Who Cares?

So Obamasiah has produced some paper about his birth, so what?

Is his place of birth really an issue in light of all that he is doing to this country?

I don't care if he was born at Independence Hall on the 4th of July. He and the rest of the crowd who think government knows best are putting this country on course to run smack into a brick wall. Wasn't this country a country of freedoms? Is the United States of America supposed to sit still while a bunch of socialists, from both parties, corrupt our system of government?

We must take a stand against those who want to give the government the power to rob those who are productive to give it to those who choose not to be productive. Get the government out of the private lives of the citizens and this country will recover to the great nation it was and has the potential to be again.

OK, so I've been busy.......

I have been so busy trying to keep an eye on what the guberment types have been doing that I have neglected to post anything here.

What can I say, I have been busy with life and this was not high enough on the priority list.

I have seen so much ignorance and stupidity in the guberment I have about given up on it, but I am too damned stubborn to do that.

At the moment the biggest problem I see is that the people don't give a damn about anything but themselves. They let the politicians do anything if it gets them what they want at the moment. This is being done with no regard for future generations. Until the people return to a moral society, we have no hope for this nation. The framers drafted a constitution and set of laws that only works for a generally moral society. Remember, most of the founders of this country left England to escape religious persecution by the Roman Catholic churches. These were Protestant people who had strong Christian beliefs and strong moral character. The thought of the people as a whole electing potentially corrupt men to lead was unimaginable.

So what do we do, we get pissed, we tell anyone who will listen what we think is wrong. We suggest possible ways to fix it. We call, write, and e-mail representatives until they know who we are and what we are about to chew their butts about as soon as they hear our voice or read our name on an email.

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW LIBS?

I think perhaps the libs are hearing us now. With a sharp defeat in the House and a strong recovery in the Senate the Obamessiah no longer has his super majority. He will no longer to get advance his stupid socialist ideas after January.

We just have to keep it at bay until the newly elected representatives can get sworn in!

Bring on the Liberal Legislation!!!

This letter from Campaign for Liberty got me thinking, I know that can be dangerous, but why wouldn't we want these things brought up to a vote before the November elections?

September 28, 2010


Dear Friend of Liberty,

These next 48 hours are potentially the most dangerous time of the year, as Harry Reid and his statist allies in Washington, D.C. decide whether to head home for the election or try to sneak in a last minute vote to steal liberty, spend money, or empower big labor and other statist allies.

Thankfully, Senator Jim DeMint has taken a stand for liberty and promised to place a hold on any legislation not agreed to by both parties. This does not guarantee Reid won’t try to force a controversial vote in the next two days, but a hold can only be overridden by scheduling a time-consuming cloture vote.

For the moment, it appears after our defeat of the DISCLOSE Act last week that Harry Reid and his cohorts are almost ready to tuck tail and head home, where you and hundreds of thousands of other C4L members around the nation are waiting to hold them accountable for their votes over the past two years.

However, following the November elections, Harry Reid will pull out all the stops in a last ditch effort to pass as many bills as he can in a lame-duck session. According to a report in The Hill today, Democrats are planning to bring up as many as 20 bills in as little as six weeks! Bills such as S. 510, the FDA’s War on Food, Joseph Lieberman’s Internet Takeover Bill, Cap & Tax, and many more we’ve alerted you about are all likely to come up for a vote during that session.

We’ve accomplished great things together during these past two years. Thanks to your efforts, 80% of Americans support a full audit of the Federal Reserve. Despite the enormous odds stacked against us, we’ve held off some of the worst legislation this country has ever seen.

Only 48 hours remain before legislators head home. Let’s make sure they feel the pressure every single second of it.


In Liberty,



John Tate

President


P.S. Campaign for Liberty is committed to the fight against the statist agenda in Washington, D.C. through grassroots mobilization and issue education. However, unlike the Federal Reserve, C4L cannot just print money out of thin air when we need funds. Won’t you consider chipping in just $10 so we can continue to keep our members informed about serious threats to our liberty?

Let's think about this for one moment. If they bring these pieces of legislation up before the election they will likely FAIL because of the fear of backlash at the poles. If we force them to hold this legislation until after the election, it is likely to PASS because the election is decided and if they are voted out, they no longer need to worry about backlash. They will have no reason to be concerned with what the people have to say because we will have already spoken.

I say bring it all up now. Let them show their true colors now. I bet many are too scared of being put out of office to tow the party line.

Chicagoist Gets it Wrong II

I like the ignorant remark in this article at the Chicagoist
about HB 5832 being signed into law. 

"House Bill 5832 adds an extra 1- to 3-year prison sentence for convicted criminals found to have used a weapon unlawfully and without possession of an Illinois firearm owner's identification card (you FOID holders who hold up a gas station apparently get a break)."

It proves the preconceived notions and opinions of the author and goes to show that nothing short of outright unconstitutional gun bans and confiscation will do to please the disconnected Chicago mind.

I would think that tougher penalties for criminals would be welcomed not scoffed at?

Although this is a step in the right direction, I think these guys should be introduced to "Project Exile".  This is a program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997.  The program took cases involving firearm use in crime from the State courts into the Federal court where a 5 year minimum sentence was imposed for conviction of illegal use of a firearm.

The Chicagoist gets it wrong.

The Chicagoist has this piece that was written just before the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald v Chicago.

"The City of Chicago is preparing for today's ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on the handgun ban as the court issues its opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. (The city of Oak Park also has its handgun ban at issue with the case.)"

Chicago just has a mind set of it's own. They don't get it, this case goes beyond Chicago and beyond Oak Park. The Supreme Court is not ruling, "Chicago can't ban guns." or "Oak Park can't ban guns." This ruling goes against every gun ban in every city and every State. When they opined that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States, that incorporates the definition given in Heller.

"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."-D.C. v. Heller

SCOTUS Opines 5-4 for Incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago

This should have been a unanimous decision.

"JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."

The opinion is here.

Questions:

Does this mean "Constitutional Carry" for all states?

First the SC confirms that the 2nd is an individual right to keep and bear.

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual right to keep and bear arms."-Heller

Then the definition of the operative clause indicates the purpose of carrying arms for defense in case of confrontation.  The SC did not give a specific definition of when and where the carrying of arms would be prohibited or if it could be prohibited.

"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
. . . .”-Heller

Does this effect the NFA or the Gun Control Act?

Can a State or municipality prohibit the possession of automatic weapons?
If a State or municipal law prohibiting a handgun is unconstitutional, how could a state law prohibiting any type or class of weapon stand?

Illinois law prohibits automatic weapons(machine guns)-

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
"(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for

the purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less

than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall lengt(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:h of less than 26 inches;"-720 ILCS 5/24‑1