Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

guns SC Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the last time that she MUST honor the Constitution of the United States by doing away with her state’s ban on the concealed carry of firearms.

It was back in December of last year that a 3 judge panel of the Court found the Illinois law banning concealed carry to be unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has decided that the [2nd] amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” wrote 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, paraphrasing the opinion of S.C. Justice Samuel Alito.  Naturally, the scrupulously liberal Madigan then petitioned the entire 10 member court, hoping that the ruling might be overturned. But the full court refused to reconsider the ruling of the panel.

And now the Illinois legislature has about 4 months to rewrite its unconstitutional ban into something acceptable to groups which strictly preserve the 2ndAmendment rights of the American people. And that is the REAL question: will the ONLY remaining state to disallow concealed carry abide by the ruling of the court by creating an honest and reasonable statute? If so, it will represent a truly staggering break with the leftist-inspired, Illinois tradition of governing as though rights were privileges of which the common classes are rarely if ever deserving.

After the 2010 McDonald v Chicago decision in which the Supreme Court struck down the city’s decades-old, unconstitutional handgun ban, brainless thug Mayor Richard Daley and city officials crafted a new ordinance to “comply” with the ruling. Naturally, this group of self-serving thieves and political prostitutes sought only to defy the Court with an ordinance which limited each person to ONE operable weapon; allowed no gun to be taken outside the home; prohibited the existence of gun stores and firing ranges within the city; mandated “approved” training and marksmanship; charged $100 for a 3 year pistol permit; banned handguns the police superintendent considered “unsafe due to their size” and, of course, required fingerprinting of gun owners and registration of their weapons.  Needless to say, these provisions did NOT apply to law enforcement or certain city officials.

Since that time, constitutional rights groups have been in court with the City of Chicago on a seemingly daily basis, suing to terminate the Daley legacy of wanton abrogation of liberty. On three occasions, the city has lost court decisions to the NRA and twice Rahm Emanuel has decided to amend the Daley ordinance, “…conceding that the city had little chance of successfully defending lawsuits against certain aspects of it.”

Incredibly, Chicago City Corporation Counsel Steve Patton has accused the NRA and others of “…cherry-pick[ing] the things they thought they could marshal a challenge (on).” How does one “cherry-pick” UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions in a city ordinance? Could anything be more typical of a Chicago official than to whine because the city’s assault on freedom has been found unacceptable by those who prefer liberty to the beneficent dictatorship of nanny-state hoodlums!

Leftist Governor Pat Quinn is not likely to provide Illinois residents with the 2nd Amendment rights to which they are entitled. The 7th Circuit has given lawmakers till mid-year to write a constitutional law.  Don’t be surprised if the state is once again before the bench by year end.

Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes

Guns SC Lawmakers “Accidentally” legalize warrantless invasion of gun owners homes

UPDATE 2/23/13: the assault weapons bill that was proposed in the Washington State Legislature has died. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/02/22/assault-weapons-ban-dead-in-state-legislature/

Lawmakers in Washington State have accidentally written a bill permitting police to invade private homes for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” guns and accessories, such as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

According to Senate Bill 5737, introduced on February 13th by Democrat State Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, and Kline, no one may possess an “assault weapon” or the combination of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle capable of using a detachable magazine AND any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.

Happily, however, you ARE allowed to possess an UNLOADED assault weapon “…for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency of the state.”  (Pg. 6)

Naturally, the statute would NOT apply to police, members of law enforcement in the state, or to federal authorities; in short, the oft-referred to “only ones.” That is, the only ones, the political ruling class tells us, who can be trusted with firearms.

However, if one happens to own an “assault weapon” prior to the effective date of the legislation, he may keep it IF he agrees to “safely and securely store the assault weapon.” And by the way, “THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY MAY, NO MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE…” Not surprisingly, safe and secure storage is not defined in the bill. (Pg. 7)

Also not surprisingly, this language was quickly deleted from the bill immediately upon lawmakers learning of the public outrage their little foray into dictatorship had spawned.

