This is a repost of an excellent article written by Don Fredrick (the original can be found at this excellent website address: http://colony14.net/id74.html ).
I have been following this proposed legislation since it began and it scares the hell out of me! Maybe it is B. Hussein Obama's statement that he wants to create a team of civilian mercenaries that are better trained, better funded, and better equipped than the military... why would he want to do that? Do you think he is afraid of an armed populace? Does this sound like any other tyrannical leader in the last 70 years... that rose to power in a very similar manner as BHO? As I recall they all wore brown shirts! You better start thinking about the implications of this legislation if it passes (and I have no reason to believe it will not). Many say it cannot happen here... That is what they said in Australia and Great Britain not so long ago... It is time we wake up before it is too late.
Now the article by Don Fredrik:
You have to hand it to liberals, they never seem to give up. When it comes to the United States Constitution, they generally just ignore it – particularly the Tenth Amendment (you know, that pesky one that was intended to limit the power of the federal government). But the Second Amendment causes liberals fits, because a substantial number of Americans are actually aware of it. (That may be due more to Charlton Heston having been President of the NRA than to adequate teaching of the Constitution by members of the NEA, but we’ll take what we can get.) Try as they might, liberals just can’t seem to pass federal legislation outlawing all guns nationwide. The nation’s Founding Fathers were pretty clear in their wording:
“Amendment II
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.”
The Second Amendment does not refer to the “right of the government” to keep and bear arms, it refers to the “right of the people.” The first ten amendments to the Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) were demanded by the individual States before they would ratify the Constitution. Their purpose with the Amendments was to limit the power of the federal government even more than was intended by the main body of the Constitution. The First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, and assembly) and the Second Amendment appeared first because they were considered the most important. Looking back, those gentlemen in their powdered wigs with their quill pens were pretty prescient. (We can’t blame them for not being a bit tougher with the wording of the Tenth Amendment. After all, how could Thomas Jefferson have anticipated that a bloated dunderhead named Al Gore would show up some 230 years later demanding that carbon dioxide be regulated by the government as a dangerous pollutant? King George may have been unwise to place a heavy tax on tea to pay debts from the Seven Years War, but even he never considered taxing air.)
So the Second Amendment lives on, despite attempts by liberals to render it meaningless. They’ve done a pretty good job of making it less powerful - making citizens less secure in the process - but it’s still hanging in there. The year 2009 may, however, be the year we see that Amendment become totally irrelevant.
In case you haven’t noticed, a new President will be sworn in on January 20. If he has his way (and he likely will), his Attorney General will be Eric Holder. Gun-owners across the nation may want to pay attention to the records of Obama and Holder with regard to guns and the Constitution.
Eric Holder was Bill Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General. Holder was instrumental in persuading Bill Clinton to pardon members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (to encourage Puerto Rican votes for Hillary Clinton’s Senate run in New York). In exchange for large donations by Denise Rich to the Clinton Presidential Library fund and Clinton’s legal defense fund, Holden worked for the pardon of her husband, Marc Rich. Rich had renounced his U.S. citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for wire fraud, racketeering, tax fraud, and tax evasion. Holder’s role in securing the Clinton pardons was called “unconscionable” by a Congressional committee, partly because he kept the deliberations hidden until the last minute in order to avoid certain protests from U.S. district attorneys.
Holder also worked to grant Clinton pardons for Susan Lisa Rosenberg and Linda Evans; Rosenberg and Evans were Weather Underground associates of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (best buddies of the Obamas, and past baby-sitters for their two children) who had been imprisoned for bombing government facilities. As with other pardons, Holder kept prosecutors from learning about the Rosenberg and Evans pardons to prevent expected objections. Bernadine Dohrn served one year in prison for refusing to testify against Rosenberg, who was the getaway driver in a Weather Underground robbery in which one Brinks armored car driver and two police officers were killed; Rosenberg was set free by Clinton on his last day in office.
