Understanding Constitutional RIGHTS

Just in case there is anyone (besides Rudy) that believes the Constitution ganted you the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

"In 1875, in the case of United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that the rights enumerated in the First and Second Amendments were not granted by the Constitution and were not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that these Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government."

"In discussing federal powers, the Court said:
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States."

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This 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: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government."

"Since the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment, it cannot be classified as a constitutional right because, as acknowledged by the Court, the right exists independent of the Amendment. Thus, ... repeal of the Second Amendment would not negate the right. The sole purpose of the Amendment, as stated by the Court, was to restrain the powers of the federal government concerning the right to keep and bear arms."

I hope that the Suprimes are able to keep this in mid in the upgoming DC case.

"Guns: For the people"

Bob Confer hit the nail on the head with this one. Congratulations.
The Constitution was written to protect "The People" from the government, not to give the government the means to control us.


Published: October 23, 2007 12:55 pm
CONFER: Guns: For the peopleThe Tonawanda News
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
"When it comes to the creation, interpretation and, ultimately, the enforcement of laws wording is everything. "... "The most cherished argument of those against guns is their belief, based upon their bastardization of the wording, that the right to bear arms is a collective one and not a singular one. "..."The maligned “the people” appears throughout the original document, also showing up in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10. The phrase is used in the same fashion on every occasion."..."The founding fathers rightly knew there are assumed inalienable rights not called-out or covered by the Constitution ... that every person has, rights that were granted to us naturally, be it through the play of the universe or at the controlling hand of God."....
Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

Replica guns seized from collector?

Well, here we go again. The good old UK is still at it. While real bad guys are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose back on society, a peaceful collector of "toys" is raided and his personal property confiscated, just in case. It appears that there is no hope for the poor people of England. Politically correct socialism run amuck.

"Armed police swooped on the flat of a 54-year-old replica pistol collector in Battersea.
They seized 17 replica guns but police admit the man posed no threat to the community."

"This action was taken to pro-actively reduce the threat of firearm incidents in the borough and to prevent any possible tragic consequences should they have made their way into the wrong hands,"

Good luck with that, it should save hundreds of stupid criminals from being shot for committing a crime with a toy.

ABOLISH ‘GUN FREE ZONES’

Food for thought........

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA SAYS BEST WAY TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IS ABOLISH ‘GUN FREE ZONES’ BELLEVUE, WA –

"While anti-gun organizations are demanding that Congress quickly pass new legislation in response to the Virginia Tech massacre, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms suggests another approach: Abolish the concept of “gun free zones.”“Every tragic school shooting, and attacks such as those at Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square, Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and the Tacoma Mall had one common denominator,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “They all happened in so-called ‘gun-free zones’.”Last spring’s attack at Virginia Tech occurred months after the university proudly lobbied the Virginia Assembly to continue prohibiting legally-licensed students and faculty from carrying defensive handguns on campus. Thirty-two students and instructors died when Cho Sueng- Hui went on a rampage that might have been stopped short by an armed student or instructor.“You can pass all the laws you want,” Gottlieb continued, “but the only proven way to stop shootings in ‘gun-free zones’ is an armed response. We saw that at the Appalachian Law School, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, and at Trolley Square. Each one of those shootings was interrupted by an armed citizen, who essentially acted successfully not because of a law, but in spite of the law.“There have been numerous studies on gun control laws, and from all of those efforts, there is no conclusive evidence that any of those laws prevented a crime,” he said. “There is ample evidence that the gun free zone approach has been a dismal failure, particularly as it applies to public schools and college campuses. “If Congress is truly sincere about preventing these kinds of tragedies,” Gottlieb concluded, “then it should make abolition of gun free zones a priority. Remove the term from the American lexicon, because in translation, all these areas really have become victim disarmament zones and risk-free environments for criminals and lunatics.”