Yet, in order to provide cover for the bill’s sponsors and fellow liberals, duplicitous “journalist” Danny Westneat is hoping to sell Washington gun owners on the laughable story that the whole thing was just an unfortunate mistake! According to Westneat, one of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Adam Kline “…did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.” Naturally, ALL prospective laws should be written without paying much attention to what’s in them!

And the PRIME sponsor, Democrat Ed Murray, admitted that the language was “probably unconstitutional.” “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” allowed the munificent liberal.

PROBABLY unconstitutional?  Here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

And by the way, MR. Murray, how were your “only ones” to know which homes to enter and search? Could it be that mandatory, statewide gun registration was to become the next in your series of “common sense” gun laws?

But even with the Orwellian language now removed, SB 5737 is an affront to the God-given rights of the American people. After all, the bill still states that, should one inherit an “assault weapon,” he must either dispose of it by allowing law enforcement to confiscate it or permanently disable it. It is government literally authorizing the theft or destruction of personal property. Anyone who objects will be subject to one year in prison.

As for the claim by the bill’s authors that it was a mistake, a misstep? “It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do.  They gave away what their plan is.” The truth is, “it’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.”

Freedom-loving Americans must understand that the left will never stop their assault on our liberty until WE FINALLY STOP THEM.

Christopher Dorner May Save More Lives Than He Could Ever Have Taken

Christopher Dorner SC Christopher Dorner may save more lives than he could ever have taken

“Since 1989, the world has witnessed a progressive weakening of the state and rise of alternative, non-state primary loyalties, for which a growing number of men are willing to fight.” This is what military affairs expert William S. Lind calls the heart of his theory of the Fourth Generation of Modern Warfare (4GW).  And there can be no better example of a “primary loyalty” than the right to keep and bear arms.

The days of the massive, invulnerable armies of the nation-state winning contests with lesser opponents at the drop of a hat are over. Consider the fact that the most powerful military in the world was unable to roundly defeat the rag-tag forces of Afghanistan and Iraq, as wars that should have taken a matter of weeks have stretched into years.

Fourth Generation Warfare is based on dispersion and communications that remove the battle front entirely. Attackers rely on cultural/media attack and coordinated violent actions to…paralyze or collapse the enemy’s political will, rather than seeking decisive combat.” It’s the sort of warfare and aggression practiced by those who are not interested in adhering to politically correct tactics or seeking an outcome acceptable to the U. N., its member nations, or media critics. Only winning is important. And as individuals or comparatively small forces fighting in the 4GW mode will be far weaker than the trillion dollar forces of their opponents, they will almost certainly attract additional support by convincing lookers-on that theirs is the morally superior side. Isn’t that so often the case with underdogs?!

Anything about this sound familiar?

“One man — ONE MAN — has for almost a week frightened and tied up the law enforcement resources of an entire state (and I’m sure the Feds are making their contributions behind the scenes too). This is a cautionary tale for any citizen disarmament advocate who blithely assumes (as stupidly as the LAPD was last week) that the “authorities” are up [to] the challenges of the 4GW civil war that their appetites seem bent upon creating.”  In short, “…the resources of the modern surveillance police state are not even up to the challenge of one madman, let alone a determined, thinking  minority.”

A lone, murderous psychopath had the entire LAPD running in circles as unhinged officers shot at old ladies delivering newspapers and skinny white guys rather than the 260 lb black murderer who was the actual subject of their hunt!

And incredibly, Christopher Dorner became a cult hero of sorts with loons throughout the nation! Obviously, his was not the “morally superior side” by any means. Yet, though certainly deluded, many people were “…rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system.”

If this wholly unsympathetic psychopath can attract support—even though it may be the support of fools, racists, and leftists–imagine the backing that can be rallied by patriots fighting for the God-given right of all Americans to keep and bear arms!