Holder is antagonistic toward the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and wrote a brief in support of the Washington, D.C. ban on all hand-guns, even for self-defense in the home. (That law was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller.) Holder’s brief essentially argued that Americans have no right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. He supports federal licensing of all handguns, three-day waiting periods, one gun per month purchase limits, national gun registration, and strict limits on gun shows that would effectively shut them down. And that’s just what he’s admitting to before he takes office.
Holder may not like private citizens owning weapons, but he is happy to see them in the hands of government thugs. Holder was second-in-command to Attorney General Janet Reno when he made the decision to send in INS officers with automatic weapons to kidnap Elian Gonzalez and return the terrified child to Cuba.
In an interesting side note, Holder neglected to mention ties to Rod Blagojevich in the 47-page questionnaire he was required to submit to the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominee for Attorney General. Holder signed the document five days after Blagojevich’s arrest. In 2004, Blagojevich had named Holder “special investigator” for the Illinois Gaming Board, which controls Illinois casino licenses. Blagojevich was under scrutiny for his possible involvement in attempts to grant a casino license to the city of Rosemont (whose mayor was alleged to have mob ties). There were suspicions that Blagojevich would use Holder to “steer” any investigations away from him (and Obama’s main money man, Tony Rezko), while still allowing a casino in Rosemont. Rezko was also involved in the casino plans; he had an option to lease a hotel next to the casino site (which he would likely exercise only if the casino deal went through). A Rezko business partner, Christopher G. Kelly, was also involved in casino site negotiations. Kelly is also a close friend and fundraiser of Blagojevich. There is speculation that Holder intentionally neglected to list his association with Blagojevich on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire to keep association from harming his confirmation as Attorney General. (Perhaps sensing that “the fix was in,” the Gaming Board refused to hire Holder in 2004. A casino has yet to be approved for Rosemont, Illinois.)
You are unlikely to know any of this about Eric Holder if you rely on the mainstream media, which has pretty much ignored reporting anything about him that relates to issues and instead concentrates on “fluff.” “Holder will be the first African-American Attorney General,” gushed the media - after spending the entire year arguing that the election of Obama would effectively end race as an issue. I guess it’s still an issue to liberals.
Black or white or red or green, Eric Holder is no friend of gun owners. (But Fidel Castro likely holds him in high regard.) Don’t look to Holder to protect your Second Amendment rights. The same can be said of his boss, Obama.
In September of 1996, when he was first running for the Illinois State Senate, Obama completed a candidate questionnaire. In the document, Obama stated that he opposed the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, and supported banning assault weapons.
In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against a bill that specifically allowed homeowners the right to use a gun in self-defense during a home invasion. The Illinois Governor vetoed the bill; Obama voted to uphold the veto. (During his Illinois State Senate career, Obama voted four times against legislation that would allow a homeowner the right to use a firearm in defense of his home and family.)
In 1999, Obama proposed increasing Illinois firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. (A $55 tax on a $500 rifle would increase to $330.) The tax would thus change from a fee to fund wildlife preservation programs into a gun-punishing penalty.
Obama voted for a bill that would ban most hunting rifles, shotguns, and target rifles; the bill would also authorize the Illinois State Police to raid homes and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama also voted for a bill that would shut down Illinois firearm manufacturing businesses (Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms, and Les Baer). Obama voted for a bill prohibiting Illinois citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
To avoid criticism of his anti-gun agenda, Obama enlisted an organization known as the “American Hunters and Shooters Association” (AHSA) to distribute literature stating that he is “pro-Second Amendment.” The AHSA does support hunting, but it also supports strict gun controls on non-hunters. (The AHSA is alleged to be a “sham” organization set up solely to endorse leftists who need political cover for their anti-gun leanings.)
In 2003, Obama voted for a bill that classified most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns as “semi-automatic assault weapons” and bans them, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. (Had the bill had passed, Illinois residents would have had 90 days to turn in their guns or face felony charges.)
While serving as director of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama gives millions of dollars to gun control organizations like the “Council Against Handguns” and the “Violence Policy Center.” (Between 1994 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation gave $18.6 million to about 80 anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment projects, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center.)
