The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Firearms’ Category

VIDEO: Police Shoot Handcuffed Man on the Ground

Posted by iusbvision on January 9, 2009

Police and prosecutor misconduct is a problem that seems to be getting worse and worse.

We have told you about prosecutorail misconduct by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the Blagoyevich and Libby prosecutions. We told you about how FBI and prosecutor misconduct in the case of Senator Ted Stevens may result in an appeal or Stevens may walk. While we haven’t covered the story, the prosecutors in the Caylee Anthony case are doing everything they can to prevent fair discovery by the defense, which is a violation of the accused Constitutional right to a fair trial.

We told you how an Alaska State Trooper, who had threatened the life of Governor Palin’s family and who even threatened Palin’s daughter at a high school football game and used a taser gun on Palin’s nephew, was being protected by the state police and they refused to even conduct a proper investigation. We told you how Denver Police arrested an ABC News reporter for filming a newsworthy event from a public sidewalk. We also showed you a case of unprovoked police brutality in New York.

This is a symptom of a society that does not know how to think logically and ethically. A society that no longer practices the self restraint that is a reflection of the Christian philosophy that made this country the greatest on earth.

Now we have come to this…

The man who was shot is Oscar Grant. We have video from two angles. If you slow down the tape you can see that grant was face down, handcuffed and another officer had his knee on the back of Grant’s neck when he was shot. Grant was fatally wounded and killed. The police aren’t talking. If I was a police officer on the scene I would have arrested the officer who pulled that trigger on the spot.

Warning – the videos show Grant being shot.

And this…

A Chicago Police Officer strip searched minor children in a school. Strip searching minors is not allowed. The parents were not even notified. It also took almost a year before the family would find a lawyer to accept the case, which reminds me of another problem I have seen more and more of, and that is attorney’s who are unwilling to take on bureaucracies on behalf of clients who are not wealthy.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Firearms, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

China Still Executing Its Own With Little Justice

Posted by iusbvision on December 27, 2008


BEIJING — Compared with murder and other violent crimes, the charges against Wo Weihan seemed minor, if a little exotic: copying articles from missile technology magazines in a public library, buying four night-vision equipment scopes, gathering information about the health of senior government leaders and collecting documents from a local Communist Party conference.

Yet the once-respected scientist with his own medical research laboratory in the capital was branded a spy and executed last month after a closed trial. His is one of several recent executions that highlight the secrecy, lack of due process and uneven application of the law that continue to surround capital cases two years after China embarked on a radical overhaul of the way it handles the death penalty.

Starting in 2007, China began for the first time in more than two decades to require a final review of every capital case by the Supreme People’s Court. The hope was to reduce the number of executions and bring some consistency to a process that had been handled unevenly by lower courts. The former president of the Supreme People’s Court who pushed for the review, Xiao Yang, vowed that the death penalty would be used only on “extremely vile criminals.”

While “reforms” have brought down the number of executions 30% form 2006:

Defendants on death row continue to be executed for such nonviolent crimes as illegal fundraising, graft, drug dealing and espionage. They are prosecuted and dispatched with a lack of transparency, according to Chinese lawyers who complain of blocked access to their clients and say many confessions are still coerced.

There are also double standards: Public officials accused of embezzling millions receive suspended death sentences that spare their lives, while ordinary citizens convicted of stealing far less die by lethal injection or a single gunshot to the head, according to lawyers and court records.

China remains the world’s top executioner — the Dui Hua Foundation, a human rights group, estimates that China carried out 5,000 to 6,000 executions in 2007. The same year, the United States executed 42 people. On a per-capita basis, China is estimated to have carried out 30 times the number of executions the United States did.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Firearms | Leave a Comment »

TROOPERGATE RESULTS: Branchflower finds Sarah Palin “Guilty” of not Keeping Her Husband Todd from Defending His Family from a Maniac State Trooper

Posted by iusbvision on October 11, 2008

Sounds like a silly headline, but when you read the report, in a nutshell that is exactly what it claims.

The Media is going nuts saying “Palin Abused Power” – but they are not giving you all the pertinent details that are in the report. Before I get into the details a few things need to be understood.

