First a NEGATIVE, in part…
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.
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
From time to time I read about proposals for a national law requiring reciprocity of concealed carry permits between the states. The most recent example is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Senator John Cornyn, R-TX.
Sadly, I have some bad news about this proposal, and about a national CCW reciprocity law in general: It would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. (Fill Yer Hands)
Second, a POSITIVE response, in the comments…
In timor veritas. “Olympia disarms open carriers in hearings.”
Washington State House and Senate officials announced yesterday that the ban on open carry has been extended to include all public hearings in legislative office buildings, the Associated Press and Seattle Times reported.
The original edict is going to be tested on 7 February by the I Will Not Comply folks. It seems certain that someone will, at the least, be arrested this time. My intention, if I can raise the ticket and the expenses, is to go out, participate in this action and give them the chance at me. The fight in Washington state is more important than almost everybody understands and has national, even international, implications.
If things go really south, Bob Wright has offered to truck my bones around the country, Irish-like, to raise money for the cause. I have accepted, since at that point I will no longer have need of them. ;-)
I am not suicidal, but the willingness to trade life for liberty — your own and those that you love — is implicit in the oath we take. The collectivist media has been very successful in serving their masters by deliberately ignoring the armed civil disobedience movement. Even the pukes at CSGV have been holding their tongues, even though the various state campaigns “prove” their “government-needs-a-monopoly-of-force” position. The “authorities” in Olympia are frightened to death, it would seem, about citizens exercising their rights while in the vicinity of their Mandarin personages. To paraphrase the Romans, “In timor veritas” — in fear there is truth. The politicos have demonstrated their fear and an essential truth. The trick will be to give them the opportunity to overreact and demonstrate the bankruptcy of their tyranny where all will see and notice. THAT is a cause worth risking much for. (Sipsey Street Irregulars)
Some folks are putting there money where their mouths are.
What are YOU prepared to do?
PS – Mike Vanderboegh (of Sipsey Street Irregulars
) has been having major health problems, both before and after his Washington State appearance. Please keep him in your thoughts. – Guffaw
It’s a problem as fresh as today’s headlines.
A Pennsylvania woman with a concealed carry license drives over the New Jersey line with a gun in her car. In a routine traffic stop, she is arrested and charged for violating New Jersey’s unconstitutional gun laws. Only a national campaign saves her from a decade in prison.
And that’s just the point: In an era where states like New York and California use draconian and labyrinthine gun laws in order to try to outlaw guns by fiat, a legal gun owner shouldn’t risk a life behind bars because he or she drives across a state line into a socialist-leaning state.
A Floridian shouldn’t live in fear of a move that takes him through New York, or a Virginian, of a trip through Maryland.
So it is good news that, after a campaign that has lasted for over a decade, we are now within striking range of passing reciprocity legislation that is friendly to citizens living in constitutional carry states.
Congressman Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) has told Gun Owners of America that he will be introducing this reciprocity bill within the next few weeks. This bill will prohibit states like New York and California from cancelling the Second Amendment rights of Americans from other states.
If you have a concealed carry permit — or if you come from a freedom-loving state that doesn’t require one — you can carry anywhere in the country without fear of losing your constitutional rights because of where you are.
With six constitutional carry states — and at least four other states which may pass those laws this year — the Stutzman bill is a particularly important contrast to competing bills which would require states like Vermont to change their pro-gun laws in order to benefit.
Now, we know that some of our members would argue: “Why shouldn’t principles of federalism allow states to spit on the Second Amendment if they want to?” We respect this view, but respectfully disagree. Gun grabbers have no problem creating national rules to take away our Second Amendment rights, irrespective of what we do. So it’s time they were hoisted on their own petard.
In addition, the Supreme Court (correctly) ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the reach of the Second Amendment extends beyond just the federal government and applies to all 50 states.
In this landmark decision, the Court noted (approvingly) that anti-gun Justice Stephen Breyer was “correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated.” (p. 44)
Why are we so optimistic about Stutzman? The answer is that we now have a filibuster-proof majority to pass it in the Senate — if we can get the new GOP leadership to give us the opportunity to offer it as an amendment to a must-pass bill.
ACTION: Contact your Representative. Ask him or her to call Congressman Stutzman and sign up as an original cosponsor to the Stutzman “constitutional carry” friendly reciprocity bill.