In 2004, Obama stated that he was "…consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and would back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement."
In March of 2004, Obama voted to allow prosecution of citizens who use guns for self-defense in their own homes.
Obama proposed legislation prohibiting gun stores from operating within five miles of a school or a park. Inasmuch as most communities have schools and parks scattered widely throughout their areas, the legislation would effectively ban gun stores. (Try finding a community that doesn’t have a school or park within five miles of any business.)
During the Presidential campaign, in April of 2008, Obama made his now infamous remark that residents of small-town America, because of lost jobs, “…get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or (become) anti-immigrant.” His comment drew severe criticism from gun-owners and church-goers.
Obama’s questionnaires for potential members of his staff and cabinet included unprecedented questions about gun ownership, prompting criticism from the National Rifle Association. Obama’s questions included, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
By now you get the idea that neither Obama nor his Attorney General Holder will care one whit about the rights of gun owners. And gun owners shouldn’t expect much help from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, either. (They don’t need guns, of course, because they have taxpayer-provided security.)
Still, there is that Second Amendment protecting the rights of gun owners. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court wisely labeled the Washington, D.C. ban on guns in the home unconstitutional. Creative lawmakers in D.C. are, however, busy at work crafting replacement legislation. It won’t ban guns in the home, but it will require that they be kept stored unassembled. (Home invaders in the nation’s capital are apparently expected to be patient enough to allow their victims time to assemble and load their guns before attempting to rob them.)
“We’re only trying to protect people from themselves,” say the gun control advocates, who completely ignore the statistics about the number of lives saved by armed citizens. (Dr. Susan Gratia’s testimony before Congress is particularly powerful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqgZzhI2Sfc) Yes, one can find cases of people accidentally killed by the improper use of firearms. But there is no disputing that you’re less likely to be the victim of a crime if the criminal knows you might have a gun in your home. Being prevented from protecting your property is tantamount to hanging a neon sign in your living room window that flashes, “Burglars welcome!” (It is worth remembering that Japan briefly considered an invasion of the United States during World War II but then decided against it… because they realized Americans citizens were too well-armed to allow them success.)
Astute liberals, continually looking for a way to thwart the Second Amendment, noticed that the Amendment only refers to a right to keep and bear arms. “Hey, check this out! It says nothing about ammunition!” It may have taken them over 230 years to find the loophole, but they found it. Suddenly, eighteen states are working on “ammunition accountability legislation.” Obama’s buddies are trying to cover all the bases. If they can’t get the Supreme Court to eliminate the Second Amendment, that’s no problem. “Go ahead and keep a few of your guns… but just try to get some ammunition!”
The pending legislation would require all ammunition manufacturers to maintain a database of all ammunition sold. Ammunition must be encoded. The database will keep track of who bought what ammunition and when they bought it. All ammunition sold after June 30, 2009 must be encoded.
Any ammunition purchased before the end of June (including hand-loaded ammunition) must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. Use it or lose it. (Or, in the case of criminals, buy a lot of ammunition before the deadline, and just keep it hidden until needed.) There will be a tax (possibly .05 cents) on every round of ammo. In addition to the tax, the actual cost of the ammunition will go up to cover additional manufacturer and gun shop owner expenses. (For more information on the pending legislation, visit this web site:
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm)
Needless to say, if such legislation passes in several states, there will be a concerted effort to make the law mandatory nationwide, just for the sake of consistency. The tax will be increased as often as the government can get away with it. And if someone steals your ammunition and it is used in a crime, the ammunition database will point the police in your direction. That, of course, is a good incentive to keep your guns and ammunition under lock and key to inhibit their theft. But, in turn, that makes your guns and ammunition more difficult to access in the event of a home invasion.
Over a year ago, Australia forced gun owners to surrender their personal firearms. Over 640,000 guns were collected and destroyed by the government, at a cost of more than $500 million dollars. The results shocked the lawmakers, but probably did not surprise many of the former gun-owners:
Nationwide in Australia, homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults are up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies are up an astounding 44 percent. In Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, but the criminals certainly kept theirs. For some reason this surprised the lawmakers.
