You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ tag.
From the Tenth Amendment Center, Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in Florida
Introduced in the Florida House on July 6, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-21) seeks to provide “that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation” in the State of Florida.
The bill is sponsored by Florida State Reps O’Toole and Plakon. They follow in the path of Montana, and Tennessee who have already passed such legislation. And they join with Utah, Texas, South Carolina and others who are considering it in an effort to limit federal regulation of guns, and specifically invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments as restrictions on federal power:
More at the link.
There’s a whole of shaking going on, and big government types don’t like it. From the Washington Times, Mont. gun law challenges federal powers
A new Montana gun law puts the state at the forefront of a national bid to restore states’ rights by attacking up to a century of federal court decisions on Washington’s power.
Two other states – Alaska and Texas – have had favorable votes on laws similar to Montana’s, declaring that guns that stay within the state are none of the feds’ business. More than a dozen others are considering such laws, and more-general declarations of state sovereignty have been introduced this year in more than 30 legislatures.
The federal courts may not respond well to these laws in the short term, but backers who acknowledge this say that regardless, they intend for the laws to change the political landscape in the long term. They hope these state laws will undercut the legitimacy of contrary federal law – as has happened with medicinal marijuana – and even push federal courts to bend with the popular wind.
Montana law proponents say the real target of this legislation is courts’ interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause:
“The Interstate Commerce Clause has grown and grown until the government asserts authority over everything under the sun,” said Mr. Marbut, who wrote the original firearms legislation. “How much water you have in your toilet. Almost all environmental laws. Maybe one-third of all federal regulations are asserted under the Commerce Clause.”
…In that sense, the law is only nominally about guns. “Guns are the object, but states’ rights are the subject,” he said.
Five states have their own version of the law, although it hasn’t passed their full Legislatures: Alaska, Texas, Minnesota, South Carolina and Tennessee. Several more are considering it: Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Washington.
Opponents don’t want the all-powerful-Federal-government boat rocked:
Mr. Helmke added that the courts were unlikely to side with Montana, describing the Interstate Commerce Clause as “settled federal law.”
“In effect, Montana’s trying to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal times, or even pre-Civil War times,” Mr. Helmke said.
Hole in one, sir. That’s what state sovereignty and Tea Party movements are about, getting the country back to Founding Principles.
President Obama wants the Senate to ratify CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
What the treaty does, among other things, is create a global gun registry. Some analysis here.
The NRA’s statement:
The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not “participate” at the meeting where the treaty was approved.
The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict “lawful ownership and use” of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.
You want to live in a secure country, you have religious convictions, you think you have a right to self defense, or you support the Tea Party movement. In short, if you oppose the Obama Administration’s policies in any particular. So sayeth the Department of Homeland Security, which sent the memo to sheriffs and police departments on April 9. From Roger Hedgecock, Disagree with Obama? Gov’t has eyes on you
The report elaborates that …”right wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms and use.”
So, if you disagree with Obama on amnesty for illegals or stand up for the Second Amendment, you are branded a “rightwing extremist” by the Department of Homeland Security and become the subject of scrutiny by some 850,000 local and state law enforcement personnel.
PDF of this abomination here.
Michelle Malkin has verified that this report is for real:
They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.
By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.
From the report:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
If you think the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment have meaning, you’re a “rightwing extremist”? I’m sure this will come as news to the many who support state sovereignty , including some state legislatures. Oh, yes, and the Governor of Texas, too.
And anyone opposed to pork, wasteful spending, burgeoning entitlement programs, increasing government intrusion into business and private life, and objecting to government pissing away our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ futures; in short, opposed to the single issue of big government, is a “rightwing extremist.” Sounds a lot like your typical Tea Partyer.
Much more at Michelle’s link.
What does the President say about it? From the Washington Times,
The White House has distanced itself from the analysis. When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins…
Its not about politics, at least for you? Hate to tell you this, Mr. President, but you’re responsible for the DHS. That’s where the criminalization of political viewpoints is occurring. Your answer is no answer at all.
