Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

Well here we go with another state attempting to break away from the an overbearing and the unconstitutional actions of our federal government.

Jefferson once wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” To resist this centralizing trend, Jefferson was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism, nullification.

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

NULLIFICATION

(When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.)

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.

“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”

“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

LITIGATION

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA.  Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country? (I think it’s a conflict of interest to take it to a federal court, just pass a state law nullifying the federal authority in your state.  Actually IMO the states don’t need justification from federal courts, the states just need to tell the federal government they don’t recognize or authorize their authority to regulate gun control in their state based on nullification of that federal law in their state. The state legislature can pass such a law and nullify the federal authority from what I”ve read and heard. Check out additional info here.)

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005.  Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

BATFE Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid

BATFE has no authority to interpret the constitutional legality of a state law, but they think they do I guess. I hope Tennessee challenges this…they should.

The states should have never let the federal government get away with using the commerce clause to regulate the 2nd amendment in the 1930s during the progressive movement.

It is yet another example of the federal government running roughshod over the states.

Last month, the state of Tennessee’s General Assembly passed House Bill 1796, the “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act,” which states that any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are “not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration” due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

But according to Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the U.S. Constitution is little more than a g.d. piece of paper, as George W. Bush so infamously deemed it during his reign as the decider-in-chief.

	Click here to see an enlargement of the letter

On July 16, Carroll dispatched his agency’s official response to the law passed in Tennessee — the BATFE asserts that “Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.”

It will be interesting to see how Tennessee reacts to this official proclamation.

Letter to the Govenor of Tennessee: Firearms Act

I got this letter from my friend Ron in Nashville that he sent to Governor Bredesen concerning the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act just recently passed by both houses. Remember as Ron said, the states created the Federal government, not vice versa. The 2nd amendment is directed at the Federal government and restricts them, not the citizens.  I thought the letter was very  good  and so did Steve. Ron said we could post it, so here it is. Thanks Ron.

Letter to the Govenor Bredesen of Tennessee Re: Firearms Act

Dear Govenor Bredesen,

Thank you for signing most of the bills to support and expand the right of the people for armed self-defense passed in this legislative session. All of them were in accordance with our rights  enumerated in Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. According to the 9th Amendment, “the people” by their governments in the States, can expand upon and enumerate more rights than in the U.S. Bill of Rights; rights which are outside the “delegated powers” of the United States:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –9th Amendment

I noticed that you allowed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act to pass into law without your signature. I thank you for not vetoing it. Some of your reported statements regarding this bill are as follows:
“This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.”
“The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…”

“…While I share the General Assembly’s commitment to federalism, this legislation contravenes our Constitution. I am allowing it to become law so that it can quickly be dealt with by the federal courts.”
If you rehearse civics history, the United States Government is a creation of the States. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document which grants “delegated powers” to  the Federal Government and also added, in the words of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, ”further restrictive and declarative clauses” in the first ten amendments. That is, “restrictive” of the Federal Government and “declarative” of the rights of the people.

First we have the “delegated powers” regarding the militia:
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; -–Article I, Section 8.15-16, U.S. Constitution (EMPHASIS MINE)
Then the 10th Amendment makes it clear that the Federal Government cannot operate beyond the specifically ”delegated powers”. In the case of firearms, the Federal Government only has delegated power to govern the part of the militia that it calls into its service and employs for the reasons specified in Clause 15 of Article I, Section 8.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. –10th Amendment.
Finally the 2nd Amendment is “declarative” of the right of the people and totally restricts any Federal intervention regarding an armed citizenry by saying “shall not be infringed”. The explanatory sub-ordinate clause opening the sentence makes it clear, along with the 10th Amendment, that any other powers regarding the organized militia is retained by ” a free State”.

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 infirnged. –2nd Amendment

According to an objective reading of the legal contract by which the States established the Federal Government with “delegated powers”, the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is completely in accordance. Once again, thank you for allowing this important piece of legislation to pass into law which will hopefully provide an impetus, along with similar bills in other States, to return the U.S. government to its Constitutional constraints.
Sincerely, Ron
Nashville, Tn..