A ban on guns in England has produced similarly disastrous results, and turned citizens into criminals for daring to protect their families - as effectively portrayed in this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec
If more gun control laws and ammunition bureaucracies don’t give the liberals what they want, they have one more trick up their sleeve. They will simply argue that the Second Amendment contains a spelling error, and Americans actually only have a right to bare arms.
Don Fredrick
January 12, 2009
Copyright 2009 Don Fredrick
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Only 12 days of freedom left!
Gun Law Update
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Jan. 8, 2009
Brady Gun-Ban Strategy Outlined
(Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists:
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm)
The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda -- the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.
Their latest set of plans -- used as a fund raiser (outlined below) -- is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.
Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals -- the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear -- hoplophobia -- that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they're hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns -- instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.
The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, "We need to get these 'killing machines' off our streets." Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any "killing machine" belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn't matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.
The problem isn't the "machines," it's the lack of law enforcement -- in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.
Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn't do anything.
The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.
Politically Corrected Glossary -- of Bradyspeak
(See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)
TERMS THEY USE / WHAT THAT MEANS
"Commonsense" gun laws / Public disarmament laws
Lifesaving legislative agenda / RKBA infringement plan
Gun pushers / Heavily regulated honorable gun dealers
Gun violence / Undeterred and unprosecuted felonies
Gun violence prevention measures / Illegal infringement laws
Assault weapon bans / Public gun bans
Gun show loophole / Universal gun registration
Close the gun show loophole / Close gun shows
Suspected terrorists / Attorney General listings
Killing machines / Semiauto firearms
Crime fighting / (The term is not used)
Criminal apprehensions / (The term is not used)
Incarceration of violent perpetrators / (The term is not used)
Revolving door judiciary / (The term is not used)
Gun safety training / (The term is not used)
Respect for the Second Amendment / (The term is not used)
All quotes from Sarah Brady unless noted --
Time Frame:
"As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in, the Brady Campaign will be making an all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda... But that doesn't mean we are waiting until Inauguration Day."
Preparations:
"We are already reaching out to Obama's transition team, as well as our allies in Congress" on numerous fronts:
-- A blueprint for regulatory action
-- Roll back Bush's policies that made our "streets into shooting galleries"
-- Lists of appointments to Justice Dept., BATFE and federal courts
-- Provide funding to increase the number of people in the NICS Index
Two announced regulatory changes:
-- "Strengthen" ATF's authority to regulate "gun pushers"
-- Overturn the recently lifted ban on CCW in National Parks (Brady is calling for a boycott of such parks where 'dangerous people are free to roam armed' -- without realizing the silliness -- anyone legally armed in a park can carry anywhere else in the state, what's the difference?);
-- [Note that in the recent past, RKBA opponents have also sought to regulate guns out of the public's hands using:
-- The Centers for Disease Control (currently banned from such actions);
-- The Consumer Products Safety Commission (currently banned from such actions);
-- Proposed new entities such as the so-called "Dept. of Peace" (a cabinet-level office more accurately a "Dept. of Social Engineering," with enormous regulatory power over the military and RKBA, more here, see item #9: http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNine-27.htm);
-- A proposed gun-safety agency akin to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "The National Firearm Safety Administration" (more here, see item #1: http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder/PageNine-53.htm);
-- Massive increases to the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, to make both only affordable to an elite class of rich people;
-- Gun-ban proposals from the U.N., designed to overturn U.S. laws and RKBA through enforceable international treaties (a policy stopped in its tracks by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, but which would be embraced by Obama's minions)]
-- Unmentioned anywhere is the horrific Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, unenforced so far, that criminalizes any non-CCW travel with a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds -- which is virtually everywhere in populated areas (maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm).
Top Legislative Priorities:
-- Enact a new, larger, permanent ban on a tremendous variety of firearms to be labeled assault weapons.
-- "Extend the Brady criminal background check to every gun sale. America's gun policy should be: No background check, no gun, no excuses."
