At 87 and he is still one of the world’s finest marksman. Now get this. His 5 inch group was 3 for 3, all head shots.
Archive for the ‘Firearms’ Category
Posted by iusbvision on March 10, 2011
ATF Whistle-blower: My bosses ordered me to allow illegal guns to flow to Mexican cartels – UPDATED! w/Larry Pratt from GOA
Posted by iusbvision on March 3, 2011
Attorney General Eric Holder, Sec. Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama pushed for a new ban on self loading rifles by claiming that they were the primary source of guns to the Mexican cartels. Internal government reports showed that this was not true and that only 17% of drug cartel guns in Mexico can be traced back to organized crime straw man sales in the US.
Fox News got their hands on the government report and blasted the government and the other news media outlets for swallowing the bogus narrative from the government and not doing their homework (VIDEO). As a result the left lost the argument.
Oh so what to do. I know, make sure more illegal guns get to Mexico and push for a gun ban later! Well now they have been busted again.
Of course, guns at American gun stores are not machine guns, they shoot one bullet at a time and merely look like the fully automatics. This is why, as the government report states, that most of these weapons are coming from the Mexican Military and the Communist Columbian Rebels such as FARC.
CBS (Be sure to watch the video at the CBS link to see how the agents unhappy with the policy were threatened and how Senator Grassley has asked for documents from the ATF and the Obama Administration is not cooperating):
(CBS News) WASHINGTON – Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.
He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?
“Yes ma’am,” Dodson told CBS News. “The agency was.”
An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson’s job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.
Investigators call the tactic letting guns “walk.” In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.
Dodson’s bosses say that never happened. Now, he’s risking his job to go public.
“I’m boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we’ve been doing it every day since I’ve been here,” he said. “Here I am. Tell me I didn’t do the things that I did. Tell me you didn’t order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn’t happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn’t happen.”
Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. ***The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.
ATF named the case “Fast and Furious.”
Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.
So it turns out ATF not only allowed it – they videotaped it.
*** This is nonsense. American law enforcement cannot go into Mexico armed if the Mexican Military can’t take down the Cartel how will we with anything short of a military invasion? CBS says that none of this evidence was used in a cartel prosecution. No kidding. CPI has more, but spins it as positive as they can for the government which is no surprise. They report that their ATF supervisors reacted with glee over the connection between American guns that they let go to Mexico and the violence. Abuse and lawlessness at the ATF has been an ongoing problem for decades – LINK.
Posted by iusbvision on February 1, 2011
UPDATE: Ann Coulter –
If the government can mandate that a citizen by a product to promote a public purpose why not require that they have a gun for the defense of themselves, their fellow citizens and the state?
Notice how they admit that the courts will nuke it, but that is the point.
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011
Even the most sensible “sounding” gun laws often result in the deaths of innocents.
Nikki Goeser appears with famed economist and scholar Dr. John Lott.
Dr. John Lott: I don’t think that the government should fund research. They cannot separate politics with who gets the money and what they know certain academics are going to say. Democrats will appoint academics who agree with them, who will produce garbage studies to promote their views.
Our take, we pretty much agree, although if a method to make the grant process blind some exceptions may be OK.
Posted by iusbvision on December 27, 2010
Posted by iusbvision on December 21, 2010
This is the story of Brian Aitken. This story is an absolute outrage. Governor Christie gave him commuted his sentence to time served, but it should have been an out and out pardon. This is why we need judges that respect the limits of the law and the Constitution.
Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2010
The court had to keep it very narrow because the conviction/accusation was narrow. The defendant had handgun ammunition in his home. It is reasonable that since Heller made it clear that outright gun bans are unconstitutional that banning handgun ammunition in all cases whatsoever or from being in someones home is overly restrictive and unconstitutional. Eventually as the lawsuits continue I believe the courts will continue to shoot down more portions of this unjust and foolish law. The 2nd Amendment says that you have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.
Via Eugene Volokh:
From Herrington v. United States, decided today by D.C.‘s highest court (the D.C. Court of Appeals):
Appellant Kevin Herrington was convicted in 2006 of unlawful possession of ammunition (UA), in violation of D.C. Code § 7–2506.01 (2001) (now § 7–2506.01(a) (Supp. 2010)). His conviction was based solely on evidence that he possessed handgun ammunition in his home….What is now subsection (a) of D.C. Code § 7–2506.01 provides as follows:
No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless: …(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; …
[F]rom the Court’s reasoning [in Heller], it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind. We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there. The government has not taken issue with that conclusion….
[T]he UA statute makes it a crime to possess ammunition of any kind anywhere, regardless of its use or purpose; and the prosecution may obtain a conviction under the statute without having to prove that the possessor violated any registration, licensing or regulatory requirement or was otherwise disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right. A UA conviction therefore may be based solely on proof that the defendant possessed handgun ammunition in his home -– solely, that is, on proof of conduct protected by the Second Amendment. In a prosecution such as this one, where nothing more was proved at trial to show that the defendant was disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment rights — there was no evidence, for example, that he possessed the ammunition for an illegal purpose or that he had failed to comply with applicable registration requirements for a firearm corresponding to the ammunition –- the UA statute is unconstitutional as applied. [Footnote: We express no opinion as to whether the UA statute is constitutional in other applications (e.g., as applied to possession of handgun ammunition outside the home or for an improper purpose, or possession of non-handgun ammunition), or whether it is unconstitutional on its face.]
In light of the constitutionally-protected nature of the conduct addressed by the UA statute, its provision of an affirmative defense if the accused had registered a corresponding firearm only compounds the problem. The Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” While legislatures do have leeway to reallocate burdens of proof so as to require the accused to prove some facts as affirmative defenses (rather than requiring the prosecution to negate those facts as an element of the offense), “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which [a legislature] may not go in this regard.” Where the Constitution –- in this case, the Second Amendment –- imposes substantive limits on what conduct may be defined as a crime, a legislature may not circumvent those limits by enacting a statute that presumes criminality from constitutionally-protected conduct and puts the burden of persuasion on the accused to prove facts necessary to establish innocence. That, however, is precisely what the UA statute (as we construed it in [an earlier case] does with respect to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home, by making the defendant’s compliance with the registration condition an affirmative defense.
