Why isn't the President organizing militias to combat terrorism and the threats associated with weak borders? Why isn't Congress helping him? They both have a responsibility to do so.

Article 2, Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...

And, duties of Congress include:

Article I, Section 8

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

We often complain about unconstitutional laws obstructing the "individual rights" portion of the 2nd Amendment. Yet, there is also a militia responsibility tucked in there.

And reading the Constitution, it seems clear that the President and Congress must allow militias to defend the country in times of great peril. Why don't they let the people help now? It wouldn't cost much to fund, millions of gun owners would participate, and there would be no need for a police or surveillance state. Aren't the President and members of Congress once again behaving in an unconstitutional way?

By the way, I don't want to hear anything like "the National Guard is our modern militia." If that is true, why are National Guardsmen and women serving overseas? The militia serves at home. Unlike a state militia, the National Guard is federally funded, has bases on federal land, and uses federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms.

I'd also refer people espousing the National Guard argument to read 10 USC 311 which defines the militia as more than the National Guard. Among other things, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."

Meanwhile, 32 USC 109(c) states:"...a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces."

Finally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and approved 1780's, while the National Guard wasn't created until 1916, 130 or so years later. It was put under permanent Federal control in 1933.

R.I.P. 2nd Amendment

I know most readers have seen the GOA letter, but for those who haven't, here it is - and there recommendations on what to do next. We must act now.



Far-reaching Gun Ban Would Cripple The Second Amendment
-- McCarthy's bill to outlaw millions of guns

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Democrats are back in power and their anti-gun wing is trying to make up for lost time as far as gun control legislation is concerned.
There are a number of bills that have been introduced already, but GOA will be there to meet every challenge.

Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the so-called "assault weapons ban," the infamous bill that outlawed many types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation and scare tactics.

The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Its 30 cosponsors comprise a list of the usual anti-gun suspects -- so we need to make sure that no pro-gun congressmen are duped into signing their names onto this anti-gun piece of trash.

McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren't "assault weapons" and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does nothing to prevent violent crime -- since the guns in question have seldom been used in crime.

McCarthy's bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited.
This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities.

Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more guns are listed by name than in the '94 ban, and only one "dangerous"
feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a "nice"
gun into a
"bad" gun. The old ban required two "dangerous"
features, such as a
pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction effectively expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety of firearms.

Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.

More than 10 years ago, the anti-gun lobby and their friends in the media began waging a campaign to frighten people and convince them that the so-called "assault weapons" are rapid fire machine guns when, in reality, they are merely semi-automatic firearms that look different than traditional hunting rifles.

This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive that the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don't care about stopping crime or saving lives -- they just want to take our guns away.

What are the odds of this bill getting through the Congress? Who knows? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just gave Rep. Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Panel. Jefferson was the guy who had $90,000 dollars of bribe money stuffed into his freezer.

If the liberals now in control of the Democrat Party feel they are strong enough to get away with that kind of outrage, they may feel they can get away with passing a gun ban that does nothing but punish law-abiding gun owners.

We must take seriously every anti-gun bill introduced in this Congress. But, at the same time, this bill is an opportunity to beat up those members of Congress who hate guns and will stop at nothing to eliminate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

If we can give them a good thrashing on HR 1022, we may be able to discourage them from bringing forth more bills like this. And that is why we need your help in beating down HR 1022 quickly, and making sure that none of the good guys get suckered into supporting this.

ACTION: Please use the pre-written letter below to direct your comments to your Congressman. And circulate this alert to your pro-gun friends and family.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----

Dear Representative:

I'm sure you are aware that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has reintroduced, in the form of HR 1022, the Clinton semi-auto gun ban that sunset a couple of years ago. The Justice Department reported that the ban's impact on gun violence was small at best, and too small to be statistically valid.

By contrast, states adopting concealed carry laws had significant decreases in violent crime while states and cities maintaining strict gun control laws continued to have the nation's highest rates of violent crime.

I agree with Gun Owners of America that the only people affected by the so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994 were law-abiding gun owners, manufacturers and importers. Clearly, this bill is nothing less than an infringement on the rights of gun owners. And we won't stand for it.