Of course, in a perfect World, all freemen would be able to carry whatever they want anywhere, with impunity. Riding their unicorns into the sunset. – Guffaw
h/t Gun Owners of America
- Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, former Chief-of-Staff to the President (quoted in the blog title)
One of the most important yet overlooked factors that will occur in the aftermath of a massive terrorist attack on the United States is that such an attack would spark martial law on a national basis. Several national security experts were contacted who have no doubt that martial law will be declared. This declaration would include not only forced curfews but mandatory confiscation of citizen owned firearms.
The very same scenario would be implemented in the event of a devastating national disaster, such as a rare 1000-year volcano, a deadly tsunami that would decimate either the east or west coasts, or a direct hit by an asteroid.
Since the days of the Reagan administration, government has had a blueprint for continuing to operate in secret underground bunkers that have been built all across the United States. It is called simply “Continuity of Government” that establishes specific, detailed protocols for addressing the threat posed to the entire U.S. government. While some of these protocols are prudent and necessary, the section that would implement martial law is particularly troublesome. (in part from Examiner.com)
The Administration (and their socialist minions) use every criminal shooting to continue to beat the drum for civilian disarmament – even if the firearms chosen had nothing to do with the crime. Every oil spill, however slight, is an ecological disaster. Every attempt to increase private business growth is viewed as a product of the evil 1%. Every attempt to privatize (translation – let the people decide instead of the government) pretty much anything is de facto evil, because it takes power and control away from the all-powerful, and knowledgeable
The gun control movement began in this country as a means of keeping firearms away from freed slaves (in Kentucky, in 1809) and the great unwashed (in New York City 1911). And the same forces responsible continue to push for civilian disarmament, especially of the poor. (Cheap guns are dangerous and only used in crime).
How racist is gun control?
Now that the gun rights folks have achieved CCW statutes in most States, even in Illinois, their only response is the bigger picture.
Foment nationwide discord and just wait for the next big terrorist attack. Then institute martial law and disarm the populous.
I’m sure Al Qaeda and company are just waiting so they can attack a second time. From Saudi Arabia.
h/t The Liberty Sphere
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain
Now pending in the Arizona Legislature…
HB 2320 would exempt CCW permit holders from being disarmed when entering “public” (state and local government buildings and property, unless security measures (guards, metal detectors, etc.) are in place to screen every person entering for weapons.
HB 2431 would establish an interstate “compact” that restricts member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements different than existing federal law. Compacts between states supersede individual state law. An example of an interstate compact is the uniform recognition of drivers’ licenses. Assuming HB 2431 is enacted in Arizona and at least one other state becomes a party to the compact, a subsequent state law, or even a ballot measure, cannot override it.
With the pending Bloomberg-sponsored effort to establish Gun Owner Registration using Arizona’s Initiative/Referendum process, there are non-firearms bills that help insure that the process is proper and lawful.
HB 2407 would require strict compliance to the requirements (signatures, dates, etc.) for getting a measure on the ballot.
SB 1056 focuses on the validity of petition signatures. If the address of the signer on the petition is not the same as on their voter registration, the signature is not valid.
At this early point in the session, none of the bills we are monitoring have been schedule for committee hearings.
I’m not certain I agree that any registration is ‘proper and lawful’, but different strokes and all that.
h/t Arizona Citizen’s Defense League
One of Europe’s most prominent Jewish organizations is petitioning the European Union to pass new legislation that would permit Jewish community members to carry guns “for the essential protection of their communities,” according to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sadly, a leader in the European Jewish community NAMED COOPER (ironically), disagrees.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that while guns could help Jews defend themselves against an individual attack, only authorities can protect them against a mass attack like those carried out in France.
“As to personally being armed, such a move could help when a Jewish person is threatened by thugs, but won’t help if G-d forbid, Charlie-type terror attacks are launched,” Cooper said.
And, of course, the ever more anti-Semitic Europe will continue to debate this, while not only the Jewish community, but most Europeans, are unable to defend themselves against crime or terror.
Except, of course, the Swiss!
While France, in response to the recent attacks, pushes for MORE gun control laws!
Brock Townsend shares with us:
I came across this article today, entitled Are Militias a Menace? It mainly focuses on pro-government militias during times of civil war abroad, however, there are some very important takeaways from this article. To wit:
The distinction between “gang” and “militia” — ties with the government
Unlike rebels or criminals, whose actions are necessarily illegal and opposed by the state, these groups enjoy semi-official or informal ties with the government.