“One man” tied up countless police and perhaps federal officials as well while killing virtually at will.  Yet Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, and others will apparently not rest until they have provoked American gun owners and believers in freedom into a 2nd American Revolution.

IF the left is capable of learning anything from the Christopher Dorner example, it should be that several million American gun owners and freedom lovers acting independently or in small groups and dedicated to the defense of their own liberty would constitute a force with which neither the nation’s police nor even its military could contend. And untold numbers of those working to overthrow the Constitution would lose their lives.

Will the left take heed of the waiting disaster taht must accompany its efforts to abolish the 2nd Amendment? If so, will the frightening example of “success” offered by the very evil Chris Dorner play a part in causing these opponents of freedom to change their minds?

Photo credit: www.YoVenice.com (Creative Commons)

Armed Citizens Get Their 2nd Amendment Point Across

second amendment SC Armed citizens get their 2nd Amendment point across

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” This language from the Washington State Constitution failed to impress one city councilman from Oak Harbor as he demonstrated the petulance inherent in liberals by walking out of a January council meeting because one of the attending citizens was legally armed.

At issue was a 2009 lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) against the City Of Seattle for having broken state law by placing a ban on the carrying of firearms in city parks.  A 3 decade old Washington State Preemption Law makes it illegal for jurisdictions within the state to pass any ordinance that conflicts with state law. As the State of Washington declares it legal to carry weapons in state parks, the Seattle ordinance against that law is illegal and therefore unenforceable. Such was the ruling both in state court and the District 1 Court of Appeals!

But when the SAF informed the City of Oak Harbor that its own ban on guns in area parks was also in violation of the Preemption Law, city councilman Rick Almberg decided that peevish behavior was somehow his right and should take precedence over the law and the rights of Oak Harbor residents.

Testifying before the Council against the Oak Harbor ban, private citizen Lucas Yonkman agreed to answer Almberg when the councilman asked if the disabled Afghanistan Veteran was armed. Upon responding that he had both a handgun and a license to carry a concealed weapon, Councilman Almberg immediately made a motion that weapons be banned at council meetings. When that failed, Almberg promptly picked up his belongings and left the room.

But when the next City Council meeting took place in early February, “…a group of 160 citizens, many if not most of whom were armed…” crowded the council chambers, voicing support for Lucas Yonkman and demanding “…that the council rescind [the] local ordinance prohibiting guns from being carried on public property.”

One armed citizen attending the meeting offered a pointed statement when he told the council, “…if the fact that citizens who are merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates city officials, then they need to look within to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them.” Indeed, this question should be put not only to council members in Oak Harbor, Washington, but to politicians in D.C and throughout the nation.

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson offered the famous statement, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” Whether the City Council of Oak Harbor was or was not intimidated by the armed citizens they were elected to serve, “the council voted to remove the ban on guns in public parks and other public areas.”

Americans must make it known to liberal politicians that neither churlish behavior nor unconstitutional legislation will intimidate citizens into relinquishing their God given rights. If that message must be delivered by armed envoys, so be it. After all, when elected officials uphold the rights of the American people, it is a good thing, regardless of the means employed to make them do so.

Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)

Obama Building A Personal Army At The Department Of Homeland Security

General Obama Forward Stand Down SC Obama building a personal army at the Department of Homeland Security

In July of 2008, presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama stated that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

It was 4 months before the election; yet no one in the “mainstream” media seemed interested in asking a presidential candidate about his promise to create a “civilian security force” with a $440 billion annual budget! What, exactly, would it do? Who would be in charge? Where would a force the size of the U.S. Military be housed? Would its members—like their military counterparts—be armed? How much authority would such a force exercise over the American people? From whom would it be derived? In his speech, Mr. Obama made it sound as though most of the members would be volunteers. If so, why would a near-half trillion dollar budget be necessary?