-- Close the loophole that allows "suspected terrorists" to buy guns. [Note: If for any reason you become "listed" you're not only stopped from shopping, but any guns you own could become contraband -- because a person prohibited by a NICS check is presumptively a prohibited possessor. Removal from the "suspected" list might involve the FISA spy court, where civil rights are suppressed in the name of national security. Good luck.)
Policy Positions:
-- "An end to the violence enabled by toothless gun laws."
-- "An all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda."
-- "Real change to protect our families and support law enforcement."
-- "Make preventing gun violence a national priority in 2009."
-- Use the media to advance the cause: "Obama can be a powerful ally -- and a powerful voice to rally the American people to our fight to stop gun violence."
Dismantle The Heller Case
The Heller decision was a double-edged sword, everyone recognized that. Now it's time for the Bradys to use Heller to attack the Second Amendment:
"Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal government cannot ban all guns, but that the government can place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership -- a position Obama shares -- the days of gun control being too controversial an issue for candidates to run on are over," says Ms. Brady.
"Scare tactics about gun bans aren't going to work anymore now that the NRA's slippery-slope argument about gun confiscation has been dismantled by the Supreme Court."
In a little noticed speech at the New York Bar Association in December, which I was fortunate to attend, Brady president Paul Helmke said of the Heller case, "The Supreme Court got it wrong." It's obvious the anti-rights people feel that way, and this implies they will seek to overturn the decision if they can seat a majority of their ideologues on, or bring the right case to, the High Court. Obama's statements about Supreme Court nominees do not bode well in that regard.
[Obama has said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." And: "If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." There is no mention of rule of law, original intent, rules of interpretation, historical record or precedent.]
Helmke went on to say that the dissent and the list of restrictions will be the crucial parts of the decision (for him at least). "This is going to be good for my side," because, "the slippery slope is gone." In other words, with the High Court ruling out the total bans the Bradys have been fighting to get, they believe that all sorts of lesser bans cannot be argued against. "They (the High Court) took confiscations off the table," he said. "Any gun, anytime, anywhere is off the table." Although the Bradys desperately wanted and vigorously pursued total bans, they're now trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
Regarding the end to total bans, and the individual rights v. collectivism subterfuge that's now dead, "That was the hardest thing for me to argue," Helmke said, "taking the collective-militia-rights vs. individual rights, and the D.C. total ban off the table is going to help us politically. We de-wedgified the issue." In an eye-popping statement, Helmke said, "I don't consider the Brady Center anti gun."
He went on to try to apply the Heller case to one of his most detested firearms, ".50 caliber sniper rifles are not that common," so they may be subject to control under the "dangerous and unusual" provision in the Heller opinion.
He's referring to where the Court said: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms ... fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
But they also said: "...we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" (Like .50 cals many people own and enjoy?) And quoting historical material the Court noted: "... a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons." Be very cautious, Helmke's statements cannot be left standing unchallenged.
The six panelists at that presentation generally agreed that the question going forward is, What's the test for reasonable restrictions?
Although most ardent gun-rights proponents' knee jerk response might be "no infringement of any kind at any time," it rapidly becomes obvious that, at the very least, disarming violent felons -- or anyone convicted and in prison -- does not amount to infringement. Some sort of limits on the very young, mental incompetents and similar restraints are permissible boundaries around the right to keep and bear arms. But anything that disarms the general public, even slightly or incrementally, is cause for alarm. Would disarming politicians be acceptable?
The Heller case -- where there were not five votes to apply strict scrutiny to 2A (the highest judicial test for robust protections) -- toyed with guidelines but set no iron-clad rules. On the low end however, it flatly rejected Breyer's invented so-called interest-balancing test, which would have meant virtually no limits to what the Bradys could shoot for.
On the pro-rights side, it's critical to hammer these bedrock portions of the decision in your writing, debates and fight for the RKBA:
"The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
"The way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents... because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people."
"Virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do."
The right to keep and bear arms is a "specific enumerated right" on a par with "freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel." I think of it this way: The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right on a par with free speech.