“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson

TN Firearms Freedom Act: Tells Federal Government to “Get Out of Our Business”

Well it’s about time that Tennessee started standing up against our overbearing,controling and unconstitutional power grabbing federal government.  Standing on the 10th amendment is a start. As the guest on the Glenn Beck show points out, repealing the 17th amendment would also help returning our country back to it’s intented position……….more in the state’s hands, not federal government. Of course, the Governor could veto this as well so let’s hold on and see what happens. His veto could be overwritten as it was in the past.

Also a couple of weeks ago Tennessee passed this law: Proposal Stopping Confiscation Of Guns Now Law

(AP) NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A person who legally possesses a gun would not have it seized during periods of martial rule under a proposal that has been signed into law by the governor.

The measure was signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen on Thursday and takes effect immediately.

Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Republican Sen. Jack Johnson of Brentwood, one of the sponsors, has said he doesn’t expect such behavior in Tennessee, but believes legislation should be in place just in case.

Channel5News.com

Senator Mae Beavers and Senate Pass TN Firearms Freedom Act: Tells Federal Government to “Get Out of Our Business”

NASHVILLE, TN – The State Senate approved legislation today that seeks to combat the destruction of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by the Federal government in their attempt to infringe upon states’ rights. Senate Bill 1610, known as the “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act,” sponsored by Senator Beavers, takes a step in the right direction to restore to the states control of intra-state commerce and the regulation of firearms manufactured and sold within Tennessee.
“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough,” urged Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act asserts that if a firearm and/or ammunition is made totally within the state of Tennessee, and stamped “Made in Tennessee”, then the federal government has no jurisdiction over that item in any fashion so long as it remains in state and outside of interstate commerce. All state regulations applying to the possession of firearms in Tennessee would still be applicable and must be complied with. This legislation is being proposed to prevent a federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties. Unfortunately, some courts’ interpretation of Congress’ power implied by the commerce clause has been misconstrued to suggest it’s unlimited application to state regulation. (I might add federal courts misconstrued it and they have a conflict of interest looks like to me.) An effort by the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce under the guise of powers implied by the interstate commerce clause could only result in an encroachment of the state’s power to regulate commerce within its borders. This bill is similar to one signed into law in Montana, and is currently pending passage in at least 30 other states.

Watch part 2 & 3 of this interview here:
The State House of Representatives passed the companion bill (HB 1796 by Ben West and Henry Fincher) last week and the bill will now head to the governor’s office where he will have to choose whether to side with the 87 Representatives and 21 Senators who voted in favor of the bill.

MaeBeavers.net

Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns

Gosh it’s nice of the Federal court to say that since 19th century Supreme Court rulings said such and the Constitution plainly says  “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms”

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that the Second Amendment doesn’t bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment to strike down a handgun ban adopted in 1976 by the Washington, D.C., City Council. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the amendment protected from federal infringement an individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

A string of 19th century Supreme Court decisions limited application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that certain constitutional rights, but not the Second Amendment, could be enforced against the states.

Gun-rights groups challenged ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., as unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last year. A federal district judge rejected their arguments, a decision affirmed Tuesday by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read entire article at Wall Street Journal.com

Military demands details on soldiers’ private guns

Though this order was apparently rescinded, the fact that active duty soldiers are being asked to submit every detail of their private firearm collection maybe  a telltale sign that the second amendment is in dire straights. Furthermore, other  such directives are being issued all over the country it has been confirmed.

The memorandum was sent out publicly  by a concerned 11B Infantryman based at Fort Campbell. In his e mail, the man expresses his shock at being ordered to comply with what amounts to a registration of privately-owned firearms. The man said he had been at Fort Campbell for almost 8 years and had never encountered anything like this directive before.

“I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here,” he warns.

Fort Campbell command reversed under pressure

A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored.

The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not “acting within his authority.”

The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a “privately owned weapon” was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit.

Further, the rule warned, “If any soldier comes into possession of a Privately Owned Weapon following the effective date of this memorandum, he is required to inform the Chain of Command of the above information.”

One soldier who objected to the demands circulated the memo, commenting that he lives off post.

“It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days the most anti-firearm president in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn’t provide any reason or purpose as to why,” the soldier said.

Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it.( It has been confirmed that bases all over the nation, including in Texas, are directing active duty personnel to provide the same information about their private gun collections, but it was a mistake?)