The limited nature of our holding should be understood. The Second Amendment permits the District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possession of a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme is constitutional)…. [T]he prosecution may assume the burden of charging and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy the Second Amendment. By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed was disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in the home. The application of the UA statute to the defendant in such a case would not be unconstitutional.
Posted by iusbvision on November 6, 2010
The other parts can be seen HERE and there is more to come.
Natural Law & Economics:
Gun Rights insure popular sovereignty:
Posted by iusbvision on October 19, 2010
Foolish college administrators messed with FIRE and now they have been burnt. Illegal viewpoint discrimination, illegal “speech codes”, illegal censorship, and then foolishly digging their heels into the ground fighting a lawsuit they had no chance of winning.
Attention, college administrators: Attempting to defend your institution’s unconstitutional speech code in court is very, very expensive. Unfortunately for Texas taxpayers, Tarrant County College (TCC) is the latest school to learn this lesson the hard way. About 240,000 times harder than it needed to be, in fact.
Torch readers will remember that back in March, TCC’s speech code was found unconstitutional as a result of litigation coordinated by FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU-TX). FIRE and the ACLU-TX worked with Fort Worth attorney Karin Cagle to bring a constitutional challenge to TCC’s speech code on behalf of student Clayton Smith and John Schwertz, members of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus who had repeatedly been forbidden by TCC to hold an “empty holster” protest on campus. Their story is one of those documented in FIRE’s recent video, Empty Holsters.
The lawsuit made an immediate impact. Just two days after the complaint was filed in November 2009, a federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting TCC from quarantining protected speech to the school’s tiny “free speech zone,” holding that continued operation of the free speech zone would result in “immediate and irreparable injury” to students’ free speech rights. In December, facing obvious defeat, TCC voluntarily dismantled its free speech zone, but also introduced an unconstitutional ban on “cosponsorship,” which forbade students and faculty from holding campus events in association with any “off-campus person or organization.” Smith’s and Schwertz’s suit was amended to challenge this new policy, and in a March 2010 ruling, the district court struck this restriction down, too, stating that “the Court cannot imagine how the provision could have been written more broadly.”
Following the win, Cagle moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, as is customary in civil rights cases. As this week’s judicial order details, TCC disputed Cagle’s intentionally low rate estimates–a tactic which proved costly when, after extensive briefing, the court denied defendants’ motions for still lower rates and awarded Cagle, her fellow counsel David Broiles, and the ACLU-TX a total of over $240,000 in attorney’s fees.
Needless to say, $240,000 is quite a chunk of change—especially when it’s spent fighting a losing battle in defense of censorship. FIRE often warns schools to spare themselves the embarrassment of fighting against the Bill of Rights. Now that TCC has joined the University of Wyoming ($86,000 spent trying to ban Bill Ayers from campus) and the Georgia Institute of Technology ($203,714 spent paying attorneys’ fees following its violation of students’ freedom of religion)—to name only two others—as the newest loser in the misguided fight against the First Amendment, maybe we should start telling schools to spare themselves the expense of fighting against the Bill of Rights, too.
All of this expense could have been happily avoided had TCC heeded FIRE’s first letter, sent way back in April of 2008, which urged the school to respect its students’ rights to free expression and assembly. But TCC wanted to do it the hard way. This decision has now cost the school hundreds of thousands of dollars. Will any administrators lose their jobs for violating students’ rights and wasting taxpayers’ and students’ money?
We hope this pricey defeat prompts other institutions to think twice before they pick a fight with the First Amendment.
Posted by iusbvision on September 10, 2010
Oh yes I can just see the “gun smugglers” giving up and lining up to sign up for a gun registry…..
You people on the left, are you sure you wanna claim this guy?
Posted by iusbvision on September 7, 2010
Find a jury to convict this man.
New York, a progressive mecca (albeit with a short reprieve with Rudy) where criminals are victims of “society”, where illegal alien criminals are often let go or not reported to ICE for deportation and where a law-abiding black man with no criminal record dared to defend his home against 20 MS-13 thugs with one of those terrible politically incorrect “assault rifles”. If black people start becoming NRA types they could become the political enemies of the progressive left and we can’t have that can we… so of course they are out to either send him to jail or bankrupt him with legal bills. How dare he not sit back and be a victim – doesn’t he know his place…. if only he were a well-connected white guy right progressives? Kathleen M. Rice, the progressive county prosecutor went on an Obama styled “listening tour” in preparation for her plans to run for NY Attorney General….hmmm what do you think the listening tour would have to say about this?
Progressives seem to be constantly tossing about the race card today against anyone they fear. If they want to see the face of racism, perhaps they should find a mirror.
UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.
But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.
He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.
George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.
“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.
Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.
“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.
Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.
Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.
Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.
“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said.
You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.
Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.
That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.
If this man was armed with anything less than a military weapon he very well may be dead along with his family. Maybe if you are so inclined go ahead and call this man’s attorney and send a donation to his defense.
Posted by iusbvision on July 7, 2010
Via MadisonConservative at Hotair.com:
Gerald A. Fox, district attorney for Jackson County:
Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).
Posted by iusbvision on July 7, 2010
It would be impossible to overstate the significance of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling which effectively struck down gun bans nationwide as unconstitutional. The decision, however, resonates even more in the black community, whose people are more likely than any other group to be murdered by a gun-wielding assailant. That fact made two of the protagonists of McDonald v. City of Chicago particularly compelling.
The lead plaintiff in the suit which challenged the city of Chicago’s handgun ban isn’t a tobacco-chewing redneck with a Confederate flag in his rear truck window, but a 76-year old black grandfather who grew tired of being fearful in his own neighborhood. After multiple break-ins at his home and death threats because he called the police to report gunfire, U.S. Army veteran and retired maintenance worker Otis McDonald wanted a handgun to defend himself, his family and his property:
I just got the feeling that I’m on my own…The fact is that so many people my age have worked hard all their life, getting a nice place for themselves to live in … and having one (handgun) would make us feel a lot more comfortable.