Copyright © 2007 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear ArmsJames Madison Building12500 N.E. Tenth PlaceBellevue, WA 98005
Voice: 425-454-4911Toll Free: 800-426-4302FAX: 425-451-3959email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

Prosecutor: Mom bought assault rifle for boy - CNN.com

Prosecutor: Mom bought assault rifle for boy - CNN.com

Baby Steps...I guess

Little Victories,
I have a small sheet metal shop and do a lot of business with a local branch of a large paint supplier (I won't mention PPG's name here). I am a CCW holder and carry everywhere possible. This paint supplier had posted a "NO GUNS" sign in the front window. Over the past few months I have had several conversations with the shop manager expressing my views on the signs and how I hope that they could remove them so that I don't have to drive the extra 3 miles to the "SW" store. The manager is sympathetic to my position and for a long time he simply laid the sign face down in the front window of the store. This gave us both an excuse, me "I didn't know as I could not see it" and him " it must have fallen down". Recently a district manager informed him that he should put the sign back in the window as per company policy. Today when I went to pick up an order, I noticed the sign and the manager both in the front of the store. I pulled up to the window, honked and waved at him and pointed to the sign. He immediately went over and took it out of the window and placed it behind the counter, I picked my order, and as I left I saw him putting it back up. I know that this is not the right answer and I hope neither of get caught in the act but, it did give me a little chuckle on the way back to work.

Can guns stop crime? - News

Very good piece on CCW on collage campuses.....

Can guns stop crime? - News: "Can guns stop crime? Concealed-carry advocate thinks gun ban is a risk to student safety Kristin Snowberger"

I just don't understand the logic that a peaceful, law abiding, licensed, CCW holder should ever be bared from any place. I would like someone to site one example where this "NO GUNS" policy has protected anyone, ever..............

Poor old confused correspondent

Over at CNN on Anderson Cooper 360° this poor old "Randi Kaye" is either confused, misinformed, or a Liar.

Let's see now...........

"Philly gunning for more control
With more than 300 murders so far this year (over 205 of them were directly related to gangs, drugs, chronic offenders, or felons in possession and, there was not even 1 instance of a lawful CCW holder) , Philadelphia has been struggling to contain gun violence. If I was a Philadelphia resident, I could walk into any gun shop in the city and buy 50, 100, even 1,000 guns, just like that (multiple gun purchases are subject to additional requirements). All they would do is run an instant background check, and assuming my record was clean, I'd walk out with all that firepower. There's no waiting period, no rules on who I can and can't sell those weapons to ( yes, there are federal laws as to whom you can legally sell a firearm). In fact, state law says I don't even have to get a license for the guns or register them. (as that would equate to "infringement") Could this be contributing to the gun violence in Philadelphia? (NO) ....... Back in 1994, the state legislature overturned an assault weapons ban, making AK-47s as easy to get as hunting rifles (select fire and fully automatic weapons have been restricted since 1934 and require special investigations and significant taxes, and they had nothing to do with the "Assault Weapons ban"). The next year, rules were eased on concealed weapons. Today it's actually against the law in Pennsylvania for a policeman to ask anyone why they want to carry a concealed weapon (yea, what business is it of theirs ). At last check, there are now 29,000 permits to carry concealed weapons in Philadelphia, compared to about 800 applications for permits back in 1995. One law enforcement source told me the state is handing out permits to carry like "candy." (except that I don't think that you have to get training, submit to a background check, get fingerprinted and pay a fee to get candy) State Senator Vincent Fumo is a gun owner, and he supports the current laws. "People want to think that this is the wild west, and we don't have any laws. What we don't have is enforcement of those laws," (right) he told CNN. Many here in the city argue that if Philadelphia had "home rule", as it's called, and the city was allowed to pass more stringent gun laws, people would be safer." (right, check with DC, Chicago, etc. see how good it is working for them) It really would be appropriate for the city to determine its own sort of destiny," Jones told CNN. "Now our hands are sort of handcuffed."Who do you think has the right to set the ground rules when it comes to guns? The state or the city? (How about, neither. I think that "Shall not be infringed" should speak for itself.)
-- Randi Kaye, CNN Correspondent"

So, there you go.

Note to gun grabbers.......

According to a recent report for Congress on foreign country gun laws states, "From available statistics, among the countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. In Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998")
Call your representatives and senators and simply just mention it every once in a while.
It couldn't hurt. We need to keep reminding them of this at every opportunity.

SO, ONLY COPS SHOULD HAVE GUNS?

Well, now what.