The supporters of HR 1022 will be identified as anti-gun Congressmen and, hopefully, targeted for defeat at the next election. As your constituent, I urge you to oppose this or any other gun grabbing bill in the 110th Congress.

Sincerely,

Why Worry About the Clintonistas? Bush is as Bad

From WND:

A memo signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff implements a controversial program condemned by critics as a precursor to a European Union-style partnership with Mexico and Canada.

The document shows the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, is being directed at the highest level of the Bush administration, says the public interest group Judicial Watch, which obtained it and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.

[...]

Judicial Watch said that unlike previous records produced by other federal agencies, the DHS records are heavily redacted, blocking out names of the U.S., Mexican and Canadian government officials carrying out the partnership's agenda across all three countries.

The DHS also released a 10-page chart listing 36 "SPP Security High-Level Working Groups" that include the "Mexico-U.S. Repatriation Technical WG," the "Mexico-U.S. Intelligence and Information Sharing WG," and the "Canada-U.S. Cross Border Crime Forum."

In October, as WND reported, about 1,000 documents obtained in a FOIA request to the SPP showed bureaucrats from agencies throughout the Bush administration meeting regularly with their counterparts in the Canadian and Mexican governments to engage in a broad rewriting of U.S. administrative law and regulations.

You Ain't Got No Stinkin' Rights

There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want.

Kalifornia State Senator Sheila Kuehl, when arguing for SB 52,requiring citizens to obtain a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense.

What rights has a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants. As long as he doesn't utter it or act on it - he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship - except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master - whether that master is a state or an owner.

Kalifornia State Senator Tom McClintock, in a written rebuttal.

Senator McClintock, as quoted in Freedom & Firearms, published in Concealed Carry Magazine (Vol 1 Issue 5)

Martial Law

This comes straight from Armed & Christian, who got it from Unalienable Rights.

Fed Makes It Easier To Declare Martial Law, Nullify Bill Of Rights, And Use The Military Against Citizens

We live in a fundamentally different country since 9/11. Not only do many Americans view their government with suspicion, but how their government views them has drastically changed.

A perfect example of this took place last fall. Prior to the elections that transformed the makeup of Congress, the Bush Administration pushed for the inclusion of two stealth provisions into a mammoth defense budget bill. The additions made it easier for the government to declare martial law and establish a dictatorship.

Since the days of our Founding Fathers, when King George III used his armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies, the American people have understandably distrusted the use of a national military force to intervene in civilian affairs, except in instances of extreme emergency and limited duration.

Hence, as a sign of the Founders’ concern that the people not be under the power of a military government, control of the military was vested in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 furthered those safeguards against military law, making it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.

However, with the inclusion of a seemingly insignificant rider into the massive defense bill (the martial law section of the 591-page Defense Appropriations Act takes up just a few paragraphs), the Bush Administration has managed to weaken what the New York Times refers to as “two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty.” One is posse comitatus. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which limits a president’s domestic use of the military to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion where a state is violating federal law or depriving the people of their constitutional rights.

Under these new provisions, the president can now use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” According to the new law, Bush doesn’t even have to notify Congress of his intent to use military force against the American people—he just has to notify them once he has done so. The defense budget provision’s vague language leaves the doors wide open for rampant abuse. As writer Jane Smiley noted, “the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy.”

The main reason we do not want the military patrolling our streets is that under martial law, the Bill of Rights becomes null and void. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. Thus, if we were subject to martial law, there would be no rules, no protections, no judicial oversight and no elections. And unless these provisions are repealed, the president’s new power will be set in stone for future administrations to use—and abuse.

A fundamental principle of American government is to not trust public officials. But modern Americans, primed by television pablum and ignorant of their history, have a tendency to trust people in office simply because they appear to share a common faith, say the right things or come from a certain region of the country. But lest we forget, power has a tendency to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Furthermore, the way this was handled proves that we cannot trust government officials. By sneaking this provision in as a rider to a larger bill, public debate and media attention were avoided. Had the provision been openly discussed and debated, there would have been opposition and outcry. And it most likely would have been soundly rejected. Instead, it was rushed through the Republican-controlled Congress prior to the elections and enacted into law.