1. The report is the finding of just one man, Steve Branchflower. Who is the so called “independent investigator” who colluded with Democrats Hollis French and Kim Elton to keep some of Palin’s witnesses from testifying.

2. Hollis French, the Senator leading the investigation, is a strident Obama supporter and said unabashedly that he intended for the UPCOMING investigation to be used as an “October Surprise” for the election.

4. Monegan worked with Hollis French to try and get funding for projects that Governor Palin had previously vetoed.

…insubordination from Monegan from the official documents:

  • 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
  • 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
  • February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
  • June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

Even after all this, Palin didn’t want to fire Monegan, she just wanted to reassign him. She offered him another job on the spot. If Palin was personal and wanted to “get even” with Monegan she would have fired him.

Here is our previous coverage with the evidence of French’s, Monegan’s and Kim Elton’s politically motivated misconduct in the investigation—>

5. The 12-0 decision was not a unanimous finding of any guilt. It was a vote on whether or not to release Branchflower’s report to the public… so the Anchorage Daily News, who we have said before is often biased in its reporting against Palin, got it wrong when they said that the legislature found her guilty.

6. The press says that it was bi-partisan because the legislative committee has Republicans and Democrats on it. Lyda Green, the Republican leader of the Alaska Senate, who sits on the committee hates …and I mean HATES Governor Palin. Why do we say that? Lyda Green, as we reported HERE, is a part of that good old boys corruption network in the Alaska Republican Party that Palin brought down. Green tried to get revenge against Palin repeatedly, including trying to get the State of the State address schedule changed so that Palin would miss her son’s graduation. Lyda Green became very unpopular for opposing Palin’s reforms. So unpopular that she is not running for re-election.

It is important to remember that the Republican and Democrat party machines both hate Palin and would certainly be more aggressive towards her if she did not have an 80% approval rating. She ended their billion dollar corruption ring with the energy companies that owned the state government. Lets face facts, lots of people have been killed for less money. Palin refuses to endorse Republican Senator Ted Stevens, and it was Palin’s outing of the corruption ring that got the FBI interested in investigating Ted Stevens to begin with.

Here is the Branchflower Report.

The report states clearly:

Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

The conspiracy theorists and partisan pundits said that the only reason Palin fired Monegan because he would not fire Alaska State Trooper Wooten (we will get to Wooten in a minute). Which, if true would have been a technical violation of state ethics laws. This has now proved to be false. This is an important lesson in the unintended consequences of passing sweeping legislation. As we will start to cover in a moment, if anyone on Earth deserved to be fired and have his right to own a gun taken away, it is Trooper Mike Wooten. Wooten has amassed quite a history of illegal, violent and reckless behavior, including threatening the lives of members of Palin’s family while in uniform. If the ethics laws prevent a governor from getting a threat to the public like Wooten off the street with a state issued firearm, the law has a problem.

The law should not be written in such a way as to prevent a governor from protecting the public from a threat such as a rogue cop like Wooten.

The report also states that Palin abused her power and violated ethics laws by not preventing her husband, Todd Palin, from trying to get Wooten fired. A stretch for many reasons with the most obvious reason being that husbands protect their families and good luck deterring Todd Palin from doing what he thought was best under such a threat and Todd Palin’s under oath statement states clearly that Sarah asked him to stop. What is she going to do, have her husband arrested to put an end to it? Its silly.

The reasoning that Branchflower uses to make this finding is here:

I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

The problem is that this is a wholesale misreading of the law and it takes a great deal of tortured logic to get there. We were preparing to explain why this is in detail, and while our previous legal analysis here at the IUSB Vision has ALWAYS proved accurate, trial attorney Bill Dyer was kind enough to publish his own analysis which we find to be spot on.

Hugh Hewitt published trial lawyer, Bill Dyer’s analysis HERE.

Excerpts – read this very carefully:

Instead, Branchflower has piled a guess (that the Palin’s wanted Wooten fired, rather than, for example, counseled, disciplined, or reassigned) on top of an inference (that when the Palins expressed concern to Monegan about Wooten, they were really threatening to fire Monegan if he didn’t fire Wooten) on top of an innuendo (that Gov. Palin “fired” Monegan at least in part because of his failure to fire Wooten) — from which Branchflower then leaps to a legal conclusion: “abuse of authority.” Branchflower reads the Ethics Act to prohibit any governmental action or decision made for justifiable reasons benefiting the State if that action or decision might also make a public official happy for any other reason. That would mean, of course, that governors must never act or decide in a way that makes them personally happy as a citizen, or as a wife or mother or daughter, and that they could only take actions or make decisions which left them feeling neutral or upset. This an incredibly shoddy tower of supposition, and a ridiculous misreading of the law.