“As a response to a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons, the command decided to explore how to implement a training program for soldiers with privately owned weapons. Their goal is to identify soldiers with firearms and provide additional safety training to them, much like our motorcycle and driver safety classes,” she said.

“Our soldiers train and operate in combat with M-4 carbines and various other military weapons, but not all who purchase their own weapons are properly trained to handle them. Determining which soldiers possess weapons will allow the command to identify the soldiers who may require additional training on them,” she said.

Learn here why it’s your right – and duty – to be armed.

Gramling said the memo was “from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority.” She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority. (Not to mention national attention had been drawn to the memo.)

The process has been suspended pending a full review, she said.

“This is not an effort to infringe on soldiers’ rights to own firearms,” Gramling told WND.

Mistake or not, the commander’s order comes on the heels of a Department of Defense policy that limited the supply of ammunition available to the private gun owners by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.

That policy already had been implemented and had taken a bite out of the nation’s stressed ammunition supply before it was reversed this week.If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.

WorldNetDaily.com

Next step? No 2nd Amendment for right-wing ‘extremists’

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing ‘extremists’

Proposed Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those ’suspected dangerous’

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”

“[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “A ‘known terrorist?’ Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn’t have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!”

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from “right-wing extremists,” such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

“By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.

Pratt’s biggest concern, however, is the sidestepping of the Constitution and due process that the nebulous language of this bill could permit.

“Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast,” Pratt told WND. “This is such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done.”

As WND reported, right-wing “extremists” aren’t the only Americans on the DHS watch list.

wo weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its now notorious warning against “right-wing extremists” in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups as potential “threats.”

That memo, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” expanded the list from typical “right-wing” causes to include left-wing extremism, animal rights activists, black separatists, anarchists, Cuban independence advocates, environmental extremists, the anti-war movement and more. It even insisted some of these groups were prone to violence.

For example, the lexicon defined the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”

It further states that tax protesters “have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.”

The DHS memos were meant for distribution to law enforcement officials around the country, prompting some to worry the definitions might be used to classify Americans who simply disagree with government policies as being dangerous.

Worldnet Daily.com

Bill Would Prevent Federal Government from Regulating Firearms in TN

Well it’s about time we join Montana and Alaska in state sovereignty. and applying the 10th amendment to the out of control federal government.

Tennessee lawmakers may soon send the federal government a loud messagehands off our guns.

A new law is under consideration that would say if firearms are manufactured and sold inside the state of Tennessee, federal gun law would not apply.

Visit any gun store right now, and youll hear the same story.

Gun buyers are stocking up on weapons, and ammunition is in short supply.

“It is a very significant fear for a lot of Tennesseans,” says John Harris, Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association

Harris says gun owners are worried. They believe the Federal government may soon restrict certain weapons.

“But it’s our way to make a statement to say this is Tennessee. These our are guns,” says Rep. Henry Fincher, (D) Cookeville.

Now, lawmakers have proposed a new bill called the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act.

It basically exempts guns made and sold in Tennessee from federal regulation, because they never cross the state line.

“If these firearms are meant to be used just here in Tennessee, they’re not properly regulated by the federal government because they are not in interstate commerce,” says Rep. Fincher.

“Your state, and I suspect every state, will be rushing to try to do something to preserve the rights of their people,” says Ronnie Barrett with Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

The rifles made by Barrett Firearms are impressive.

Theyre also made right here in Middle Tennessee, which means this proposed law applies to their weapons.

“And this is a great move to say that the state has rights, and the first thing they’re going for is to protect their firearms,” says Barrett.

Similar legislation is pending in several other states. Montanas Governor has even signed a like minded-law.

So far opposition has been quiet in Tennessee, where lawmakers have been dealing with a number of gun related bills.

“Bottom line…safety. I think if there’s a gun being manufactured in Tennessee, as long as it’s a safe gun I have no problem with it,” says Sen. Beverly Marrero, (D) Memphis.

But if the law passes, it will put the state at odds with the federal government, and set the stage for a showdown over guns.

Both the House and Senate versions of this bill will be up for a committee vote tomorrow.

Many believe this issue may ultimately be settled by the United State Supreme Court.

WZTV.com

OK, I’ve heard enough, gimme my microphone!