A Democrat and a hunter, Mr. McDonald has two shotguns in his home but says, “I would like to have a handgun so I could keep it right by my bed, just in case somebody might want to come in my house.”
Gun-control advocates often cite the gun violence in urban areas, and the alarming murder rate among black people, especially young black males, as justification for gun bans.
It is harder, however, for them to claim they are helping black people when they continue to die anyway because the criminals obtain guns regardless of the law, and law-abiding citizens are effectively disarmed by the government that is sworn to keep them safe.
Mr. McDonald knows he cannot depend on the police to defend him or his home, so he declares, “That’s all I want, is just a fighting chance. Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me.”
The new face of gun rights in America is an elderly black man who wants to protect his family and his private property, earned through decades of hard work and sacrifice. His is a quintessentially American story about the individual defense of liberty and property, the core purpose of the Second Amendment, and his name is now in the history books, forever associated with this major ruling.
Another black man whose name will be etched alongside Mr. McDonald’s is U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. In his statements concurring with the majority ruling, he invoked the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and its original intent.
He was the only justice to concur with the ruling based on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” He highlighted the historical evidence, which reveals that the authors of this clause designed it to specifically allow freed slaves to have guns so they could defend themselves against white supremacists. Justice Thomas wrote:
In my view, the record makes plain that the framers of the privileges or immunities clause and the ratifying republic understood — just as the framers of the Second Amendment did — that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the privileges or immunities clause established in the wake of the war over slavery.
Many legal scholars praised Justice Thomas for remaining true to the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. Nelson Lund of George Mason University, said, “His opinion is scholarly and judicious, and it cements his standing as the only Justice who is more than a half-hearted originalist.”
Clark Neilly of the Institute for Justice, declared, “Today’s outcome is a tremendous victory for liberty, and we are pleased that it hinges on Justice Thomas’s compelling account of the history and purpose of the 14th Amendment, including the central role of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.”
While the legal scholars paid their respects to Justice Thomas for his understanding of the original intent of the 14th Amendment and the privileges and immunities clause, I think it’s significant that he understood how gun control was used in the South to deny blacks the right to keep and bear arms.
The “black codes” that existed prior to the 14th Amendment denied blacks gun ownership because, according to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, they were not citizens and, therefore, weren’t entitled to the rights other Americans enjoyed.
After the 14th Amendment, prohibitive taxes were instituted to keep guns from “the son of Ham,” whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime…. Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.” These words were published in Virginia ‘s official university law review in 1909.
Despite this history, it takes a lot of courage for black people to stand up and demand gun ownership as a fundamental right of American citizenship. Frankly, white people have been taught through the media and the arts to fear black people with guns, and gun control is most prevalent in urban areas with large black and minority populations.
Meanwhile, black people have been indoctrinated to believe that gun control is for their own good when, in fact, it simply makes them easier targets. Whether it’s the Ku Klux Klan in the 1900s, or the “boyz n the hood” in 2010, the effect of disarming their victims is the same – death, serious injury, or fear and intimidation if you’re allowed to live.
The 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to gun ownership not so they could hunt, collect or shoot recreationally, although these are all possible under the law. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to afford citizens protection from tyranny (government) or anarchy (crime).
To the extent that blacks in this nation have been the predominant victims of domestic terror under government sanction, or senseless criminal activity by young men who share their skin color, yesterday’s ruling was a civil rights victory. It seems appropriate, therefore, that two black men led the way to restoring, rather than constraining, liberty for all people.
Posted by iusbvision on June 28, 2010
It is about time. What is disturbing is that four justices voted no. This goes to show what is happening to the courts; that, especially among the left, there are fewer and fewer great legal minds and rather they are little more of nothing more than political votes.
The decision gives a long and brilliant explanation how gun laws and gun rulings that the left has held up as holy were in fact used to prevent black Americans from having the ability to defend their own life, property and freedom with effective means. History has shown us repeatedly and philosophers and statesman have said for centuries that the definition of a free man is one who bears arms, one who cannot is a slave and/or a subject. The historical case for this is so completely overwhelming that it is proper to say that gun control laws are inherently racist and it is impossible to advocate for a disarmed public and not be a racist. [By the way, if you look at the dissent you will notice that the half-baked attempt at a legal argument was the same argument against the Bill of Rights that were used to justify Jim Crow Laws and slavery in the South. States rights arguments are important, but are invalid against Amendments 1 through 8 which is what the 14th Amemdment was all about. Ron Miller has a nice post on this subject HERE. - Editor]
The historical case from the slavery perspective starts on page 26 of the ruling. Another historical case is from page 42-46. To take away the right to bear arms is to effectively rule that one has no right to defend ones own life or freedom and that one’s life and freedom is only intact by the whim of the state. If I have offended you gun banner types by stating the overt racism such a view represents than TOO BAD. History is what history is, reality is what reality is, power is what power is and freedom is what freedom is. If you do not want such a view associated with the overt racism it represents than change your view because the case made by history is crystal clear. Some of that proof is stated below.
Let us face facts, look at people like Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan who has written that government should decide what speech is good for society and her compatriots on the court have taken the position that there is no right of self-defense. Kagan and those like her, it is safe to infer, would repeal the Constitution by judicial fiat if allowed to. Disagree? Engage us in debate in the comments section below and make your case. I dare you to try. By the way, just to show you how subversive and completely upside down with reality such people are; Kagan once compared the National Rifle Association to the KKK. The NRA has stood up for the constitutional rights of minorities for as long as recent memory extends.
“Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present”
Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”
Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was regarded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understand-ing persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 19–22.
A survey of the contemporaneous history [in Heller] also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty. Pp. 22–33.
After the Civil War, the Southern States engaged in systematic efforts to disarm and injure African Americans, see Heller, supra, at ___. These injustices prompted the 39th Congress to pass the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Congress, however, ultimately deemed these legislative remedies insufficient, and approved the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, it is generally accepted that Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act. See General Building Contrac-tors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389.