"CRANDON, Wis. (AP) - The residents Tyler Peterson was hired to protect and serve can't understand how the 20-year-old who shot six of their young people and critically injured another could have passed a background check to become a sheriff's deputy.
Peterson was shot to death after opening fire early Sunday on a group of students and recent graduates who had gathered for pizza and movies on their high school's homecoming weekend. Peterson was off-duty from his full-time job as a Forest County deputy sheriff; he also was a part-time Crandon police officer."

I thought that the cops were supposed to be the only ones smart and mature enough that we could trust with guns. But then how, could a northern Wisconsin sheriffs deputy shoot and kill six young people, apparently in a jealous rage over one of the younger girls, and, in Wisconsin no less, one of only two states that protect it's citizens safety by demanding that they rely on police for their security and deny them the right to carry weapons for personal protection.

I'm so confused, what do we do now?????????

On gun laws

I copied this from a post on my forum to publish here because, I thought that it was very well thought out, relevant, and insightful. I agree completely with the poster and applaud this kind of understanding of our god given rights.
Try to imagine how I felt when I discovered that it was posted by My son. I could not be happier.


"There are millions of Americans that have every right and the capacity to defend them selves. In the 21st century Americans are being told that they cannot be trusted with the defense of their own life and liberty. In a forum like this I don’t have to explain why my previous statement is mind blowing. In my ideal society, all laws and restrictions on firearms should only take affect after “the trigger is pulled”. Gun laws should reflect civic responsibility. Currently gun laws only promote conformity. Currently if Americans CHOSE to obey the law, they are greatly restricted in their ability to defend themselves. Once every citizen of the United States is legally allowed to own and carry without any restrictions, only then do all registration hurtles become pertinent. Aside from laws that require citizens to respect private establishments who restrict guns on their premises (we all know what happens at these establishments). “After the trigger is pulled”, If a citizen of the United States abuses their constitutional right to own and PUBLICLY POSES a firearm then they SHOULD be judged accordingly by a jury of their peers. All laws should reflect that the average peaceful law abiding gun owner is going to know how and when to use their firearm."

Second Amendment is misunderstood, abused ?

I read the following article and thought to myself, "I need to dissect this and see if and where there are any flaws in the logic".

( http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=626875&category=OPINION&newsdate=10/3/2007 )
"Second Amendment is misunderstood, abused
First published: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 The Sept. 23 editorial, "Schenectady's bleeding," asks when the shootings in Albany and Schenectady will end. Unfortunately, the shootings and killing will not end until members of Congress, judges of the nation's courts and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court learn and understand the language of our Constitution, and end the reign of intimidation supported by the National Rifle Association. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That "right of the people" is dependent upon being a member of a "well-regulated militia". The only regulated militias, outside of the armed forces of the United States, are the states' National Guard units. Militia is defined as "an organized body of citizens, as the National Guard, drilled and equipped as soldiers, but called to active service only in emergencies. What is it about our language our judges and justices do not comprehend, and what is it about the National Rifle Association that fights so hard to provide weapons of death and destruction, without proper qualifications or licensing?It is time to give true meaning to the Second Amendment.
LEE DEEMS
Albany"

First lets start with the premise that a ban or limit on guns will end shootings in Albany and Schenectady. Please check my post from yesterday (http://stevesgarage.blogspot.com/2007/10/fair-question.html) "A Fair Question". Now do some research on Washington D.C., UK, Canada, Australia, etc gun bans. It starts to become intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this premise holds no water.
Secondly this study ( http://www.gunowners.org/op0746.htm ) shows that: "Nation's Rates Of Private Gun Ownership Do Not Correlate To Rates Of Murder" Don B. Kates and Carol Hehmeyer As published in Daily Journal. Many people think that nations with more firearms will have more murder and that banning firearms will reduce murder and other violence. This canard does not comport, however, with criminological research in the U.S. or elsewhere. An extensive study that one of us (Kates) recently published with Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser confirms the negative results of two large-scale international studies over the past 15 years. ("Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694.) These studies compared data from a large number of nations around the world. There were no instances of nations with high gun ownership having higher murder rates than nations with low gun ownership. If anything it was the reverse, for reasons discussed below" etc.
So it is that the basic underlying assumption of "less guns equals less crime" is not valid.