In the almost 5 years since Obama’s frightening pledge to put a powerful, unidentified force in charge of “national security,” the American public has discovered that:

  • though Obama has never again repeated the terms “civilian national security force,” it is obvious that the Department of Homeland Security is filling that role in the Obama Regime.
  • DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have purchased more than 450 million rounds of .40 cal, hollow point ammunition. Hollow points are expensive and wholly unnecessary for range use. It seems members of the DHS are to be armed—well armed. At the same time, Mr. Obama is working to see to it that the American people are NOT.
  • the immigration services and enforcement budgets at DHS were nearly $20 billion in 2010. Yet the Mexican-U.S. border was guarded by a “virtual fence” which leaked illegal aliens like a sieve. Some 4-5.5 million foreigners have overstayed their Visa’s in the US, yet just 8,100 arrests have been made by the DHS!

Then, in October of 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order creating the “White House Homeland Security Partnership Council,”  its ostensible purpose to “…advance the federal government’s use of local partnerships to address homeland-security challenges.” But the DHS was ALREADY working with local governments across the nation. Why would Obama intercede in this way?

Because “he [wanted] to be able to dictate who gets to participate in these local partnerships – and they don’t have to be local law enforcement or local government officials to do so. These partnerships will be with ‘the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations and community-based organizations.’  All of whom will be handpicked by Obama and those federal bureaucrats he appoints.”

The National Defense Authorization Act empowers Obama ON HIS OWN to determine who represents a threat to the United States and to have that individual detained and imprisoned. And the Executive Order he signed allows the president to select like-thinking “deputies” nationwide, authorized to act on Obama’s behalf. These men will have little or no concern for the security of the United States. Rather, they will be working exclusively to increase the power of the president by threatening and intimidating his political enemies.

Barack Obama is at last building his Civilian National Security Force. It consists of a thoroughly corrupt organization of the far left, employed by the DHS and empowered by the president himself to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States.  Representing the 3rd largest department in the federal government, these DHS forces of a Constitutionally ineligible president are working to implement a police state—a dictatorship in which all “rights” will derive from the sole authority of Barack Obama.

Make no mistake–Barack Obama has every intention of imposing his will on the American public by creating a Marxist dictatorship during his second term. It is for that reason the assault has begun on American gun owners, as an armed public can fight back and defeat such would-be tyrants.

It’s difficult to conceive of an American president deliberately arming a federal force for the purpose of killing and enslaving the American people. But we will see it happen.

ObamaCare Guarantees “personal Information” Will Cease To Be Personal

gun rights topper ObamaCare Guarantees “personal information” Will Cease to be Personal

Being a good, Democrat-run state, Minnesota has decided to build an ObamaCare exchange, turning all healthcare rights and choices of its citizens over to the tender mercies of federal death panels and untrained, IT technicians in Washington, DC.

But if anything, that’s the GOOD news for unsuspecting Minnesotans! For all information currently considered “personal” will, at the stroke of a keyboard, become known to countless bureaucracies throughout the State and federal governments.

As the Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom explains it:

“Buried in the text of the Minnesota Obamacare Exchange bill (MNHIX) [is] a tiny but controversial section allowing free-flow sharing of all data the government has on you. It also grants them access to the data “other entities” have on you. There is no limit to the agencies that can share data. There is no limit to the data that can be shared. There is no limit with whom the data may be shared.” (1)

Sound comforting? Well there’s more!

Minnesota “…state agencies shall share “not public data” with the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace if the board determines that the exchange of the data is “reasonably necessary” to “carry out the functions of the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace.” The exchange is also allowed to share “not public data” with state agencies, the federal government and “other entities,” a term that is left undefined.” (1)

According to Minnesota law, “not public data” means “any government data classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic, or protected nonpublic.” (1)

So, if the D.C. Board which runs ObamaCare decides it is “reasonably necessary” to know if you pay your taxes, are delinquent on your mortgage or own 4 pistols in order to properly “carry out the functions” of the ObamaCare exchange, that information will immediately become known throughout all “relevant” state and federal government bureaucracies!