In Congressional debates on the proposed Amendment, its legislative proponents in the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that right was considered fundamental. Pp. 22–31.
Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause,it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit dis-crimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavor-able—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored
Citing Jewish, Greek, and Roman law, Blackstone wrote that if a person killed an attacker, “the slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever, not even in the minutest degree; and is therefore to be totally acquitted and discharged, with commendation rather than blame.” 4 W. Black-stone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 182 (reprint 1992).
After the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. See Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 42); E. Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877, p. 8 (1988) (hereinafter Foner). The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freed-man, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service ofthe United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” Certain Offenses of Freedmen, 1865 Miss. Laws
p. 165, §1, in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction 289 (W. Fleming ed. 1950); see also Regulations for Freedmen in Louisiana, in id., at 279–280; H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236 (1866) (de-scribing a Kentucky law); E. McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 40 (1871)
Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias,forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves. In the first session of the 39th Congress, Senator Wilson told his colleagues: “In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them; and the same things are done in other sections of the country.” 39th Cong. Globe 40 (1865). The Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction—which was widely reprinted in the press and distributed by Members of the 39th Congress to their constituents shortly after Congress approved the Fourteenth Amend-ment19—contained numerous examples of such abuses.See, e.g., Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep.No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 219, 229, 272, pt. 3, pp. 46, 140, pt. 4, pp. 49–50 (1866); see also S. Exec. Doc.No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 23–24, 26, 36 (1865). In one town, the “marshal [took] all arms from returned colored soldiers, and [was] very prompt in shooting the blacks whenever an opportunity occur[red].”
Disarmament by bands of former Confederate soldiers eventually gave way to attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. In debates over the later enacted Enforcement Act of 1870, Senator John Pool observed that the Klan would “order the colored men to give up their arms; saying that everybody would be Kukluxed in whose house fire-arms were found.” Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess., 2719 (1870); see also H. R. Exec. Doc.No. 268, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1872).
Abolitionists and Republicans were not alone in believing that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right. The 1864 Democratic Party Platform complained that the confiscation of firearms by Union troops occupying parts of the South constituted “the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense.” National Party Platforms 1840–1972, at 34.
The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitu-tional right to bear arms.”
On Page 33 the Court shows [with some of the information I just quoted above - Editor] that the post civil war civil rights laws that were directly intended to protect the rights of blacks and explicitly protected their right to keep and bear arms were insufficient and those who passed the 14th Amendment explicitly stated that the passage of Amendment 14 settled the issue that black Americans have the same right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property.
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretched-ness will forever remain complete.” Ibid. Even those who thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary believed that blacks, as citizens, “have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (Sen. James Nye); see also Foner 258–259.25
Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.” “The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.”Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1967. And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South. See Halbrook, Freedmen 120–131. Finally, legal commentators from the period emphasized the fundamental nature of the right. See, e.g., T. Farrar, Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America §118, p. 145 (1867) (reprint1993); J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States §239, pp. 152–153 (3d ed. 1875).
The right to keep and bear arms was also widely protected by state constitutions at the time when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. In 1868, 22 of the 37 States in the Union had state constitutional provisions explicitly protecting the right to keep and bear arms. See Calabresi & Agudo, Individual Rights Under State Constitutions when the Fourteenth Amendment was Ratified in 1868: What Rights Are Deeply Rooted in American His-tory and Tradition? 87 Texas L. Rev. 7, 50 (2008).26 Quite a few of these state constitutional guarantees, moreover,explicitly protected the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right to self-defense.
Posted by iusbvision on March 27, 2010
Warning, if you are a central control utopianist who dreams of only the government having power and the individual having none, this video will make blood shoot right out of your eyes.
Tarrant County College – The lastest university to lose in court for violating student’s 1st Amendment rights. Students also win attorney’s fees.
Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2010
This is yet another in a long string of lawsuits that go one way, the university loses and the taxpayers end up picking up the bill.
There needs to be reforms so that incompetent administrators who break the law, know they are breaking the law and simply do not care, need to be removed.
The student club, Students for Concealed Carry, was illegally forbidden from holding constitutionally protected protests on campus. The ruling also took the university speech code and “free speech zones” on campus and tossed them out the legal window as well, as has happened in every other case.
Be sure to join FIRE’s Campus Freedom Network.
FORT WORTH, Texas, March 16, 2010—Late yesterday, in a striking victory for the First Amendment on campus, a federal district court in Texas ruled that a number of restrictions on students’ speech at Tarrant County College (TCC) are unconstitutional. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means found that TCC’s reliance on a policy prohibiting “disruptive activities” to restrict students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz from holding an “empty holster” protest violated the First Amendment. Smith and Schwertz had turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
“Yesterday’s ruling is just the latest in an unbroken string of legal victories, dating back more than twenty years, over unconstitutional campus speech codes,” FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley said. “FIRE welcomes the district court’s decision as yet another clear confirmation that restrictions on protected speech—especially core political speech—simply will not stand in a court of law.”
In addition to ruling that students are entitled to protest by wearing empty holsters in classrooms, hallways, and public areas of campus, Judge Means ruled that TCC’s sweeping prohibition on “cosponsorship,” which forbade students and faculty from holding campus events in association with any “off-campus person or organization,” prevented TCC students “from speaking on campus on issues of any social importance” and was therefore “overly broad” and “unconstitutional on its face.” Smith’s and Schwertz’s protest was designed to coincide with the efforts of a national pro-concealed carry organization, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC).
FIRE has defeated free speech zones similar to TCC’s on campuses across the nation, including the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, West Virginia University, University of Nevada at Reno, Citrus College in California, and Texas Tech University. FIRE’s Speech Codes Litigation Project—an initiative working to dismantle unconstitutional speech codes on public university campuses—has won crucial victories at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, Texas Tech University, the State University of New York at Brockport, Citrus College in California, San Francisco State University and the California State University System, and now Tarrant County College.
It gets better. Via the Star-Telegram:
U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means permanently enjoined TCC Chancellor Erma Johnson Hadley and the college from blocking empty-holster protests on campus, including in the classroom.
