http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
It's official ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States will be taking up the Park (Now Heller) Case to issue a ruling on whether or not the gun laws of Washintgon D.C. are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
This is the big one. This is the decision that people on both sides of the gun control aisle have been waiting for since early this year. And now after so long, after so much misleading and argument and misunderstanding, we're finally going to get an answer...unfortunately it won't even begin until sometime in early 2008.
Now a lot of people are gonna be nervous about this, probably developing ulcers and getting their stomachs in a knot (the gun banners are gonna be the same way, they've got just as much to lose as we do). But it's out of our hands now, all we can do is sit back and watch and see what happens.
What could happen? I don't know. Nobody knows. It's going to be one of those wait and see things and there's no other way around that fact. However as for the possibilities, these are what I forsee as possible outcomes:
1. The Supreme Court could determine that Heller has no standing in the case and dismiss it without even approaching the Second Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court could finaly determine that the Second Amendment IS an individual right and not that collective nonsense that's been spreading for the last 40 some odd years and poisoning the minds of people. In doing so it could strike down all of the laws D.C. has that're being challenged, such as the so called "safe storage" and licensing provisona.
3. The Supreme Court could still determine that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the suspended licensing program would be made to go away, but the storage provisions could be kept and be cited as a "reasonable restriction" for the safety of others.
4. The Surprme Court could determine that the Second Amendment is indeed a collective right and only applies to preassembled groups of individuals, such at the National Guard, and that they can only bear arms while on duty and never at any other time.
Two things that have to be remembered though.
1. This case will only determine what happens on Federal levels, not state and local levels. Regardless of how the ruling happens the only ones to be affected directly will be D.C. and the Federal Government; indirectly states could be free to do the same if they chose to, but they may not be able to since State Supeme Courts have held that their local keep and bear arms provisions is individual in nature.
2. Even if outcome #4 happens it doesn't mean that gun owners are beat yet. We make up one third or more of the American people, we have a lot of influence when we flex our collective muscles (such as the outcome in New Jersey when the anti-gun candidates never made it to office during election). If the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment didn't apply to us on an individual level, then we could very well put pressure on Congress until they made an amendment that stated "The right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms for all lawful uses is recognized to be an individual right and as such subject to the same treatment as the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights" and clarified that owning guns is an individual right and has nothing to do with organizing as militia members to face tyrants, or to join the National Guard, or any of that bull.
The battle has just started, and it's far from over. And even when it looks like it's over, gun owners won't be beaten; no matter how hard we're stomped down, we always resurface and come back strong.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Blaming toys for violent crime and killing
In the latest attempt to place blame elsewhere for our problem of violent criminals and killers, the Washington Post has decided to turn its sight on guns once more; except they're going one step further and blaming toy guns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900598_pf.html
In their article the Post decrys the release of a new Nintendo Wii accessory, the Wii Zapper. They also go further and complain about the original BB guns from the late 1880s, and super soakers that could be filled with amonia.
The claim is that letting children play with toy guns, like they've been doing for many decades, is encouraging them to be violent and getting them adjusted to the idea of using real guns and killing people for fun.
Nevermind the fact that in this article they specifically state that findings about a link between violent videogames and real world violence are unfounded, the Washington Post seems to think that this is irrelevant.
Instead of blaming inanimate pieces of plastic that are designed for good clean fun, why isn't the Post blaming our lax justice system that will let a sex offender be on probation because he's "too short for prison".
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Boston police given authority to violate the 4th Amendment
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.
Help me out here, what exactly is wrong with this idea?
You can bet that's gonna go over real well can't you? Police can now violate your 4th Amendment rights because you live in a high-crime neighborhood. No more obtaining a warrant, just asking to search your home and use intimidation to get inside. They can also violate the 5th Amendment under this program, because they're allowed to take guns without any due process; just come right in and take what they want, no questions asked, no paperwork needed.
This isn't going to turn out very well at all. The police aren't obligated to obtain a search warrant, they're not going to actually be arresting any criminals, they're just going to be barging in and confiscating whatever guns they find. And since this is a warrantless search and seizure program, the police have no obligation to give the guns back.
Anytime you hear somebody say "There are checks and balances to keep the government from taking over" or "Something like that could never happen in America", look them straight in the eye and let them know about stories like this.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Outrage in Oregon
I'm sure a good percentage of you are familiar with the name Shirley Katz; she's the Oregon state teacher that wants to carry her LEGALLY OWNED gun at her place of work -a public school- as allowed by Oregon state law. She's gone to battle with the school board over the issue and basically been treated like the bad guy for wanting to exercise a Constitutional right, and to protect herself from her exhusband, and her students from another school killer.
Today the judge hearing the case issued a very bad ruling, stating that the school policy trumps both state law and the state constitution.
Think about that for a minute. The policy of a school is allowed to supercede the LAW OF THE STATE and the STATE CONSTITUTION! This judge is saying that no matter what the state declares, the school is allowed to void any law it wants by passing whatever policy it wants. He's basically saying that the school is the ruling majority and the state must become obedient to whatever it wishes.