Uh, did someone say “own 4 pistols?” Yes! In the State of Minnesota, no one may purchase a handgun until they have first obtained a handgun transferee permit from their local Chief of Police or Sheriff’s office. That permit is then taken to a gun dealer to purchase a pistol from them, or presented to a dealer in order to make legal any sale between private parties. Naturally, that permit becomes part of the purchaser’s Minnesota, gun ownership record.

So gun registration is built right into ObamaCare in the State of Minnesota. Would Barack and the rest of the far left take advantage of such a law in order to track gun owners and their purchases? What’s that saying about Popes and bears?

ObamaCare has NEVER been about healthcare and the more the American public finds out about this Marxist scheme of federal ownership and control, the more obvious it becomes.

And sooner or later, the left will engineer their long anticipated overthrow of the 2nd Amendment. In Minnesota, at least, ObamaCare may well be instrumental in the process. But be careful what you wish for, ladies and gentlemen of the left. That whirlwind you reap might just shoot back!

Janet Napolitano Suggests We Fight Back Against “active Shooters”– With SCISSORS!

Napolitano SC Janet Napolitano suggests we fight back against “active shooters”– with SCISSORS!

In July of 2012, Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) produced a “show and tell” video instructing Americans on the best course of action should they suddenly find themselves in an “active shooter” situation.

Entitled Run, Hide, Fightthe Big Sis-approved, 6 minute epic provided potential victims with crucial advice, such as “run away” and “remain out of sight of the shooter.” Naturally, that’s the sort of counsel only government can provide.

Noticeably absent from the DHS tutorial, however, was any discussion of REAL weapons in the hands of prospective victims. Apparently, firearms were not permitted in the “gun free zone” building chosen by the Mayor of Houston for the making of the Department-sponsored film.

But then, to be fair, one 12 gauge pump did play a part in the video. In fact, it was used by the principal character—a muscular, clean-cut fellow who looked all the world like a former Marine D.I. or Republican congressman until he began mowing down unsuspecting fellow actors. Well, the DHS did warn us about those dangerous returning vets and Constitution-loving, right-wing extremists, didn’t it?!

This week, the Napolitano film crew introduced Options for Consideration, the 2013 version of its Run, Hide, Fight fantasy. Once again, potential victims run, hide, and fight UNARMED just as they had in 2012. But this year’s video lacks the one thing that added a sense of reality to the 2012 offering— the shooter!  Replacing that fearsome looking, faux-Republican in the 2013 video are views of people scurrying to the exits and crawling under desks. But the feel of “authenticity” is lacking.

See, in last year’s film, the scary conservative with the close-cropped hair calmly pulled his 12 gauge tactical pump from a backpack, fired all six shells, and strolled to the next populated area. Now that’s REALISM! After all, any shooter in a Democrat-imposed “gun free zone” KNOWS he has all the time in the world to reload and pick off more targets as no one in the building will be armed and able to threaten him. In fact, the murderous GOP wanna-be in Janet’s movie didn’t even feel the need to use one of those infamous “assault weapons” with a “30 round magazine”!!

But give Big Sis credit for interjecting a little humor this year. For as the serious-sounding narrator advises anyone “caught out in the open” to “try to overpower the shooter with anything at [their] disposal,” the camera actually pans to a hand removing a pair of scissors from a desk drawer!

That’s right! Just as the school-aged children of Barack Obama and other DC politicians are protected by armed guards and 535 members of Congress enjoy armed security throughout the Capitol building, we the wretched refuse are told that we needn’t worry either. For should the unexpected ever happen, all we have to do is open the nearest drawer!

But you’d better hope like Hell you can crawl in! Because scissors aren’t going to help; and if there’s a gun in there, you’ll undoubtedly be SHOT by first responders who are trained so that no “law abiding” citizen could possibly be armed.