Regarding the term "regulated militia" including only active duty national guard, The Militia Act of 1903--together with its 1908 amendment--was, in the words of a leading historian of the National Guard, "the most important national legislation in militia history." The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support.
Some definitions: "Militia" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Militia is an army composed of ordinary [1] citizens to provide defense, emergency or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings: Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws. The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, available to be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster. A similar common law provision, the posse comitatus, exists in jurisdictions with English judicial origin for law enforcement authority to conscript from the male population to assist with keeping the peace, law enforcement, etc.. A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government. An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various name in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces. The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya. In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a coup d'état. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The term "The People" is easy to define. Simply look at it in context, check what it means in all of the rest of the amendments and the basic constitution. It means the people, us, you and me, all law abiding citizens (not otherwise prohibited) not a state or a government entity.

The inference that gun ownership should require "proper qualifications or licensing" seams to conflict with "shall not be infringed". Would not a set of rules requiring qualifying for a license to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right, in effect, be a de facto infringement? I think so.

On The National Rifle Association, it takes quite a distortion of logic to assume they have enough clout that they could "Intimidate" any "members of Congress, judges of the nation's courts and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court". Also, I have searched diligently and I can not find a single instance where they "provide weapons of death and destruction" to anyone, ever. They are apparently, just what they clam to be, a grassroots organization dedicated to protecting a constitutionally guaranteed right.

So, my conclusion is, our judges and justices seam to be able comprehend language just fine, the NRA defends and protects that language, baning of guns does not reduce shootings, and the second amendment guarantees the individual law abiding citizen has the right to own guns for the protection of life and liberty from all enemies, foreign and domestic, without the threat of government infringement, and that is its true meaning.

"A Fair Question"

This post was lifted from- " gunsmagazine.com "

A Fair Question
by, David Codrea

“Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”
What with all the calls to do just that, and all the laws building up to it, that sounds like a fair question.
It’s posed by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser in the Spring 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Kates is an American criminologist, lawyer and constitutional scholar. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist and university professor. Both are published authors of numerous articles and books. Both are well recognized as top experts in their fields. You don’t earn their reputations in academic and legal circles by being demonstrably wrong, so people on both sides of the gun control debate would do well to consider their findings.
Beginning with “the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate,” a mantra repeated by gun control advocates under the assumption it is so because they claim it, Kates and Mauser found “Between 1998-2004 … Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize … various other now-independent European nations of the former USSR.”
This in spite of “stringent gun controls “that suggest where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”
But what about countries “with high rates of gun ownership”? The researchers demonstrate how European nations where this is so have murder rates a fraction of those where “gun ownership is much rarer.” Even in England, often cited as a model to emulate, the authors cite a study co-authored by criminologist Hans Toch, (“who endorsed handgun prohibition and confiscation, but then recanted based on later research,”) concluding “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest … [and] American states with homicide rates as low as Western Europe’s have high gun ownership ….”
What other determinations can we draw domestically? “In 2004,” Kates and Mauser tell us, “the US National Academy of Sciences … failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents.” This was “from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control ….”
So not only does gun control fail to reduce violent crime, but it also fails to reduce suicides? Examining Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann’s claim in The New England Journal of Medicine that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides,” the authors find this assertion is “contradicted by the studies of 36 and 21 nations (respectively) which find no statistical relationship. Overall suicide rates were no worse in nations with many firearms than in those where firearms were far less widespread … There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership.”
So what bearing should this have on public policy?
“In a free society,” Kates and Mauser conclude, “those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea.”
What with all the calls to do just that, and all the laws building up to it, that sounds like a fair answer.

Get the UN out of the US

Is it me or are these people really the danger it appears they are.
We all need to make it known (loud and often) to our elected leaders that this can not and will not fly in our United States of America.
This is exactly why we have our 2nd amendment, to keep the people in charge of the government and give us the ability to take it back when needed.
Keep your eye on these guys and write your representatives often.


UN Members, Gun Lobby Face Treaty Fight
By CHARLES J. HANLEY – 3 days ago

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.
In what U.N. officials say is an "overwhelming" response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There's an "extremely urgent" need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa."

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/thegunshots/