Further, Means said the college’s co-sponsorship provision, limiting students’ ability to invite outside organizations onto the campus, “broadly prohibits any speech by students that involves an off-campus organization.”
Means added that the co-sponsorship provision “prohibits students from the most basic forms of expressive activity — distribution of literature, use of signs and even assembly — based on no more than the fact that the expression might depend on an off-campus organization for planning or management.”
The case arose after TCC blocked a request to stage an empty-holster protest by students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz Jr. last November on the TCC Northeast Campus. The ruling allows the students to seek attorney’s fees from the college.
Posted by iusbvision on February 19, 2010
O’Reilly blew it here. The National Rifle Association (NRA) sued New Orleans and won over those gun confiscations. New Orleans broke the law and ended up paying the price for it. President Bush also signed an executive order forbidding the confiscation of firearms in a declared emergency.
The Second Amendment exists for events just like Katrina when civil enforcement breaks down and the law of the jungle takes over in the chaos.
What is even more interesting is that I specifically remember Bill O’Reilly stating that Katrina changed his views on gun control because of Katrina he learned that the government can’t protect you and you have to protect yourself. It seems O’Reilly changed his views to skewer this man from the Oathkeepers.
I called the NRA public relations office today and informed them of this. They were unaware of this because they were all at CPAC. They assured me that they will take action.
O’Reilly also took the position that it should never be the position of the soldier to determine what orders are legal and what orders are not. The man from Oathkeepers was correct in pointing out the Nuremberg trials where soldiers were prosecuted for following orders.
I am surprised that O’Reilly went into this interview so unprepared. I don’t know anything about this Oathkeepers group and if they are extreme or not, but on these two particular points of law the man with Oathkeepers is quite correct. The man from Oathkeepers should have been more assertive in the face of O’Reilly’s ignorance in this matter.
I sent the following letter to Bill O’Reilly:
When I was in basic training the military training instructors beat it into our heads that it was our duty to disobey an unlawful order. We were told with no ambiguity whatsoever that it was the individual soldiers responsibility to know the Constitution and the UCMJ (law and military law). We were also told that orders should never be an excuse for mission failure. In several wars plans and orders were rendered ineffective upon contact with the enemy, and that in the battlefield we may have to violate orders and improvise or come up with new plans on our own to complete the mission if circumstances demanded.
South Bend, Indiana
UPDATE - Wow the ignorance continues. There is no excuse for O’Reilly’s staff to have missed that a court of law ruled that the New Orleans state of emergency doe not allow the government to confiscate guns. A simple call to the NRA would have given them all the info they need, as would a lexis/nexis search. There is no excuse for O’Reilly and his staff to miss this. Tonight O’Reilly doubled down on this ignorance.
O’Reilly uses the example of Abe Lincoln revoking Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. The Constitution gives Congress the power to revoke Habeas Corpus not the President. Lincoln acted illegally and there is no excuse for blowing it on this simple point of history as well. O’Reilly’s argument is now basically thus, “you must obey an unlawful order until a court of law says that order is wrong”. That argument absolves the soldier and the police officer and the public servant from responsibility to their oath…until a court says so. That defense didn’t work in Nuremberg and it doesn’t work here.
I do not believe that a few years ago mistakes compounding mistakes that a few minutes of records and history searches would resolve would happen on the O’Reilly Factor. Someone is getting lazy and needs a kick in their complacency. This is journalistic incompetence in action.
Tarrant County College denying free speech to students, faces law suit it has no chance of winning..
Posted by iusbvision on January 21, 2010
Stories like this don’t amaze me because it seems that every other week something like this is happening. What does amaze is that allegedly highly educated faculty and administrators at universities, the latter often paid six figures to exercise good judgement, just can’t seem to bring themselves to obey federal law and the Constitution of the United States.
FORT WORTH, Texas, November 5, 2009—Tarrant County College (TCC) students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz filed suit in federal district court late Tuesday against TCC. The students are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent TCC from quarantining protected speech to the school’s tiny “free speech zone” when they participate in a national “empty holster” protest coordinated by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) that is scheduled for November 9-13. TCC has prohibited students from participating in identical symbolic protests twice in the past two years. The suit was filed by Fort Worth attorney Karin Cagle in cooperation with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas.
“For far too long, Tarrant County College has flouted the First Amendment and prevented its students from engaging in core political speech on campus anywhere outside of its so-called free speech zone,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “By restricting campus speech to this tiny ‘free speech zone,’ TCC has stifled students and ignored its legal obligation to ensure that speech remains free on campus. After failing to heed repeated warnings from FIRE, TCC now must answer for its brazen disregard for the Constitution in federal court.”
The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, asks the court to ensure that Smith and Schwertz are allowed to fully participate in the upcoming protests. As members of SCCC, a national organization that “supports the legalization of concealed carry by licensed individuals on college campuses,” Schwertz and Smith seek to distribute flyers in public areas on TCC’s campus and to wear empty holsters. The empty holsters would signify opposition to state laws and school policies denying concealed handgun license holders the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. The suit also asks the court to enjoin TCC’s requirement that students wishing to use the free speech zone submit a form requesting permission at least 24 hours in advance of the planned expressive activity.
Of course, after jumping through all of TCC’s illegal hoops and paperwork, they were still denied anyways.
FIRE wrote to President Thomas on April 24, 2008, explaining that TCC’s free speech zone represented a serious threat to liberty on campus and that FIRE has defeated similar free speech zones on campuses across the nation, including the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, West Virginia University, University of Nevada at Reno, Citrus College in California, and Texas Tech University. A TCC administrator responded on May 20, 2008, informing FIRE that the university would not reverse its decision. Poulos’ protest did not take place.
Posted by iusbvision on November 30, 2009
You have to admire a professor who not only teaches criminology, but also teaches his students how to safely handle a firearm.
This is one video form the event. The students are filming and are behind the camera. There are other video’s of students shooting themselves. It seems that a good time was had by one and all.
Posted by iusbvision on August 24, 2009
Warning: Far left control freaks may have blood shoot from their eyes after watching this clip.
Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009
Spare me mayor… most of the states have laws that encourage responsible concealed carry of handguns, including Indiana. Here in Indiana 1 adult in 12 has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Odds are every time you have gone to a busy restaurant, a store, movie theatre, church, etc etc there were one or more concealed firearms in there with you. The only places that have a big problem with illegal guns are places were guns are banned. Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose gun control, but the elitists in both parties, who go on as if they are our betters, just hate it. Too bad.
Mayor Bloomberg should stick to making money on Wall Street because he is not much of a mayor.
Posted by iusbvision on July 15, 2009
Sotomayor’s record shows that she sided with the Jim Crow like laws called “black codes” that were designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people and other citizens. She ruled that way in spite of acts of Congress that made the intent of the Second Amendment clear.
Wayne LaPierre who is the formost expert on the Second Amendment explains:
Posted by iusbvision on July 14, 2009
A very entertaining hour with three hunters talking hunting, ranching, machine guns, law and politics. Palin shows just how down to Earth and unpretentious she is.
Warning: If you are one of those pinheads on the second floor with a picture of Karl Marx on your wall, listening to these vids may make blood shoot from your eyes.
Posted by iusbvision on July 7, 2009
Thirty-three other states also filed an amicus brief supporting incorporation, though they weren’t the surprise that California’s brief was — 31 of them filed an amicus brief in Heller that also endorsed incorporation (footnote 6). The two new additions are Maine and North Carolina. One of the states that joined both of the multistate briefs, Minnesota, is one of the six states that doesn’t have a right to bear arms provision in the state constitution; California is another.
Community college willingly violates law and risks lawsuit in foolish attempt to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Posted by iusbvision on June 2, 2009
A community college in Pennsylvania is facing a lawsuit that they have no possibility of winning in a hapless attempt to censor student speech. Examine this press release from FIRE.
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
Pittsburgh-Area College Fails to Remedy Violations of Concealed Carry Advocate’s Free Speech
June 2, 2009
FIRE Press Release
PITTSBURGH, June 2, 2009—A student who wants to form a gun-rights group will still be subject to unconstitutional censorship, the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) announced yesterday. Christine Brashier, who wants to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), was told through a letter to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) yesterday that she will not be punished for her efforts to organize the group, as college officials had threatened in an earlier meeting, but only if she follows CCAC’s unconstitutional policies. She must have all of her pamphlets approved before distribution and will not be allowed to use the name of CCAC in any way during her effort to start a group at the college.
“CCAC’s response was a transparent attempt to defend the indefensible,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “The college’s justifications for its censorship of Christine Brashier are not only unconstitutional, they are absurd.”
In April, Brashier created pamphlets to distribute to her classmates encouraging them to join her in forming a chapter of the SCCC national organization at CCAC. Her pamphlets stated that the group “supports the legalization of concealed carry by licensed individuals on college campuses.” She personally distributed copies of the pamphlets, which identified her as a “Campus Leader” of the effort to start the chapter.
Brashier was quickly summoned to a meeting with administrators, who told her that passing out her non-commercial pamphlets was prohibited as “solicitation.” Furthermore, they insisted that the college pre-approve any pamphlets, that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, and that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet. At one point during the meeting, Dean Yvonne Burns reportedly said, “You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us.” Brashier was warned that any further efforts would be considered “academic misconduct.”
FIRE wrote CCAC President Alex Johnson on April 29 about these violations of Brashier’s First Amendment speech and association rights, pointing out that her free speech in no way constituted solicitation, that CCAC may not condition approval of literature on its viewpoint or content, and that if CCAC recognizes student organizations at all, it must recognize an organization that supports concealed carry on campus.
FIRE took Brashier’s case public last week, generating widespread news coverage. As a result, Allegheny County Solicitor Mike Adams finally replied to FIRE Monday on CCAC’s behalf. Rather than affirming Brashier’s expressive rights, however, Adams tried to justify CCAC’s unconstitutional actions after the fact. While Adams assured FIRE that Brashier did not face any disciplinary action and that she did have the right to try to form a SCCC group—reversing the message Brashier received from Dean Burns—he ignored most of the alarming statements by the CCAC administrators and attempted to defend CCAC’s unconstitutional censorship.
Most outrageously, Adams sought to defend CCAC’s policy of demanding prior review and prior restraint of handbills and pamphlets. Adams attempted to justify this unconstitutional policy by arguing that Brashier’s use of the CCAC name and her self-identification as the “Campus Leader” of the effort to organize the gun-rights group might lead a reasonable person to erroneously assume that the group and its message were endorsed by CCAC.
“The Supreme Court has determined that prior restraint is rarely justified, even for national security reasons,” said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. “For Allegheny County to argue in favor of a government veto over privately-produced handbills makes a mockery of the First Amendment. Under this reasoning, Thomas Paine should have sought the British government’s permission to distribute his pamphlet Common Sense.”
[FIRE is right on the legal grounds. A famous legal test case of the law is New York Times v. United States. The NYT moved to publish leaked classified documents and the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not use "prior restraint" to keep the NYT from publishing them. This case is famous and is studied in almost every university in the country. How can CCAC hope to have a chance to get away with this? How could they be so outrageously foolish? - Editor]
Also troubling is CCAC’s argument that simply using the name of CCAC in a handbill promoting the formation of a group on that campus implied CCAC’s endorsement of the group and its message. “CCAC has officially recognized chapters of the College Democrats and the Newman Club. Does that mean CCAC officially endorses Democratic politics and Catholicism? Obviously not. Such a conclusion is patently unreasonable—as is CCAC’s weak attempt to spin away the violation of a student’s First Amendment rights,” Shibley said.
“CCAC students, as well as every citizen of Allegheny County, should feel very disappointed by the county’s apparent disregard of fundamental rights. FIRE will continue to pursue this matter until the First Amendment is restored to CCAC’s campus,” Lukianoff said.
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America are described at thefire.org.