"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
[Note: You can get all 400 key quotations from the case, and comments by 20 top scholars, in my 11th book, The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm].
So just how far can the Bradys push? They're prepared to push all the way, and as their current proposals suggest, they will stop at nothing. But they didn't count on us.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Permission to circulate or post this Gun Law Update granted.
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Jan. 8, 2009
Brady Gun-Ban Strategy Outlined
(Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists:
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm)
The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda -- the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.
Their latest set of plans -- used as a fund raiser (outlined below) -- is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.
Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals -- the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear -- hoplophobia -- that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they're hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns -- instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.
The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, "We need to get these 'killing machines' off our streets." Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any "killing machine" belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn't matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.
The problem isn't the "machines," it's the lack of law enforcement -- in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.
Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn't do anything.
The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.
Politically Corrected Glossary -- of Bradyspeak
(See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)
TERMS THEY USE / WHAT THAT MEANS
"Commonsense" gun laws / Public disarmament laws
Lifesaving legislative agenda / RKBA infringement plan
Gun pushers / Heavily regulated honorable gun dealers
Gun violence / Undeterred and unprosecuted felonies
Gun violence prevention measures / Illegal infringement laws
Assault weapon bans / Public gun bans
Gun show loophole / Universal gun registration
Close the gun show loophole / Close gun shows
Suspected terrorists / Attorney General listings
Killing machines / Semiauto firearms
Crime fighting / (The term is not used)
Criminal apprehensions / (The term is not used)
Incarceration of violent perpetrators / (The term is not used)
Revolving door judiciary / (The term is not used)
Gun safety training / (The term is not used)
Respect for the Second Amendment / (The term is not used)
All quotes from Sarah Brady unless noted --
Time Frame:
"As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in, the Brady Campaign will be making an all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda... But that doesn't mean we are waiting until Inauguration Day."
Preparations:
"We are already reaching out to Obama's transition team, as well as our allies in Congress" on numerous fronts:
-- A blueprint for regulatory action
-- Roll back Bush's policies that made our "streets into shooting galleries"
-- Lists of appointments to Justice Dept., BATFE and federal courts
-- Provide funding to increase the number of people in the NICS Index
Two announced regulatory changes:
-- "Strengthen" ATF's authority to regulate "gun pushers"
-- Overturn the recently lifted ban on CCW in National Parks (Brady is calling for a boycott of such parks where 'dangerous people are free to roam armed' -- without realizing the silliness -- anyone legally armed in a park can carry anywhere else in the state, what's the difference?);
-- [Note that in the recent past, RKBA opponents have also sought to regulate guns out of the public's hands using:
-- The Centers for Disease Control (currently banned from such actions);
-- The Consumer Products Safety Commission (currently banned from such actions);
-- Proposed new entities such as the so-called "Dept. of Peace" (a cabinet-level office more accurately a "Dept. of Social Engineering," with enormous regulatory power over the military and RKBA, more here, see item #9: http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNine-27.htm);
-- A proposed gun-safety agency akin to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "The National Firearm Safety Administration" (more here, see item #1: http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder/PageNine-53.htm);
-- Massive increases to the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, to make both only affordable to an elite class of rich people;
-- Gun-ban proposals from the U.N., designed to overturn U.S. laws and RKBA through enforceable international treaties (a policy stopped in its tracks by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, but which would be embraced by Obama's minions)]
-- Unmentioned anywhere is the horrific Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, unenforced so far, that criminalizes any non-CCW travel with a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds -- which is virtually everywhere in populated areas (maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm).
Top Legislative Priorities:
-- Enact a new, larger, permanent ban on a tremendous variety of firearms to be labeled assault weapons.
-- "Extend the Brady criminal background check to every gun sale. America's gun policy should be: No background check, no gun, no excuses."
-- Close the loophole that allows "suspected terrorists" to buy guns. [Note: If for any reason you become "listed" you're not only stopped from shopping, but any guns you own could become contraband -- because a person prohibited by a NICS check is presumptively a prohibited possessor. Removal from the "suspected" list might involve the FISA spy court, where civil rights are suppressed in the name of national security. Good luck.)