This is exactly the entire point right here, in order for what Branchflower says to be true, the law would have to be read in a ridiculously broad manner. No serious judge (granted there are judges who ignore legal ethics routinely) would allow such a broad interpretation. In fact the number one reason why most laws are shot down by the courts is that they are overly broad. For example: when Palin returned a portion of the states energy revenue to every citizen of the state, including members of the Palin family who are citizens, according to Branchflower’s reading of the law this would have been a violation of the states ethics law. It’s silly.

Branchflower puts under a microscope every direct and indirect contact that can possibly be claimed to come, directly or indirectly, from Gov. Palin or her husband, Todd. In none of them did either Sarah or Todd Palin demand or request that Wooten be fired. Some of them date back to before Gov. Palin was even a candidate for governor. All of them are equally well explained by legitimate concerns that Wooten was a potential threat to the Palin family (having already made death threats against Gov. Palin’s father) and/or an embarrassment to the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the entire state law enforcement community. That the Palinsalsohad strong — and entirely understandable! — negative feelings about Trooper Wooten does not make any of these communications remotely improper, much less illegal.

Nevertheless, Branchflower leaps to the personal conclusion (page 67 of the .pdf file) that “such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.” Well, here’s another memo to Mr. Branchflower: When the family is question is the family of the Governor of Alaska, and when her security detail is charged with protecting her from threats, and in the process of that, the security detail actively seeks out information as to who may have previously made death threats against the family, that’s no longer solely a “personal family related reason.” And when someone like Trooper Wooten threatens to bring ridicule and shame to the entire state of Alaska, that’s no longer solely a “personal family related reason” either.

Branchflower, I’m told, is an attorney and a former prosecutor. If he thinks this kind of nonsense could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a finding of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, then he may be the worst lawyer I’ve ever encountered — and I’ve met a lot of awful ones in almost three decades before the bar.

We are thrilled the most respected bloggers on the internet such as and Hugh Hewitt have come to similar conclusions as we did when we finished reading the report. After seeing Hugh Hewitt’s report from Bill Dyer, we were also thrilled to see feature Bill Dyer’s spot on analysis in their own report.

Now lets move on to Trooper Wooten:

Way back on September 3rd we published an analysis of “Troopergate” sometimes called “Tasergate” with this headline:

Ending the Biggest Lie Against Palin – Called Troopergate: Hey Ladies How Would You Deal With a Violent, Reckless, Out of Control Rogue Cop Who Threatened Your Family’s Life and Stalks Your Relatives – All While His Fellow Cops are Covering for Him.

This is the situation Palin’s sister faced. An abusive and violent cop for a husband that she was trying to divorce. A cop with a history misconduct…. including the tasering of his own 10 year old son.

Palin’s sister obtained a domestic violence protection order against Trooper Wooten. Wooten said in uniform that if Palin’s father helped Palin’s sister obtain an attorney, “I will make him eat a f**king lead bullet”.

Unfortunately, any women who has been a victim of domestic violence by a police officer knows how hard it is to get justice. When the family reported what was going on the Alaska State Police was none too keen on investigating one of their own and the Palin’s were forced to hire a private investigator just to take statements to submit to the investigation because the state police simply refused to do it.

After it was all over, the state police suspended Wooten for 10 days  and reduced that punishment to five days. Wooten taunted the Palin’s saying that he got away with it and that there was nothing they could do to stop him. Wooten even threatened Governor Palin’s daughter Bristol at a Wasilla football game.

Be sure to read our analysis HERE and read official documents on Wooten’s behavior HERE.

The Palin’s offer no apology for any of their actions and any person with any sense at all would have acted the same. See the video HERE.

The mistake that Palin and the campaign did make.

The mistake that the campaign made was not getting ahead of this problem and trusting the media to be fair about reporting it. When you are a governor or a president you cannot afford to let your enemies or the press define the issue for you. All you here from Democrats and the elite media is “abuse of power” with almost no context.