Liberal use of state-backed militias (i.e., “gangs”) to abuse the populace and disabuse themselves of the blame
Their statistical findings (published here and summarized here) show that the appearance of militias is strongly correlated with violations of human rights, particularly when governments want to maximize harm to civilians while minimizing blame for the action of armed groups that are, ostensibly, “free agents.”
In other words, the SPLC can s*** it!
And don’t even get me started on the Fast & Furious government-gang thing!
First of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the magazine staff slaughtered by Muslim extremists in Paris.
Having said that, I don’t know what nuances ‘freedom of speech’ hold in France, but I am familiar with those nuances here.
And I side with those who do, say and publish vile things – the Piss Christ (jar with a crucifix submerged in urine) as ‘art'; some play in NYC where a Mormon has a Book of Mormon inserted rectally as part of a ‘performance'; those Westboro Baptist Church idiots…
And those who burn the American Flag as a means of social and political protest.
I side with their right to freedom of expression; this doesn’t mean I agree with them!
But, now we come to those bastards who killed 12 people in Paris (a largely gun-free zone) because they had the nerve to publish cartoons making fun of the prophet Mohammad – something Muslim extremists find reprehensible.
I’ve no problem with Muslims going about their daily business and worshiping as they please. And I can understand being upset at Mohammad being made light of, just as most Americans find the artistic and dramatic expressions mentioned earlier disgusting.
But most Americans wouldn’t kill people for exercising their ‘freedom of expression’.
“We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin
“The way to overcome them in this instance is to overwhelm them with disrespect and mockery. They can silence one magazine, but they can’t silence the entire Internet. Every blogger, of every political stripe, be it left, right, and everywhere in between, needs to realize that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the two keystones of your ideology, whatever it may be. You need to make a stand. You need to make these terrorists lose the ideological battle. And the way to do that is to republish the Mohammed cartoons yourselves. Today. Right now.”(Sipsey Street Irregulars, PJ Media)
Lafayette, we are here!
(Recognizing, of course, that my tiny blog is infinitesimal in the world of self-expression and free press. But we must take a stand somewhere. Please go to the PJMedia link above and select one or more hated cartoons and put it(them) out there. For the good of all freedom-loving people – Guffaw)
While they certainly do not bring points for the most civil, moral or efficient. Or Constitutionally libertarian. They are definitely not the WORST!
Exhibit One (courtesy of Cato @ Liberty)
The 31st Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850
The 5th Congress, which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798
The 21st Congress, which passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830
The 77th Congress, which passed Public Law 503, codifying President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 authorizing the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans, in 1942
The 65th Congress, which passed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), the Espionage Act, and the Selective Service Act, and entered World War I, all in 1917
And let us not forget the rubber stamping of Constitutional Amendments changing election of Senators to popular vote (effectively eliminating State Power and increasing Federal Power) and creation of The Federal Income Tax, AND the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act and Assault Weapons Ban. AND, The Patriot Act and her illegitimate children.
I could go on. And on.
Why do they insist on being called LAWMAKERS? Shouldn’t they MODERATE and ADJUST for REMOVAL of Laws, not just add to them?
This is not a manner of confession, but rather an observation. (And also why I generally keep my real identity in this blog anonymous) There is a push to include mental health as part of the record used to do government-sponsored background checks prior to the purchase of a firearm. If we knew these records would be kept private, and only persons who were a definite threat to others were denied, I might get on board with such a system. If I thought free commerce restriction was the government’s business.
However, based on what has happened in New York and elsewhere (confiscations-after-the-fact) and the government is defining inappropriate mental health for firearms ownership in the most loose of terms (like being prescribed an antidepressant or visiting a therapist for any reason) I must conclude that is simply another tentacle in the
gun people control web.
So much for HIPAA, and medical privacy. After all, it’s the government’s business if you are in marriage counseling, or slightly depressed, or a good friend just passed away.
Because we’re all so fragile we might off ourselves, or others.
With evil guns.
BTW, both the ex-wife and I have owned firearms. And currently live 1/4 mile apart. And nothing has happened between us violently. In fact we are friends.
I hope my record isn’t in the system(?)
h/t Say Uncle