Thankfully, the case is being appealed - hopefully to a better judge with more common sense!
If you live in Oregon, or even if you don't live in Oregon, you should be outraged at the decision of this liberal activist of a judge. Never should a school be allowed to decide that the law of the state doesn't apply to it.
If you know this judge, be sure to "thank" him. Let him know that you're glad he showed his true colors and what he really stands for. Let him know that you'll always remember this decision of his.
Today the judge hearing the case issued a very bad ruling, stating that the school policy trumps both state law and the state constitution.
Think about that for a minute. The policy of a school is allowed to supercede the LAW OF THE STATE and the STATE CONSTITUTION! This judge is saying that no matter what the state declares, the school is allowed to void any law it wants by passing whatever policy it wants. He's basically saying that the school is the ruling majority and the state must become obedient to whatever it wishes.
Thankfully, the case is being appealed - hopefully to a better judge with more common sense!
If you live in Oregon, or even if you don't live in Oregon, you should be outraged at the decision of this liberal activist of a judge. Never should a school be allowed to decide that the law of the state doesn't apply to it.
If you know this judge, be sure to "thank" him. Let him know that you're glad he showed his true colors and what he really stands for. Let him know that you'll always remember this decision of his.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Stupid people in New York
You've probably heard well before now, but New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, wants to grant all illegal immigrants valid driver's licenses.
Isn't that just like him, the rest of the country is trying to get rid of illegal immigrants and he's setting up a safe haven that would allow them to stay here.
You don't need directions to see where this is going at all. Governor Spitzer is planning something that'll likely put a lot of people in danger. By giving illegal immigrants a valid piece of identification in America, the same time of identification that anybody over 16 has, he's gonna be making it possible for them to buy guns in New York state.
Of course he claims that such a thing would never happen, because according to him you need "Federal ID" to buy a gun in America.
Hey Spitzer! Wake up and smell the reality! There's no such thing as "Federal ID", at least not yet. And you sure don't need it for buying a gun in America, all you need is a driver's license to prove you're an American citizen. That's the way the law has been for almost 40 years now, where have you been Spitzer?
I'm sure that my former mayor, Bloomberg, is gonna be loving this. He's waging a war on what he claims are "illegal guns" and he's trying to "gets guns off the streets" and "out of the hands of criminals", and here the Governor is giving potential criminals from south of the border the opportunity to get guns for crimes.
Nice to see things haven't changed (as far as sanity/insanity and a lack of common sense goes) from when I left two years ago.
Isn't that just like him, the rest of the country is trying to get rid of illegal immigrants and he's setting up a safe haven that would allow them to stay here.
You don't need directions to see where this is going at all. Governor Spitzer is planning something that'll likely put a lot of people in danger. By giving illegal immigrants a valid piece of identification in America, the same time of identification that anybody over 16 has, he's gonna be making it possible for them to buy guns in New York state.
Of course he claims that such a thing would never happen, because according to him you need "Federal ID" to buy a gun in America.
Hey Spitzer! Wake up and smell the reality! There's no such thing as "Federal ID", at least not yet. And you sure don't need it for buying a gun in America, all you need is a driver's license to prove you're an American citizen. That's the way the law has been for almost 40 years now, where have you been Spitzer?
I'm sure that my former mayor, Bloomberg, is gonna be loving this. He's waging a war on what he claims are "illegal guns" and he's trying to "gets guns off the streets" and "out of the hands of criminals", and here the Governor is giving potential criminals from south of the border the opportunity to get guns for crimes.
Nice to see things haven't changed (as far as sanity/insanity and a lack of common sense goes) from when I left two years ago.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
More media bias against guns
I read this news article today, and I just got me mad. Once again we see CNN trying to paint guns as something they're not; remember the deception they did about making a fully-automatic AK-47 look like it was covered by the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban? They're up to their old trick again.
And of course, this article is just chock full of errors and obviously anti-gun bias. Let's examine them shall we.
First this quote: "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
This Sergeant obviously knows nothing about guns, or simply doesn't care. AR-15s are nothing like the M-16s used by the troops in Iraq except for their appearance, that's it. The M-16s are capable of firing three bullets with a single pull of the trigger, an AR-15 can't possibly do that.
Second, this sentence: He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
The Clinton Gun Ban has nothing to do with this issue. Even when the law was still in effect you could legally buy a fully tricked out AK-47, AR-15 or any other firearm you wanted that had a bayonet lug, a folding stock, flash hider, pistol grip and 20-30 round magazine, and it would be perfectly legal. The only thing the law did was stop the manufacture of new models during that ten year period. That's it, nothing else at all!
Third: Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.
What the hell? Since when were such rifles designed to be fired from the hip? And what's that got to do with anything?
Furthermore, what's the potential rate of fire have to do with anything? So you can fire 600 rounds in a minute, so what? Do you have a 600 round magazine? Do you realize how long it'd take to change out all those magazines to equal 600 rounds?
And another thing, a 600 RPM firing rate on automatic mode, that doesn't really amount to anything since these weapons DON'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC MODE!
Forth: Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapon's can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away.