Posted by iusbvision on May 6, 2009
Two armed criminals broke into a small gathering of 10 at an apartment in College Park. They seperated the men and the women. They made it clear their intent was to rob them, rape the women and murder them all. A college student shot at the first suspect, it is unknown if the suspect was hit because he ran and is still at large. The second suspect decided to shoot it out with the armed college student and was killed.
Media Bias You Can Believe in IV: MSNBC and the “All Pro-Gunners Are ‘Dangerous’ and Freaky Angle.” – NEW UPDATE!
Posted by iusbvision on April 7, 2009
After watching the video and reading the post please see below for an update to this story!!
Please watch this video carefully and continue reading below.
Watch how the “objective news man” is allowed the far left guy to make a nuanced points yet when Allen Gottlieb will not allow the “objective news guy” to couch his answer in the “objective news guy’s” premise he is interrupted, talked over and badgered.
The “objective news guy” says give me an exact quote from an elected official of the administration that they want to ban ALL guns. This is a false choice because the problem is that many anti-gun advocates want to ban everything but low powered single shot rifles for example:
Ban handguns, ban semi-autos because they mischaracterize them as machine guns, hunting rifles become ’sniper rifles’ ..ban them, .22 long rifle is too hard to check ballistics on ban it, and shotguns are just like machine guns because they shoot more than one projectile with each pull of the trigger, large bore rifles become “elephant guns that no legitimate hunter needs” and that would ban most old style lever action guns etc. With just these provisions that seem so ‘reasonable’ you would have banned almost every gun except low power single shot rifles.
So no…. not ALL guns. So the ”objective news guy” tries to push a false choice argument on Gottlieb; false choice creates the situation ‘its either THIS extreme or your all wrong or a liar’.
When Gottlieb tries to point out that Attorney General Eric Holder authored a Supreme Court brief saying that no one has a right to bear arms (LINK) the “objective news guy” speaks over him.
Even though the clip above is from MSNBC – this clip from the same network shows Obama to have lied about the issue. Maybe this is why MSNBC got rid of Dan Abrams’ show in spite of the fact that his show was going up in ratings.
This video shows Obama lying about the recently struck down DC handgun ban he previously supported.
Of course, the elitism and condescension that Obama has voiced towards gun owners became more clear with this …
So while the “objective news guy” tried to make a false picture that the administration is not hostile to gun ownership, he is also aware of this, which he didn’t want you to know:
Fact :Obama voted to allow the prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the home.
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165. 3/25/04
Fact :Obama has supported banning hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10 / 21 / 0 4
Fact :Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to put the firearms industry out of business.
S.397, vote 219, 7/ 29/ 05
Fact :Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
S.397, vote 217, 7/29/05
How about Glenn Beck, who MSNBC did a nice editing smear job on in the clip? MSNBC frequently takes a snippet and creates a context around it that is not an accurate portrayal of the editing victims’ point.
When the clip is viewed in full, you see that Beck’s primary point is that he was wrong when he said that Obama was pushing socialism, what Obama is pushing is Corporatism. Corporatism is when private business keeps the form and structure of capitalism, but through regulation and fear of government reprisal it is the government who calls the shots in those businesses, as a result three things happen:
1. Instead of running the best business with the best products and services, the goal becomes lobbying, manipulating, buying the politicians and regulators to make decisions that favor that business over others. In essence the government pics winners and losers.
2. What ever the government or a politician wants to do, big business pretends to be all for it because bucking the government can lead to reprisal can lead to your stock price tanking.
3. Government assumes the power to interfere in established legal contracts outside of the bankruptcy process which the government has asked Congress for the power to do, in spite of a strict constitutional provision banning such a law.
What is going on now with the banks, GM, and the other powers that the Administration is asking Congress for are near textbook examples of Corporatism. It is not a widely studied subject but Corporatism is the economic model used by Mussolini and Hitler and that is why Glenn Beck was using that snippet of video and he explained all of this in some detail.
Imagine the impression a layman might have after watching that MSNBC clip above. Is the narrative and feelings generated by that video an accurate representation of reality. This is a perfect case of propaganda strategy called “attitude change propaganda theory” and what that means is that the propagandist does not give you all of the facts, he gives you only some of the facts and those facts are delivered with an attitude or spin. The propagandist than uses that to create a false narrative over the highly spun partial facts you have been given to generate the desired response by the person viewing the propaganda. Most journalism schools teach how this type of propaganda works and MSNBC uses it to polarize the electorate in an attempt to gain economically from one side of that electorate.
UPDATE - CNN tries the exact same tactic on Allen Gottlieb the next day – but this time Gottlieb was ready for it. Mr. “objective news guy” sets up the narrative that conservatives and everyone it FNC is a frothing at the mouth hate monger and when the “objective news guy” launches into Allen Gottlieb and demands with great indignation that he show the evidence, Gottlieb starts out with Obama’s voting record and begins to list that evidence. When Mr. “objective news guy” realizes he was about to get served he blares in with….wait for it….this is priceless……
CNN to Conservative: Is that all the proof you have, the (voting) record?
More from News Busters HERE.
Government report shows where the machine guns the Mexican drug cartels use are coming from (and it’s not the USA) – UPDATE: Fox News reports 83% of drug cartel guns could not be traced to U.S.
Posted by iusbvision on March 31, 2009
UPDATE - FNC investigated this story and using ATF Firearm traces discovered that 83% of siezed guns could not be traced to American gun stores. – LINK
OUR TAKE – We told ya HERE when the story first appeared that it was BS.
CNN on Lou Dobbs at 7pm has told the truth about this issue, but CNN at other times shows you pictures of machine guns and tells you that they are being bought at gun shows and gun stores across the USA.
It’s a lie, machine guns are not sold by gun stores and gun shows and haven’t been for decades. The only way to purchase one is from a Class 3 firearms dealer and there are very few of those and each transaction is strictly regulated by the ATF.