In a nutshell from Legal Insurrection: The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS
Thanks to Lucianne
Ed Morrisey at Hot Air points out the targeting of military veterans:
DHS also manages to make several hysterical references to returning veterans. I’ll highlight the weasel words and provide the translation at the end:
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Gee, it could lead? What evidence does DHS have of this? Oh, yeah, Timothy McVeigh was a veteran … and that’s it. I’m not joking:
After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
So let’s be terrified of veterans! Let’s treat them all like potential suspects, even though we don’t have one iota of evidence of any wrongdoing at all. Yeah, that’s the American way.
Also, the American Legion wants an apology from Janet Napolitano.
Keep yelling, people.
From The Volokh Conspiracy,
The Kansas House and Senate have just put on the November 2010 ballot a proposed Kansas right to bear arms constitutional amendment that would read,
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.
They’re doing it because the Kansas Supreme Court held that the current language doesn’t secure an individual’s right.
Some interesting facts about other State Constitutions:
As I discuss in my state constitutional right to bear arms article (pdf), an individual right to bear arms to self-defense is expressly secured (either by the text or by court interpretation of the text) by the constitutions of 40 states. The matter is not resolved in two states, Hawaii and Virginia. The provisions in two states, Kansas (not for long now) Kansas and Massachusetts, have been interpreted as securing only a collective right, whatever that might mean under a state constitution. And six state constitutions, those of California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York, don’t mention a right to bear arms.
Thanks to Instapundit
Some good news on that unconstitutional attempt to give Washington, D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives by the Senate last week. It was assumed that passage in the House of a similar bill would be a cakewalk. But it wasn’t. Senator John Ensign of Nevada, a Republican, added an amendment to the Senate version that would have made it easier for the people in D.C. to access guns. The gun-controllers in the House apparently couldn’t get enough votes from other Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs, to allow debate on the bill. From Fox News:
Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers’ Second Amendment voting records.
Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what’s called a “rule.” The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule.
However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign’s firearms provision.
The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.
So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.
So, the only way for the House to get to consider a blatantly unconstitutional bill was to get rid of an amendment that implements a constitutional right. How perverse is that? My hat’s off to the bill’s opponents.
I’m glad this has been stopped, even though it may only be temporary. I’m sure they’ll try again. Hopefully its opponents will stay on the ball.
H/T Hot Air
It’s not a resolution . It’s a law designed to test the Commerce Clause.
Montana loading another shot for states’ rights
HELENA – Montana lawmakers are betting the words ‘Made in Montana’ might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background check and licensing requirements.
Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks.
Still, the bill’s proponents say the measure has much bigger prey in its sights.
“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Republican Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill’s sponsor. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”
The issue they’re gunning for is Congress’s authority to regulate commerce between states and with foreign nations, the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has ruled, in the past, that Congress can regulate commerce within a state, in a case involving the use by state residents of marijuana grown within the state. Montana legislators think they have a shot because their law involves a constitutionally-protected right.
Good luck, Montana.
H/T Ace of Spades
Good news for those crazy people who claim they have a right to self-defense: 4 states, among last holdouts, eye open-carry gun laws
Four Southern states — Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas — are considering legislation that would allow people to carry handguns openly in a holster.
These generally Second Amendment-friendly states are among the last six holdouts against open carrying of guns. Openly carrying handguns is legal in most states, even those that ban concealed firearms. New York and Florida also bar openly carrying handguns.
The four other states that ban so-called open carry “are extremely gun-friendly. They understand the individual-rights aspect. Yet for whatever reason, the carry laws in these states are restrictive,” says John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which promotes gun rights.
Most states have strict laws governing concealed weapons. Illinois and Wisconsin ban carrying them entirely, according to the National Rifle Association. Concealing a weapon “was seen in the early days of our nation as something of an unwholesome act. People would bear arms openly,” Pierce says.