The Founding Fathers would have literally been up in arms over Bush’s actions. They understood the dangers inherent in vesting power in a single person, which is exactly what this legislation purports to do. There’s no limit to what the president can now do: the “any condition” language opens the door for total power, a dictatorship. The people are left with no defense.

Furthermore, this legislation erases the balance between the state and federal government. The state governors understood this, and that’s why many vocally opposed the provisions. But it was to no avail.

Who’s to blame here? Congress has utterly failed to exercise its power to check the growing power of the Executive Branch. The media have also been woefully remiss. Although a handful of bloggers sounded the alarm, the major media outlets failed to report on it. If it weren’t for a recent editorial in the New York Times, most people would still be in the dark. What’s the point of a free press if you can’t rely on the media to report the news?

However, the larger blame rests with the Bush Administration, whose actions over the past six years suggest that the American people are the enemy. Think about some of the changes that have already moved us closer to a police state: the invasive USA Patriot Act; the increased domestic surveillance of citizens’ emails and telephone calls; attempts to deny habeas corpus to prisoners; a national ID card; and now this alarming new law. In addition to opening the doors to a military state, the law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detaining of protesters in detention camps that are already being built on American soil by the Halliburton corporation. Americans are incredibly naïve if they believe those camps being built are just for illegal aliens.

A pattern is emerging, predicated on one horrific incident in 2001. The current administration is laying the groundwork for a military state, and this is our final wake-up call.

In light of this, I am also urging all of you to get involved and demand that we have a "Read The Bills Act" that will force lawmakers to sweat over the details and see exactly what they are passing into law. Sign the petition here.

Modern Proof the Second Amendment is not an Anachronism

What is more fun than bashing gun owners? Besides promoting and passing unconstitutional legislation that "takes away" a God-given right codified in the Second Amendment? Nothing, apparently.

The ACLU, "bastion of our civil liberties," states that the Second Amendment is a "collective right," and now applies only to a state having a National Guard. Other opponents state that it is an anachronism, hopelessly outdated. After all, they suggest, "no one should be allowed to have nuclear bombs in their possession," displaying their terrible ignorance of diction by confusing "arms" and "ordnance."

Republican candidates constantly try to soften their anti-gunning views by saying "this won't affect deer hunting," as if the Second Amendment was about hunting.

Others say our society has evolved where police protect us so we no longer need guns, because guns are "bad." I know we should all hold hands, because if we are holding hands, we can't be holding a gun, but this month we sadly commemorate a recent court ruling that showed us one reason why we have a Second Amendment.

Simply put, the police have No Duty to Protect Us.

That's right - they don’t even have to come when you call during that crisis, assuming you could get to the phone. You hear that window downstairs breaking at 2am, you lock your bedroom door and frantically call 911, you wait for the cavalry to arrive. But according to the law, they don't have to come, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The highest court in the District of Columbia stated the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

Twenty-two years ago this month, an awful criminal act was committed. In response, the courts committed an even worse act.

Early morning on March 16, 1975, two thugs broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C. Three women and a child shared this residence. One woman was attacked and raped on the second floor, while her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

Since the first call was assigned a low priority, the responding officers left quickly after no one answered when they knocked on the door.

The women frantically called the police a second time. The dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

A long time after things went quiet, the third-story women came down to aid their roommate. Only, the attackers weren't gone. They kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over a fourteen hour period.

The women later sued the city and the D.C. police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, but the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.

Now, let's just skip the fact that there isn't always a police officer available when you are being attacked by a thug. The police don't even have to respond to your call. What is so anachronistic about the Second Amendment now? What does it have to do with hunting now? What does it have to do with the National Guardsmen and Guardswomen assigned overseas?

Nothing - as always.

The Second Amendment is about your right to protect yourself. The Founding Fathers' believed you had a right - and a corresponding responsibility - to defend yourself and those who depend on you.

