From CALPEEK
California Political Week
June 13, 2005
Vol.XXVII, No.23
“Guns – Question: how come the NRA has not filed a lawsuit to remove the so-called San Francisco gun ban initiative from the November 2005 ballot? Doesn’t the State have preemption rights???”
Well, it thinks it does. I’ve always found the preemption doctrine hugely troubling when presumed to apply to unalienable rights. Still, the first question is legitimate, if for no other reason than consistency.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
More Gun Owner Harrassment From CA DoJ
Your barrel is threaded.
Surrender or die.
More "in your face" from the Tyrant Lockyer. He knows exactly what he's doing--rubbing the noses of those he hates in excrement. And getting off on it.
This reminds me of a quote by my friend Brian Puckett:
"I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply."
Thank God, when they retire, Lockyer's enforcement goons will be able to carry concealed in Maryland (see below)!
Surrender or die.
More "in your face" from the Tyrant Lockyer. He knows exactly what he's doing--rubbing the noses of those he hates in excrement. And getting off on it.
This reminds me of a quote by my friend Brian Puckett:
"I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply."
Thank God, when they retire, Lockyer's enforcement goons will be able to carry concealed in Maryland (see below)!
CCRKBA CHALLENGES MARYLAND ANTI-GUNNER TO APOLOGIZE TO POLICE FOR INSULT
"By insisting that a new federal law that allows retired police officers to carry concealed handguns is 'essentially dangerous,' a Maryland anti-gun crusader has insulted men and women in law enforcement and should immediately apologize, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today."
Sorry, CCRKBA, she’s right—but for the wrong reasons.
It is dangerous to extend rights to one class of citizen—particularly “law enforcement” types—to the exclusion of others.
It is dangerous to presume that rights can be dispensed by government. That reduces them to privileges.
It is dangerous to have the servants tell the master they are in charge of dispensing those privileges—and they reserve them for their own kind.
How many of these cops are out there issuing press releases calling for recognition of our rights, and complaining that having them infringed is an insult to the whole people?
How many would do their utmost to destroy our lives if they found out we were exercising our right to keep and bear arms without “permission”?
Forget Leah Barrett. I’m saying that a new federal law that allows retired police officers to carry concealed handguns is essentially dangerous.
It’s not an insult, it’s a fact.
Don't hold you breath waiting for an apology.
Sorry, CCRKBA, she’s right—but for the wrong reasons.
It is dangerous to extend rights to one class of citizen—particularly “law enforcement” types—to the exclusion of others.
It is dangerous to presume that rights can be dispensed by government. That reduces them to privileges.
It is dangerous to have the servants tell the master they are in charge of dispensing those privileges—and they reserve them for their own kind.
How many of these cops are out there issuing press releases calling for recognition of our rights, and complaining that having them infringed is an insult to the whole people?
How many would do their utmost to destroy our lives if they found out we were exercising our right to keep and bear arms without “permission”?
Forget Leah Barrett. I’m saying that a new federal law that allows retired police officers to carry concealed handguns is essentially dangerous.
It’s not an insult, it’s a fact.
Don't hold you breath waiting for an apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)