Here is the report – http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/OrgCrime_Mexico.pdf
In short the report makes it clear that arms are coming from Colombian Communist Rebels known as FARC. FARC is funded by Hugo Chavez. Hmmm no wonder the left wants to blame American gun owners and not the guy that the far left so often defends. Here is an excerpt:
Mexico’s drug trafficking and alien smuggling networks have expanded their criminal activities aimed at the United States by capitalizing on the explosive growth of transborder commerce under NAFTA and the attendant growth in human and merchandise traffic between Mexico and the United States. The growth in trans-border commerce, as manifested in soaring levels of overland passenger and commercial vehicle traffic, has provided an ever-expanding “haystack” in which the “needles” of illicit narcotics and illegal aliens can be more easily concealed.
During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking established a partnership with the Tijuana-based Arellano Felix Organization (AFO).
Statements by high-ranking Mexican officials prior to and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks indicate that one or more Islamic extremist organizations has sought to establish a presence in Mexico.
The report goes into much more detail about arms smuggling to the Mexican drug cartels by FARC.
Here is CNN on Lou Dobbs getting it right:
And here is NRA VP Wayne LaPierre blasting CNN for running these faked stories which CNN is still running:
Malcolm X: The Constitution and Bill of Rights are HUMAN Rights and that includes the right to self defense.
Posted by iusbvision on March 8, 2009
Malcolm X had several shifts in his philosophy in his life. At one time he believed that all whites were oppressors, because that had been his life experience. Towards the end of his life he traveled around the world and this changed his philosophy. He realized that all nations and races have been enslaved or oppressed at one time or another. Malcolm X realized that what was needed was to convert the “civil rights” movement to a human rights movement. The above speech was given as Malcolm X was in the process of changing his philosophy.
He eventually realized that it isn’t always just one race or another, but a struggle between those who wish to impose central control vs. those who wish to be free.
In several speeches Malcolm X quoted famed Founding Fathers such as Patrick Henry. Like Patrick Henry, Malcolm X came to believe that human rights are everyones birth right from God.
Posted by iusbvision on March 7, 2009
Tea Parties Erupt Across Nation to Protest Obama Economic Policy – Congress Not Reading Bills before Voting on Them
Posted by iusbvision on March 1, 2009
Here is another video from the Chicago Tea Party and it has some of South Bend’s very own. Don’t miss the appearence of the one and only Sam Adams at the end! -
I like this message from www.readthebill.org –
Posted by iusbvision on February 26, 2009
UPDATE II – A governmemnt report shows that drug cartel machine guns are coming from FARC/Hugo Chavez – LINK. Mini-Update: The government was lying. The number of guns in mexico that get traced back to the US is 17%……we told ya so.
UPDATE: CNN gives a similar analysis as IUSB Vision:
BUT a few years ago CNN faked the story in much the same way ABC did by calling these guns “machine guns” and NRA’s Wayne LaPierre called them on it and CNN ran a correction.
The Obama Administration already has talking points filled with lies to fool you into accepting this.
Of course, the last time they passed this it made no difference in crime at all and gun buyers eventually found ways around it. Criminals do not prefer expensive long guns, they like cheap guns they can hide.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009-
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said. “Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.”
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
“I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts,” he said.
Now here is where the lies come in and its the same as the old lie.
The weapons they are calling “assault weapons” and want to ban are not the low to medium powered, selective fire, automatic weapons see on TV. They are NOT machine guns. Yet those who want to take away your ability to defend your freedom with effective means always TALK about machine guns, and machine guns are what they show on the news when they talk about this, but the guns they want to ban fire ONE bullet with each pull of the trigger and are functionally no different from a 1911 Colt .45. These guns LOOK like assault rifles but they lack assault rifle functionality.
It says in the article that the drug cartels in Mexico have automatic weapons, that means machine guns. American gun stores don’t sell machine guns. That’s right folks, it’s the old bait & switch.
The last time the Democrats did this they got creamed come election time. Bush dared the Democrats to pass it and threatened to sign it knowing that the Democrats would get the blame. Rank and file union members have shown that they will vote Republican in a heartbeat over this issue.
This is why Nancy Pelosi told Eric Holder NO WAY.
Obama talked over and over how he supported the Heller decision (granted he flip flopped on it but he did say it) and opposed gun bans. No one who supports the Heller decision by the Supreme Court could possibly support any kind of ban of this kind.
UPDATE III -
February 26th, 2009 1:11 PM Eastern
By Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics“/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.
There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates –and there’s even some evidence that they may have caused murder to actually rise slightly. Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder –and overall violent crime rates– have remained virtually unchanged.
If Holder thinks that it is so easy to control drug gangs’ access to guns, one way to show it is by proving that he can stop drug gangs’ access to drugs.
In fact, when the assault weapons ban went off into the sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.
Read the rest here – http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/26/lott_holder_gun/
UPDATE IV – Hey remember THIS?
Posted by iusbvision on February 17, 2009
Posted by iusbvision on February 11, 2009
This is exactly the sort of thing the Democrats promised would not happen in the campaign:
Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.
Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.
While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.
Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.
As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama’s desk, where it will be signed into law.
The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this Wednesday or Thursday.
Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.
ACTION: Please urge your Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S. 22, or to vote against the entire bill.
Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2009
Wasn’t it PT Barnum who said, “There is a sucker born every minute and you can fool some of the people all of the time.”
Remember the folks at “Sportsman for Obama” who served as a propaganda tool to cover up Obama’s far left anti-gun record including the fact that Obama voted to allow prosecution of those who were forced to defend their own lives with a gun in their own home? Or were they just actors wearing shooting glasses because where are they now?
Barack Obama’s pick for “regulatory czar,” Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein, may be the incoming president’s most popular appointment so far. Judging from his resume — best-selling author, “pre-eminent legal scholar of our time,” and an endorsement from The Wall Street Journal — we can almost understand why. Almost. Because as we’re telling the media today, there’s one troubling portion of the new Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator’s C.V. that has seems to have flown under everyone’s radar: Cass Sunstein is a radical animal rights activist.
Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. (Click hereto watch the video; his speech starts around 39:00.) Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
The Video (his speech is 39 minutes in):
“Never in our nation’s history have we had an incoming President and Vice President more supportive of strong gun laws. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence strongly endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, and for good reason.” – The Brady Campaign