So the Second Amendment reminds (not assigns) you that you have the right to protect yourself and others.

By the way, to those who think militias are a thing of the past, who protected neighborhoods right after Hurricane Katrina? The New Orelans Police Department? FEMA? The National Guard? Nope. It was gun-owning citizenry keeping crime out of their neighborhoods by patrolling day and night. It was gun-owning citizenry acting in a militia-capacity.

Now, anti-gunners will take these arguments and try to pervert it right away. They'll label it as an attack on police officers or some such thing. It isn't. I am thankful for the police who protect my city. Buy I also know it is ultimately my responsibility to protect my family and myself. And I know that I have a God-given right to do so, regardless of what the anti-gunners say. You do, too.

The Inaugural "Golden Screw-Up" Award

We used to have a dubious trophy at work constructed of a gold-plated screw and a block of 2x4. We called this trophy "The Golden Screw-up Award" and had lots of fun passing it around to each other when someone, well, screwed up. I was the not-so-proud recipient of the award on many occasions, some work related, some personal.

Then one day, a new boss came in and told us this award created a "threatening and hostile atmosphere," doled out some corporate discipline, and made us give up the trophy. So, of course, in a last act of rebellion, we made the new boss the final recipient of the Golden Screw-up Award. At least, those brave enough to get fired... I wanted my job, so I shut up and pretended I didn't know what was happening.

In honor of my old compatriots, and in a desire to do something that will give me an easy post once a week, I have decided it is time for a rebirth of The Golden Screw-up Award, paying appropriate tribute to one national or international figure/group for their attention-worthy action(s).

As a side note, I was going to make Al Gore a perpetual nominee, but this week he announced he wouldn't run in 2008, so I'll cut him some slack.

Our nominees this week:

Arkansas Judge Jimm Hendren, who disallowed mention of the Constitution in a court case.


Liberal columnist Molly Ivins, but since she died this week, I'll remove her from consideration.

The entire Detroit Lions organization for achieving the worst record in professional football over the last seven years.

This one is a no-brainer. The winner is...

Arkansas Judge Jimm Hendren, a man who threw the Constitution out the window!

The lights are going out all over the United States. Another one went out Jan. 12, when “Compassionate Conservative” Judge Jimm Hendren kicked the Constitution (U.S. and Arkansas) out of his courtroom by disallowing its mention, then made the jury leave the courtroom during Wayne Fincher’s own reasoned, knowledgeable defense of his militia and his weapons. Evidently the judge believes he knows the law (arbitrary unconstitutional laws passed by Congresses), and juries don’t (they might question some statutes violating constitutionally guaranteed rights?), and so he decided what they may hear and what they may not (judge and jury?), according to the desires of the federal prosecutors.

Congratulations, from all us peons around the country.

pe·on [pee-on] - noun
any person of low social status, esp. one who does work regarded as menial or unskilled; drudge.

Wise Words

One of my favorite 2A essays was written by Jeffrey R. Snyder, titled "A Nation of Cowards," from his book "A Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control."

Snyder details how the modern American simply accept status quo crime problems and buy into society's admonition to simply give the criminal what he wants. We do this, he says, because we have become a nation of cowards, afraid to defend ourselves and afraid to stand up against crime.

“Cowardice” and “self-respect” have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered “self-esteem” as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. “Self-respect” implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. “Self-esteem” simply means that one feels good about oneself. “Dignity” used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life’s vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

2A Michigan Voters: Vote For Keith Butler on August 8

From the Detroit Free Press:

He's a big -- make that huge -- fan of guns. He wears genuine alligator shoes. He says "ma'am" a lot and introduces himself in a deep bass voice with a slight Southern drawl.

He is more handshaker than backslapper, more preacher than politician.

That's some of what you learn in a day campaigning with Keith Butler, who is running an underdog race for U.S. Senate as that rare political commodity -- a conservative black Republican candidate.

Keith Butler is a man of integrity and a man who stands for something. Unlike Sheriff Bouchard, who pays lip service to the 2nd amendment, Reverend Butler believes in the 2nd amendment, understands it's importance to American freedom, and has backed up his verbal support for the 2nd on many occasions with ACTION.