Folks,

Just the other day I saw a blog and got an email about how the legislators in Oklahoma had stood up for once and passed several distasteful conservative values. They voted for a monument to the 10 commandments, verified gun carry rights, and banned the marriage of homosexuals. Now, they are under attack by the left, the ACLU, and others saying that Muslims need equality, anti-Christians, perverts and so forth. Let me very simply fix this. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else that your hokey vision of rights is acceptable. See, the founders wrote our laws based on Christianity, and said we should be tolerable of other religions, not acceptable. Rights were unalienable, of God, not of law. We had the right of free speech, the ability to call a spade a spade, and the ability to do it under the protection of American law that no one seems to understand – most of all, our own government.

The Oklahoma legislature must have studied the Constitution and figured out they had the right to make law that trumped federal law. By the way, for all morons that disagree with that, you might read the 10th amendment. The feds have no right to peek at me, gps me, take my guns, keep me from talking about them, invade my privacy, or take my property. None, nada, nil, any. Read the Constitution. The 5th says they may offer just compensation, not take, and even then the right of due process is owed. They forget that part, because they know you can’t afford the fight. So, when will we wake up? When will something knock us out of “our own little world” bubble enough that we finally challenge the authority of the government against the Constitution? Our founders guaranteed it, they fought for it, and they died for it.

Are we willing to do the same, or are we going to watch each other roll over and show the whites of our soft bellies? I keep watching all the Dems defend Obama. Give him a chance they say. Let me set another scenario for you. If Al Franken is appointed the winner in Wisconsin, the state that elected Jessie Ventura governor, so be ready, Obama has the White House, Congress, and with a swift appointment or two, the Supreme Court. That is NOT balance of power, that is an instant ticket to socialism. It is dangerous for either side to wield that kind of power.

Attend the tea parties; speak out about all this unfair spending, high taxes and crooked government. Our children are counting on us for their future, God expects that of you, and remember, WE, AMERICANS, were guaranteed our rights by the Constitution, not by barter, not by attrition, and not by threat. Other religions are welcome, but are not to be forced upon us, nor used against us. Liberalism is good in balance, but not as the rule, it will in its current form, make America a third world country.

I am not ready for that, I don’t wish it on your children or mine, and I will fight for balance and the Constitution as long as I have breath. I hope you will also do the same in every way that you can. You owe it to the founders who gave you the freedom to read and understand that you can. You have the obligation to answer the call.

Steve

Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits

---

---

WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Described as ‘protection against government degenerating into tyranny’

---

By Bob Unruh

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and long has been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty,” so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The ruling came in a decade-old dispute over a private operation’s request to hold a gun show at a county fairground, even though the county prohibited gun possession at its facilities.

The new ruling from the usually liberal 9th Circuit said Alameda County in California was allowed to ban guns at its facilities, but in general the 2nd Amendment provision for Americans to keep and bear arms applies not to just federal gun limits but local rules as well.

“In Nordyke v. King … we may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of that very unsatisfactory set of circumstances, wherein state and local governments need not so much as pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment,” he continued. “In the 9th Circuit, in fact, that end has indeed arrived.

“This development is very significant, because the 9th is the largest, and thus one of the most important, federal circuit courts. It is also considered the most ‘liberal,’ and thus perhaps the most resistant to protecting the right to keep and bear arms,” he continued.

Hofmann cited a concurring opinion by Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote that nothing less than the security of the nation – a defense against both external and internal threats – rests on the provision.

“The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security,” Gould wrote. “We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.”

The court opinion this week said, “We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.’

“Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later,” the court continued.

“The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments,” the opinion said.

The court previously had ruled exactly the opposite way, but it said the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which confirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is personal as well as collective, prompted the reversal.

At Poligazette, a commentator noted it is a major victory for the pro-gun position.

And another Gun Rights Examiner writer, David Codrea, said, “This is big – especially coming from the 9th Circuit, notorious for its hostility to gun rights. Look for an appeal. And then look to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.”

Technically the county cannot appeal, since its policy to restrict guns on county property was upheld. But the plaintiffs, Russell and Sallie Nordyke, could appeal on behalf of their gun show operation.

The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“This necessary ‘right of the people’ existed before the Second Amendment as ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,’” the ruling said. “Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered ‘necessary to the security of a free state.’ First, ‘it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary . . . . Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”

The decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He’s (Obama) already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban “assault” weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

Worldnet Daily.com