So these rifles are both accurate and inaccurate at the exact same time. That's a contradiction in terms and should negate the entire sentence. but just for argument's sake let's examine it.
When was the last time you ever managed to see any rifle, even a hunting rifle with a heavy bull barrel and long ranged magnified scope, manage to hit an inch-wide target at 100 yards?
"Pinpoint accuracy" is something reserved for very high-quality match-grade rifles that cost thousands of dollars and are used for sporting events. These guns are made to very high tolerances; so high that even a little bit of dirt will make them jam. The average firearms for the civilian market, as far as accuracy goes, is designed for 2-6" at 100 yards.
Fifth: The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.
You're always hearing calls for restrictions on "high-capacity magazines" because "they contribute to mass killings" and other crap like that. Yet here they say that they're the kind used by police. Either that means these magazines have nothing to do with killing, or the police are being given weapons and munitions to be used for killing innocent people. Which is it?
Sixth: There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.
If criminals really are getting automatic weapons, then they're importing them illegally from outside the country and breaking all laws on the books, because they can't get them here in America. So obviously renewing a ban on them won't do any good now will it?
Seventh: Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years.
Eight people in the last two years? Four people a year? Help me out with this one, I'm failing to see the national emergency that's going on here.
Eighth: "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.
Again, not automatic weapons, or at least not legally obtained ones at any store in America. Just doesn't work that way.
Ninth: "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.
According to that statement the guns the criminals are getting are being imported from the Soviet Union. And those guns are banned from importation.
Tenth: Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.
The 1994 law did absolutely nothing that would've prevented these killings from occurring, bringing it back won't do anything either.
When was the last time a law banning or restricting something ever did anything to stop a criminal even in the slightestt?
You would think that CNN would've learned from the last time around, when they were called out by Wayne LaPierre and bitch slapped live on the news for their lying about the Clinton Gun Ban. But it just seems that they can't help but lie and lie and lie!
And of course, this article is just chock full of errors and obviously anti-gun bias. Let's examine them shall we.
First this quote: "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
This Sergeant obviously knows nothing about guns, or simply doesn't care. AR-15s are nothing like the M-16s used by the troops in Iraq except for their appearance, that's it. The M-16s are capable of firing three bullets with a single pull of the trigger, an AR-15 can't possibly do that.
Second, this sentence: He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
The Clinton Gun Ban has nothing to do with this issue. Even when the law was still in effect you could legally buy a fully tricked out AK-47, AR-15 or any other firearm you wanted that had a bayonet lug, a folding stock, flash hider, pistol grip and 20-30 round magazine, and it would be perfectly legal. The only thing the law did was stop the manufacture of new models during that ten year period. That's it, nothing else at all!
Third: Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.
What the hell? Since when were such rifles designed to be fired from the hip? And what's that got to do with anything?
Furthermore, what's the potential rate of fire have to do with anything? So you can fire 600 rounds in a minute, so what? Do you have a 600 round magazine? Do you realize how long it'd take to change out all those magazines to equal 600 rounds?
And another thing, a 600 RPM firing rate on automatic mode, that doesn't really amount to anything since these weapons DON'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC MODE!
Forth: Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapon's can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away.
So these rifles are both accurate and inaccurate at the exact same time. That's a contradiction in terms and should negate the entire sentence. but just for argument's sake let's examine it.
When was the last time you ever managed to see any rifle, even a hunting rifle with a heavy bull barrel and long ranged magnified scope, manage to hit an inch-wide target at 100 yards?
"Pinpoint accuracy" is something reserved for very high-quality match-grade rifles that cost thousands of dollars and are used for sporting events. These guns are made to very high tolerances; so high that even a little bit of dirt will make them jam. The average firearms for the civilian market, as far as accuracy goes, is designed for 2-6" at 100 yards.
Fifth: The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.
You're always hearing calls for restrictions on "high-capacity magazines" because "they contribute to mass killings" and other crap like that. Yet here they say that they're the kind used by police. Either that means these magazines have nothing to do with killing, or the police are being given weapons and munitions to be used for killing innocent people. Which is it?
Sixth: There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.
If criminals really are getting automatic weapons, then they're importing them illegally from outside the country and breaking all laws on the books, because they can't get them here in America. So obviously renewing a ban on them won't do any good now will it?
Seventh: Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years.
Eight people in the last two years? Four people a year? Help me out with this one, I'm failing to see the national emergency that's going on here.
Eighth: "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.
Again, not automatic weapons, or at least not legally obtained ones at any store in America. Just doesn't work that way.
Ninth: "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.
According to that statement the guns the criminals are getting are being imported from the Soviet Union. And those guns are banned from importation.
Tenth: Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.
The 1994 law did absolutely nothing that would've prevented these killings from occurring, bringing it back won't do anything either.
When was the last time a law banning or restricting something ever did anything to stop a criminal even in the slightestt?
You would think that CNN would've learned from the last time around, when they were called out by Wayne LaPierre and bitch slapped live on the news for their lying about the Clinton Gun Ban. But it just seems that they can't help but lie and lie and lie!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