And like so many who support the Second Amendment, Reverend Butler understands the importance of personal responsibility and is anti-government fixing every problem. He holds a constitutionally-appropriate view of government's responsibility.

Michigan Republican voters, if you love freedom, and your 2nd amendment rights, remember to vote for Keith Butler on Tuesday, August 8.

Think the Reverend can't work miracles? He has been the only Republican elected to the Detroit City Council since World War II. Reverened Butler served on the council for four years.

Wiretapping In Court

Ah, another battle over the government's right to invade privacy. Oh, wait, isn't it supposed to be about our constitutional rights? I forgot we had any.

A Federal Court case in Detroit opens today to determine how much eavesdropping the government can legally get away with. Sure, since the government doesn't pay attention to law (reference our constitutional rights), this case doesn't matter. But it should be fun to watch. As the Detroit Free Press writes:

The opening salvo of what is sure to be a closely watched and potentially landmark case over whether the U.S. government has the right to eavesdrop on thousands -- and potentially millions -- of telephone and e-mail communications will be fired in federal court in Detroit today.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in January, will ask U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to abolish the Bush administration's program of intercepting international phone calls in its fight against terrorism, saying it violates Americans' free speech and privacy rights.

The Justice Department, which represents the National Security Agency, is expected to argue that the program is legal and a key weapon in the administration's war on terror.

If the Founding Fathers' could see what we've allowed our government to become, they'd roll over in their graves.

No God, No Inalienable Rights

Since the 1950's and 1960's, there has been a strong push to eliminate God from the United States. This push, conducted under the guise of "tolerance" and "respect" for those who do not believe in God, or have different religious beliefs than the traditional Judeo-Christian belief during the time of this nation's founding, has effectively taken God out of any public arena.

Now the government actively fights any mention of God, save on our money and on the Supreme Court Building.

What are our inherent, inalienable rights? Those granted by God. Government may neither bestow or deny these rights. Brave patriots died so we could enjoy these rights under a government that ruled to protect these rights.

What kind of "rights" do the government push? We heard a lot about the "Health Care Bill of Rights" and whatever imposed right du jour government wants to burden us with. Gun control, "the right to an abortion," on down the line. Government-sponsered "rights" are not rights at all. They take away from one group to add to another group. Unlike inalienable rights, which do not take away from one group to give to another.

Concurrent with the inclusion of all these new faux "rights" is the elimination of God from our public discourse. Against two hundred plus years of history, suddenly the First Amendment was declared to shut God out and completely protect all sorts of anti-U.S. thought and action.

Government realized that there is one way to deny inalienable rights - to convince the citizenry that there is no God. No God, no inherent, inalienable rights. Hence, our current state of affairs where the Constitution is no longer the absolute rule of law.

Freedom , Liberty , Rights , Bill of Rights , Law

A Few Short Paragraphs Regarding the Patriot Act Renewal

The Patriot Act renewed after President Bush signed legislation yesterday that extended two provisions and made 14 other provisions permenant.

I am amazed at the ferocity of opinion people - on both sides - have regarding the Patriot Act. Very few things can polarize the populace or charge up the emotions the way this Act does.

There are parts of the Act I detest. A lot of people complain that the Act will allow government to violate civil liberties. I don't agree. The government doesnt' need a Patriot Act to do this. Since the Civil War, Federal government has a track record of chipping away at our civil liberties. Since the 1960's, the government has recognized and aggressively promoted so-called liberties never written about in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. Any dangerous provisions in the Act will not change "business as usual" for the government. If there is a bright spot, it comes from our bastion of (anti-)freedom, Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who led opposition to renewal, called the bill "deeply flawed."

"Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens," he said in a statement.

Feingold vowed to continue efforts to enact more safeguards on civil liberties.

If our buddy from Wisconsin is against the Act, there must be something about it that is really, really good.

Patriot Act

Free Press Writer Answers David Quammen

David Quammen of GunShowOnTheNet received a response to his letter to Detroit Free Press writer Chris Christoff.