Enjoy the Super Bowl tomorrow.

Obama Executive Orders Designed To Ban Owners, Not Guns

guns SC 300x168 Obama Executive Orders Designed to Ban Owners, not Guns

Photo credit: Gregory Wild-Smith (Creative Commons)

Realizing that a shooting war with American citizens would not bode well for an Obama legacy which will already require a blanket guarantee of willful amnesia on the part of historians, the president’s handlers on Wednesday decided it best to propose an Executive ban on gun owners rather than on the guns they own.

If fact, nowhere in the list of 23 executive actions recommended by Obama will the American public find the words, “these weapons will be banned” or “confiscation will begin on…” The president wisely left the heavy lifting of “assault weapons” bans and other unconstitutional offensives on the 2nd Amendment to congress, placing lawmakers in a rock-and-a-hard-spot position for which any existing red state Democrats are no doubt less than grateful. (1)

But the scheme Obama did choose is far more insidious than any direct attack on the weapons of choice of American gun owners. For the president is seeking to disqualify by federal fiat the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners themselves. How will it be accomplished? It’s all about the massive expansion of shared state and federal background check information currently unavailable to bureaucracies so as to protect the privacy—and liberty– of the American public.

First on Obama’s list is his promise to “issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.” In fact five of the 23 executive actions the president claims will “reduce gun violence” involve a new federal reliance on the sharing of information gleaned from background checks. Three others actions feature an emphasis on information concerning mental health. And twice Obama links the safety of the public to ObamaCare and the necessity that doctors question patients about gun ownership. (2)

In short, the left is seeking to turn gun ownership into an issue of public health. “A lot of people buy guns every year, and it’s a health concern,” claims a University of Pennsylvania social policy professor. “Doctors ask patients about illegal drug use, disease history and sexual habits, So, Why not guns?” (2)

Why not guns? Suppose your father, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, moves into your home. As 8 of Obama’s executive action pledges on gun control involve medical or mental health, the new bureaucracy of shared patient information will inform the Center for Disease Control of this move. A letter will then be sent to your attention from the CDC, the ATF or the DOJ demanding your home immediately be cleared of the weapons known to exist there thanks to an ObamaCare initiated, doctor-patient interview in which you participated 2 years earlier! After all, an Alzheimer patient poses a particular danger where guns are readily available! (2)

If this sounds far-fetched, you don’t know the contempt in which the Regime holds the gun owning public.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, Obama is indeed coming for the guns of the American people. But rather than decide which guns we’ll not be permitted to own, the left will simply tell us that we’re not allowed to own ANY!

Americans have spent years preparing for a shootout with would-be tyrants. Well, we’ll certainly have it. Just a bit later, perhaps, than originally expected.

Why Don’t Dems Shove Gun Control Down America’s Throat–ObamaCare Style?

Obama Feeds America SC Why don’t Dems shove gun control down America’s throat–ObamaCare style?

Since the December 14th murder of 27 people prevented by law from defending themselves, the American left has worked overtime to intimidate, embarrass, and harass 2nd Amendment supporters into relinquishing their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Gun and accessory bans, sales by private citizens outlawed, imminent threats of confiscation, millions in new taxes and fees, and countless law abiding citizens menaced with being summarily pronounced felons—all of these threats have been brought to bear on the American public by self-righteous hypocrites.

Yet a full month has gone by since the grisly Sandy Hook killings; and the far left has done nothing but bluster and provoke. Why is that?

It wasn’t long ago an arrogant, elitist congresswoman told Americans that ObamaCare had to become the law of the land for the public to find out what was in it! Democrats either avoided or lied systematically to constituents across the nation as Obama’s namesake “healthcare” plan was proclaimed the “best thing” for the American people. And goodness knows, if it’s the best thing it MUST be imposed one way or another—for our own good!