The Campaign should have started calling this issue “Fathergate” or “Tasergate” at every opportunity. The campaign should have sent Sarah Palin out to blast Hollis French, Steve Branchflower, Walt Monegan and Trooper Wooten very publicly for what they did and kept the focus on them.

After the fact (now) I would find an ally in the legislature and file an ethics complaint against Hollis French. Why?? Because by Steve Branchflower’s own far overreaching and over broad interpretation of the ethics law, French personally benefited from this investigation and personally benefited because he said before the investigation got underway that he intended this to be an October surprise for the election. It’s politics and you gotta play rough, honest, but rough.

The documents in the case so far:

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Firearms, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

Obama Pro-Gun Radio Ad is a Lie – Don’t Be Fooled

Posted by iusbvision on September 22, 2008

Here in Indiana, where Obama is trying to make a competitive run, the Obama campaign is playing radio ads talking up how pro-gun he is. Examine the evidence and please feel free to comment on whether or not you think his ad is trying to fool you.

Dr. John Lott, who worked with Obama at the University of Chicago, says:

The Obama that I knew while we were both at the University of Chicago Law School during the 1990s was someone who disliked talking to people with whom he disagreed. Possibly it was just his extreme dislike of gun ownership, but I had more than one occasion when my attempts to talk to him ended in him turning his back and walking away.

The media’s portrayal of Obama as willing to work with those who disagree with him is not the person that I remember from a decade ago.

Dr. Lott’s research on gun control laws is the academic standard on the issue.  

The NRA has Obama’s voting record listed as an F rating on gun laws. The NRA says this:

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

Update: comments on the NRA’s ads reminding people of this issue.

MSNBC calls out Obama on gun control deception.

Obama then vs Obama now.


Obama in reference to Pennsylvania voters when he is at a closed fund raiser of left coast elite friends: You folk get bitter and cling to your religion and guns out of frustration (that Obama hasn’t “saved” you yet)

Hillary on Obama’s comments.

Ar 5:14 into the video, Sarah Palin reacts to Obama’s comments.

ABC’s 20/20 examines gun laws to see if they reduce crime.

UPDATE: Remember how I said that gets it right about 80% of the time? Well this is one of the 20% where FactCheck didn’t do their homework, didn’t look at the record and blew it big time. Anyone who checked the public record for 30 minutes could not take the position took on the gun control issue. I could give a top to bottom analysis, but Patterico beat me to it and he did a great job. Malkin comments HERE.

UPDATE II: On TV the Obama campaign spokesman is openly lying about Obama’s gun ban record. The public record is clear and easy to find, yet the Washington Post (who has still not retracted a long list of debunked Palin smears) and simply refuse to look at his record or his previous statements. They are even saying that a questionnaire where he said that he wanted to ban all handguns that had Obama’s handwriting on it wasn’t his and they were not his answers. The NRA is spot on when it comes to Obama’s record. Don’t be fooled. The elite media going “pro-gun” all of the sudden for Obama should be a clue as to what is going on. comments HERE.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Firearms, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »


Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2008

UPDATED: See Below

You have a constitutional right to own a handgun. Handgun bans are now unconstitutional.**

AND laws requiring trigger locks or other devices and methods so that such weapons may not be readily used for self defense are also unconstitutional.**

** In principal – Since the suit was brought in the District of Columbia the matter of incorporating the Second Amendment to the states was not before the court. As a rule the court only deals with the question directly in front of it, “Are gun bans in federal districts such as D.C. constitutional.” A lawsuit from one of the states that have a gun ban will have to follow to incorporate this to the states. It is reasonable to assume that lower courts who respect president will follow suit with this ruling, but since it was not in one of the states judges in circuits outside of D.C. may act in such a way as to kick the decision upstairs. Many circuits such as the Ninth openly buck president and keep the Supreme Court busy with reversing them.  – Chuck Norton


The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

More updates soon, but in short the Supreme Court has reversed decades of rulings in which the lower courts deliberately misinterpreted the Second Amendment in order to keep guns out of the hands of black Americans. Note: the Miller case in 1939 did not rule that citizens did not have a right to keep and bear arms, the court ruled that citizens have the right to own military infantry small arms, the government made the case that short barrelled shotguns have no military value and thus are not covered by the Second Amendment. Miller died before the Supreme Court heard arguments on the case so his side could not give a proper representation. The military uses short barreled shotguns as infantry weapons to this day. The current short barreled military shotgun is the Mossburg 590 (update: my interpretation of the Miller decision is parroted by Juctice Scalia below).