To view Mr. Christoff's article - posted in the Local section of the Detroit Free Press on Monday, not in the opinion page - click here.

Mr. Christoff's response is posted today David's blog gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com.

Tags: Gun Control , Gun Rights , 2nd amendment , Castle Doctrine , Self Defense

Property Rights

Keith Carabell stands on his land in Chesterfield Township. Sixteen of his 19.6 acres have been classified as wetlands. Federal regulators prohibited him from filling the land, even though he received a permit from a Michigan administrative law judge.

Photo Copyright 2006 ERIC SEALS/Detroit Free Press


The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two property rights cases from Michigan. The rulings will impact millions of acres of federally-designated "wet land," even if these pieces of land are no where near actual streams, rivers, lakes or other bodies of water.

It also pits the property-rights crowd against the environmental/conservation crowd.

The rulings won't impact two pieces of property in Michigan - they will impact every property owner who wants to do something with his or her property.

The Supreme Court must answer this question: can the federal government restrict development on isolated wetlands not adjacent to navigable streams and lakes to protect water quality?

The Government says "yes." The Clean Water Act allows it to protect isolated wetlands, drainage ditches and tiny streams because of their impact on the health of larger lakes and rivers.

The Property rights crowd says "NO!" The Clean Water Act only regulates navigable waters and wetlands adjacent to them. Applying this Act any other way is effectively a confiscation of private property.

Tags: Property Rights , Environmentalism , Conservation , Supreme Court

Forget the NSA - Do You Want the Police Spying?

"A man's home is his castle," according to the old British saying. Apparently not so in Houston, where a man's home (or a woman's home, for that matter) will be an opportunity for police voyeurism. That is, if Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt gets his way.

He wants surveillance cameras in apartment complexes and private homes as a means to combat an unfortunate combination of hurricane refugees (150,000 or so), lots of officers retiring, and low numbers of recruits replacing these retirements.

Silly me. I thought the Fourth Amendment guaranteed:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Tags: Police , Civil Rights , Surveillance , Fourth Amendment

The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights - Part Three

Recap

The Bill of Rights was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a document that boldly proclaimed, among other things, that the right to defense was declared an inherent right, a God-given right. It is not bestowed by the government; it may not be taken away by the government.

We also leaned that there was to be a well-regulated (that is, disciplined) militia, composed of the body of the people.

The Declaration of Independence
One other document - The Declaration of Independence - shows the influence of George Mason's Virginia Declaration. George Mason's influence is especially obvious in the opening paragraphs of this Thomas Jefferson masterpiece (I made all areas dealing specifically with the Second Amendment bold-type).

A transcript is available from the National Archives website.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 brave men placed their signatures on the Declaration. They really meant it when they concluded "we mutually pledge to each our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor." These men had signed their death warrant - if the British government would win the War of Independence. It would cost many both their lives and fortunes - but their sacred honor never failed.

Re-read the Declaration of Independence. Go ahead, it only takes a few minutes out of your day. This is the background of the men who gave us the Bill of Rights. This may give us a clue of what the Second Amendment stands for.

In the soon-to-be-forthcoming Part Four, we will look at the Constitutional Convention and anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution... arguments that draw their power from the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Tags: 2nd Amendment , Bill of Rights , History

The 10th Amendment

The Korean War is often called "The Forgotten War." Our 10th Amendment is our forgotten amendment. Southern Pundit has a well-written, clearly-thought-out article on the subject of this "forgotten" amendment.

Tags: Bill of Rights , 10th amendment , 2nd amendment

Rep. Boehner and Gun Organizations

New House Majority Leader Boehner (R-OH) is a good friend of the gun owner, as reported in the NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 13, No. 5.

Newly-elected House Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), has long been a champion of the Second Amendment, consistently earning "A" ratings from NRA's Political Victory Fund. The other new member to the leadership team, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), who won the contest for Republican Policy Committee Chairman, is also a stalwart defender of the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

However, as reported by David Codrea last week, Gun Owners of America give Rep. Boehner a "B" grade.