Policy Positions:
-- "An end to the violence enabled by toothless gun laws."
-- "An all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda."
-- "Real change to protect our families and support law enforcement."
-- "Make preventing gun violence a national priority in 2009."
-- Use the media to advance the cause: "Obama can be a powerful ally -- and a powerful voice to rally the American people to our fight to stop gun violence."
Dismantle The Heller Case
The Heller decision was a double-edged sword, everyone recognized that. Now it's time for the Bradys to use Heller to attack the Second Amendment:
"Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal government cannot ban all guns, but that the government can place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership -- a position Obama shares -- the days of gun control being too controversial an issue for candidates to run on are over," says Ms. Brady.
"Scare tactics about gun bans aren't going to work anymore now that the NRA's slippery-slope argument about gun confiscation has been dismantled by the Supreme Court."
In a little noticed speech at the New York Bar Association in December, which I was fortunate to attend, Brady president Paul Helmke said of the Heller case, "The Supreme Court got it wrong." It's obvious the anti-rights people feel that way, and this implies they will seek to overturn the decision if they can seat a majority of their ideologues on, or bring the right case to, the High Court. Obama's statements about Supreme Court nominees do not bode well in that regard.
[Obama has said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." And: "If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." There is no mention of rule of law, original intent, rules of interpretation, historical record or precedent.]
Helmke went on to say that the dissent and the list of restrictions will be the crucial parts of the decision (for him at least). "This is going to be good for my side," because, "the slippery slope is gone." In other words, with the High Court ruling out the total bans the Bradys have been fighting to get, they believe that all sorts of lesser bans cannot be argued against. "They (the High Court) took confiscations off the table," he said. "Any gun, anytime, anywhere is off the table." Although the Bradys desperately wanted and vigorously pursued total bans, they're now trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
Regarding the end to total bans, and the individual rights v. collectivism subterfuge that's now dead, "That was the hardest thing for me to argue," Helmke said, "taking the collective-militia-rights vs. individual rights, and the D.C. total ban off the table is going to help us politically. We de-wedgified the issue." In an eye-popping statement, Helmke said, "I don't consider the Brady Center anti gun."
He went on to try to apply the Heller case to one of his most detested firearms, ".50 caliber sniper rifles are not that common," so they may be subject to control under the "dangerous and unusual" provision in the Heller opinion.
He's referring to where the Court said: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms ... fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
But they also said: "...we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" (Like .50 cals many people own and enjoy?) And quoting historical material the Court noted: "... a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons." Be very cautious, Helmke's statements cannot be left standing unchallenged.
The six panelists at that presentation generally agreed that the question going forward is, What's the test for reasonable restrictions?
Although most ardent gun-rights proponents' knee jerk response might be "no infringement of any kind at any time," it rapidly becomes obvious that, at the very least, disarming violent felons -- or anyone convicted and in prison -- does not amount to infringement. Some sort of limits on the very young, mental incompetents and similar restraints are permissible boundaries around the right to keep and bear arms. But anything that disarms the general public, even slightly or incrementally, is cause for alarm. Would disarming politicians be acceptable?
The Heller case -- where there were not five votes to apply strict scrutiny to 2A (the highest judicial test for robust protections) -- toyed with guidelines but set no iron-clad rules. On the low end however, it flatly rejected Breyer's invented so-called interest-balancing test, which would have meant virtually no limits to what the Bradys could shoot for.
On the pro-rights side, it's critical to hammer these bedrock portions of the decision in your writing, debates and fight for the RKBA:
"The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
"The way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents... because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people."
"Virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do."
The right to keep and bear arms is a "specific enumerated right" on a par with "freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel." I think of it this way: The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right on a par with free speech.
"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."
[Note: You can get all 400 key quotations from the case, and comments by 20 top scholars, in my 11th book, The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm].
So just how far can the Bradys push? They're prepared to push all the way, and as their current proposals suggest, they will stop at nothing. But they didn't count on us.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Permission to circulate or post this Gun Law Update granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