So why have the left not promptly enacted the strict gun control measures they have bandied about during the past month? So what if those proposals are not exactly constitutional. Neither was ObamaCare until a Supreme Court justice prostituted himself, his reputation, and the Constitution of the United States in order to shamelessly MAKE it so.

And what does it matter if the American people don’t WANT their favorite firearms banned or confiscated? The public didn’t want ObamaCare either. We still don’t!

Democrats had a big election victory, they own the media, and 20 children were brutally killed; yet after one full month, we have heard nothing but overblown threats and vague promises of a coming Executive Order. Let’s face it. The 2nd Amendment isn’t like healthcare. And threatening to ban or confiscate the guns of 100 million people is just a little different from demanding they own a dental policy.

Democrats and the rest of the far left are anxious. Demand people turn in their bran- new “assault weapon” –or else–and you’re likely to get one hell of a big dose of or else! The left have enjoyed no small success intimidating the public into accepting—or at least not rebelling against—the dictates of political correctness. But these self-important fixtures of the political ruling class have finally decided to take on the biggest issue there is. And they realize they cannot afford to fail.

For should gun owners stand resolved against forced registration, weapon bans, and orders of confiscation, how will the left respond? Will SWAT teams begin breaking down doors and firing on the American public? If so, millions of outraged gun owners might declare open season on the Marxist ruling class.

Even Elmer Fudd might bag something on that day!

Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)

It’s Time Patriots Declare Victory In The 2nd Amendment War

second amendment SC It’s time patriots declare Victory in the 2nd Amendment war

Though it’s doubtful anyone will hear much about it, neither lawmakers, judges, or even a president has the constitutional authority to infringe upon the inalienable right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

One hundred thirty eight years ago, the Supreme Court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms “…is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

The case was United States v. Cruikshank; and the Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, God-given and independent of any mandatory approbation by men or their laws for its force and legitimacy.

The Founders were so certain as to the absolute nature of these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights that Alexander Hamilton suggested in Federalist No. 84 that it was unnecessary even to make them a part of the written Constitution. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do,” he wrote, clear in his assertion that men have no authority to meddle with rights deriving from God and nature.

All these years later, the Court has not changed its attitude about the inalienable rights of the American people. In the majority opinion of D.C. v Heller, the Court states that the 2nd Amendment “codifies” the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms; it does not “give” us that right. “[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

Yet for decades, it has been the aim of gun-banning lawmakers and left-wing jurists to transform the 2nd Amendment into a nonsensical hodgepodge.  Children are killed by a psychopath, and the left is pleased to claim that “assault weapons” must be responsible and should therefore be banned. “High capacity” magazines are deemed unnecessary for hunting, and this somehow means they must be outlawed. Individuals thought to be  “too dedicated” to the Constitution are accused of being potential domestic terrorists; and for some unknown reason, Libertarians and veterans are not to be trusted as gun owners. It’s an extraordinary mix of non sequiturs designed to add confusion to the 27 word 2nd Amendment.

Well, the Founders of this nation saw nothing complicated about the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; for theirs was a lesson of cruel experience learned from the British enemy during the Revolution. The British knew that disarming the colonies would mean an end to any war, and they focused all of their efforts on the capture of weapons, powder and ball. Surely this is a concept simple enough even for Dianne Feinstein—disarm an enemy, and they will become the easy prey of a would-be tyrant.

For the Founders, the right to keep and bear arms became nothing more complicated than “…the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.” Indeed, that was the purpose of the right as later expressed in the 2nd Amendment. And in spite of the best efforts of modern hoplophobes and would-be tyrants to confuse the issue, it has not changed to this day.

It’s past time for American patriots to tell the left that issues concerning the right to keep and bear arms were decided long ago and in our favor. We will tolerate no further aggression against our inalienable right to defend our families, our lives, and our property from the treachery of thieves, liars, and tyrants who populate the Democrat Party.

To paraphrase Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars: “If you don’t try to steal our guns, we won’t kill you.” What could be fairer than that?!

Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)