I did my own check on Rep. Boehner's gun record and didn't find too much objectionable over the last 4 years, with the exception of his "yes" vote on H.R. 418, which gave authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand the required information that goes into (state-issued) drivers' licenses, including biometric data like:

• retina scans
• fingerprints
• DNA information
• Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology

There were no prohibitions against requring firearms ownership status to be included.

Basically, H.R. 418 would establish a national ID card, and by law, this information would be shared with Canada and Mexico.

Tags: Gun Control , 2nd amendment , Guns

The New House Majority Leader

David Codrea reports, in The War on Guns: Congressional Report Card: Down a Grade that Congressman Boehner, the new House Majority Leader, has a lower GOA rating (B) than his predecessor, Tom Delay (A).


Tags: Gun Control , 2nd amendment , Guns

The"Anachronistic" 2nd Amendment

I've been harping on the ACLU position on the Second Amendment for a while. Please note that their webpage describing their position was long enough that I have addressed it piece-by-piece it in several blogs. In fact, I addressed this particular section of their webpage several articles ago, in this tome of wisdom. But I have more to say on the issue, so grab a cup of coffee, strap on that .45 or .357 or (fill-in-the-blank), pull out the magnifying glass, and let's examine the ACLU position and why I believe it is so incorrect and inadequate.

This is what the ACLU states as background to their position:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Let's break it down and then let's beat it up.

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."

Our 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.

Is the right a "collective" one? If this is collective - meaning individuals cannot exercise this right, then all of the Bill of Rights is collective, not individual. The same wording is used throughout the Bill of Rights.

Who are the entities in this amendment? The militia and the people. The militia is necessary to the security of a free nation. Who makes up the militia? According to 10 USC Sec.311, all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 are defined as members of the militia.

Who are "the people"? Well, they are the citizenry, right?

So the militia is not, per se, part of "the people." But members of "the people" compromise the militia, which has a function different from a standing army. There is a clear distinction between the militia and the people. We are allowed a militia, and we are allowed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

What was the purpose of a militia? It was not necessarily, as the ACLU states, to keep the people free from the central government. Their purpose was to protect people from forces that would harm people, such as armed forces from another state (which did occasionally occur) or from raids by Native Americans.

This right has nothing to do with the National Guard. If we are to truly believe the National Guard fulfills the purpose of the militia as stated in the 2nd amendment, why is the Federal Government sending members over to Iraq? Shouldn't they be stationed in their home state? Isn't the National Guard a part of the U.S. Army, while militia units have not been part of a standing army, historically? Sure, militia units served the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War, but under the control of local officers - plus, they were no longer serving with the standing Army at the conclusion of the war.

And, contrary to ACLU opinion, there is nothing anachronistic about the militia. It exists today, and not as the National Guard.

The situation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina should show that a handgun or hunting rifle can do lots of good in one's personal protection, and that a militia can form to protect people. Neighbors acted in a militia capacity until control could be restored. The National Guard and the police were not protecting people. Neighbors protecting neighbors, fathers' and mothers' protecting their families, friends protecting friends, and decent people protecting those who couldn't protect themselves - all of these became the militia. Counter to the ACLU slam on hunting guns and handguns, these tools worked just fine for the New Orleans militia members.

There is nothing anachronistic about defense or self-defense. I imagine that late at night, if an ACLU member was at home, sleeping snugly in bed until a window shattering wakes the member up, that member would "get anachronistic" really quick.


"The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Again, I refer to the Second Amendment.

We have already established the 2nd contains an individual right to keep and bear arms, as well as a right to act as a militia. The 2nd very clearly states this right "shall not be infriged." What is the purpose of licensing and registration? To remove the guns from the people. To disarm those that would be the militia in times of crisis, when there is no protection from the National Guard or from the police.

When "licensing and registration" are called "reasonable regulation," we see that there no such reality exists... there is no "reasonable regulation." The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As a side note, the ACLU really does have an interesting web site. Whether or not you agree with their opinions, and I rarely do, they do a great job of clearly laying out their beliefs and making information easily accessible. Take a trip to their web site sometime.

Tags: Guns , 2nd Amendment , Bill of Rights , Militia