The usual suspects who treat each court session as their yearly constitutional convention dissented in the case.

The full decision is here:

Chuck Norton


Here is a summary of the decision:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists

feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing

rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

In reading the decision Scalia posts point by point refutation of the dissenting justices in the footnotes at the bottom of almost every page. Scalia sources every detail of his logic, reasoning and history. This is perhaps one of the most scholarly, well documented and unassailable decisions in court history.

Scalia delivers sourced definitions of each word in the Second Amendment and also quotes each Supreme Court decision in the past that defined such terms, such as these exerpts from  the decision:

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution

that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously

refers to all members of the political community, not an

unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-

Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude

that this natural meaning was also the meaning that

“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,

“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to

the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to

the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions

written in the 18th century or the first two decades

of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear

arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms

in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those

formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry-ing

a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James

Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms bearing

right, for example, as a recognition of the natural

right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called

the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James

Wilson1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing

Pa.Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction

to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of

self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”);

see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with

that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also

the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions

adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions

demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic

context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying

of arms in a militia.

And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a

unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military

meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common

(which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found

instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation.

In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord

Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens

(not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional

right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for

their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s

Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response,

another member of Parliament referred to “the right of

bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no

special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was

intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of

these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee

the individual right to possess and carry weapons in

case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed

by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood

that the Second Amendment, like the First and

Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The

very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes

the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it

“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.

Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right

granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner

dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The

Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

. . . .”

Laws against body armor may also be unconstitutional as body armor is included in the definition of arms in the decision:

The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771);



The founders made it as crystal clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right just as the First Amendment is. The fact that the court affirmed the right to bear arms should not be news. The news is that four justices on the court sought to take that right away form us. It speaks volumes about how important getting good justices on the court is.


Four justices saught to declare the second amendment extinct. They saught to amend the Bill of Rights away at the bench. If that doesn’t explain what these people have in mind for this country I don’t know what else does.

Limbaugh is quite right, five justices is all that stands in the way between freedom and tyranny in this country. Sometimes they choose freedom, sometimes they choose tyranny, and sometimes they just abide the law in its context when it was created, but for today, at least the reset button is still intact.





Exerpt from Justice Stevens dissent:


The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the

Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to

elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,

and to authorize this Court to use the common-law

process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the

contours of acceptable gun control policy.

This statement is stunning. Any first semester civics student, American history student, or first year law student knows that the Bill of Rights has one purpose – to chain and restrict the power of the government. The Bill of Rights was created and implemented to help gain the support of the Anti-federalists.  Its purpose as a matter of history and law could not be more clear or established.


Planet Earth to Justice Stevens– the Bill of Rights and indeed the Second Amendment was precisely created to limit the ability of elected officials, or anyone in the government, to restict the civilian’s right to keep and bear arms. Just as the First Amendment was created to limit elected officials (or unelected for that matter) ability to restrict the freedom of speech and conscience of the people, just as the Eighth Amendment was created to limit elected officials from imposing cruel and unusual punishments. The restriction of bearing arms has been the pretext for nearly every great tyranny in history. The British declaration of rights that previously enumerated a right to keep and bear arms was made in direct response to previous abuses by the government and that is why it was a predecessor to our own Bill of Rights and Second Amendment. “The  right to keep and bear arns shall not be infringed.”


Stevens just ruled with the majority YESTERDAY in Kennedy vs. Louisiana that the Eighth Amendment limited the Louisiana State Legislature from imposing the death penalty for child rape. It is amazing how his entire interpreting view of the Constitution can change in a day. This is exactly the type of situational ethics that would be tyrants use in their reasoning.



WSJ – Leftist Justices In Denial of History and the Law

Supreme Court Binds Second Amendment to States



Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Firearms | Leave a Comment »