Says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which opposes open-carry laws: “We don’t want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence.”
We are in the current situation in regard to gun rights, which has devolved to the point where States decide which Constitution freedoms apply to their citizens (Second Amendment-friendly states!) because the gun control freaks were allowed to frame the argument. Look at that last sentence again:
“We don’t want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed
because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence.”
First of all, who is “we?”
Second, why do “your” wants trump my Constitutional right?
Third, knocking down your own strawman doesn’t count as a win. The right to self-defense is an individual right to protect your own life–it has nothing to do with the fantasy “Gunfight At The O.K. Corral” scenario you created.
Fourth, assuming that the “situation” you refer to does exist, how does having no means to defend yourself help you? Do you really think the bad guys are going to let you call 911? And then helpfully wait until the police (who are the only people who should have guns, according to the controllers) arrive, before they kill you?
Fifth, if you truly believe that guns kill people, then by all means live by your belief, and die by it. Just don’t demand that I die for it.
That statement would be laughable if it weren’t so lethal. Imagine a similar argument relating to the First Amendment. It might go something like this:
“We don”t want more people expressing their opinion either openly or in private because the more opinions you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get arguments that will lead to violence.”
Oh, wait. That sounds a lot like the thinking behind the Fairness Doctrine, some of the press coverage of the McCain campaign, and a lot of people’s attitudes toward criticizing Obama, the stimulus bill, and generally anything the Democrats want to do .
Well, why not? It works. Because we let it.
Ammunitition Accountability is the innocuous name given to an organization whose goal is to quietly strangle the right to bear arms.
The stated goal is “to solve gun crime around the nation.” How do they plan to achieve it? They have a group:
Our group includes gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more. We are working together to pass legislation to make ammunition coding technology a reality
Big deal, you say. So what? So you have to buy coded ammunition that will be more expensive than what you’re using now. You’ll have to dump all your socially-unaware old ammo. A small sacrifice for public safety, isn’t it? And it’s not like Big Brother isn’t watching you already, recording your movements through traffic cameras, planning to use car GPS systems to tax your road use, legislating what you can and cannot eat. Get over yourself, and think of someone else for a change, like the victims of gun crime:
Each year there are many homicides from senseless gun violence in America and perhaps more astounding is the fact that 30% of those crimes go unsolved. Many of these cases could be solved if ammunition coding technology were implemented.
I think it’s astonishing that 70% of those homicides are solved, but that’s just me. One small difficulty I see is, what if someone steals your gun with its personalized ammo and kills somebody with it? How will knowing it’s my ammo help, if I didn’t do it? And what if I use my own gun to shoot somebody but steal someone else’s ammo? Tough luck for him, but am I in the clear? No mention of that on the website. And what about privacy rights? Couldn’t this be used to track how much ammunition you use and where you use it? I don’t see how this will be a boon to law enforcement, but it will give the busybodies a field day.
According to the site, some form of the Ammunition Accountability Act is being considered in several states. Not a whole lot of media coverage has followed. Interesting. I can’t imagine why not.
Let’s compare. Your car is registered with the state, you are licensed to drive by the state, you pay any number of direct and indirect taxes when you use your vehicle (think gas, tolls, etc) and some governments want to track where you go so that you can pay your fair share of road use taxes. Driving is a privilege, they tell us.
Your gun is registered with the state, you are licensed by the state, you pay taxes on everything you buy to maintain your weapon, and some governments want to track where, when and how often you shoot, in the name of solving gun crime. This is a right?
Privileges can be revoked, but rights are inalienable, or so says a certain document. And any stealth attempt to abrogate them, like this legislation, needs to be fought, and fought hard.
If these people really want to help gun crime victims, they should help them learn how not to be a victim again. Teach them methods of self-defense. I don’t think it’s right to hamstring my right to self-defense for the privilege of fulfilling some control freak’s fantasy for non-existent benefits.
Heller is hell for some people, and they’re not going to take it any more.