Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.

BATFU-Twin* Declares Supremacy Over First Amendment

Weed brewer Vaune Dillmann faces possible sanctions or fines from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau* if he continues to brew and sell beer with bottle caps printed with the label "Try Legal Weed."

Yep, this is what the federal power junkies have nothing better to stone out on, all courtesy of the tone set and authorized by "The Vote Freedom First President."

This is the level of control the Masters strung out on authority abuse insist on. And their message is unmistakeably clear: Obey or be destroyed.

Is it me or is there something in the air today? The absurdist outrages just keep rolling in.

[Via Plug Nickel Times]

* The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, shortened to Tax and Trade Bureau or TTB, is a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury. On January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) split functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), into two new organizations with separate functions. First, the Act established The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) under the Department of the Treasury. Second, the Act transferred certain law enforcement functions from Treasury to the Department of Justice. The ATF was transferred to the Justice Department and was renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Cavalry Arms Update: Taping the Halves Together

At that time the inspector submitted the two halves of the receiver to Firearms Technology Branch. Firearms Technology Branch determined the two halves were a gun as soon as they were in the same location because someone could tape them together and make a firearm that fired at least one round.

First they tell them they can, then they tell them they can't. Then they monitor activities so they know nothing is being hidden, then they raid them for a violation. Jed has the story, direct from AR15.com.

Destroy someone over a technicality they created. Typical for these mutant apes.

So, according to their standard, would anyone possessing a length of pipe, a hammer and a .22 round be guilty of illegal firearms manufacture and possession? I wouldn't want to try it, but I'll bet you could make that meet the criteria, that is, fire "at least one round," and I'll bet it would be a whole lot safer than taping two receiver halves together (what kind of moron would try that?) Heck, a cartridge in a campfire is all you need.

BATFU, under "Maximum Mike" Sullivan and the "Vote Freedom First President" may be out of control with incompetence, but I think the evidence points toward them being drunk on authority, hungry for more, and steeped in hatred and lust for vengeance.

I think the slavering jackals can just about taste the power boost they'll get with a democrat win in November. I think they're so excited they are peeing down their legs.

Sociopaths like these will not back down unless someone makes them. I've been trying to use "the system" to do so, that is, by giving exposure to their thuggery to create public pressure to rein them in, and also by writing my legislators.

I just got back the standard "As you may be aware, President Bush nominated Michael Sullivan" form letter from that dolt George Voinovich. Yeah, no sh**, Georgie-Boy, that's why I wrote you, you dithering "moderate republican" moron.

Unless more gun owners realize the seriousness of this and get involved, the pressure will simply not be there to make them back off--while at the same time, the squeezing from BATFU will increase.

I fear the efforts of people like me to resolve this through the First Amendment are doomed to fail. Which means I fear a reaction from someone who is tired of being pushed based on frustration and anger.

I fear that will provide a convenient excuse for a crushing response. And I fear that's exactly what the malevolent intelligences directing the meathead thugs are counting on.

What I fear most is that "our side" will decide the right prescription for that is more "pragmatism."

SCROTUS "Conservatives" Screw Us Again

“[T]he five most liberal justices voided the conviction of a Pennsylvania gun owner who was charged with a federal crime for buying a handgun after he had served prison time in Japan for gun crimes there. The three conservative judges dissented.

"Federal law makes it illegal for Americans to own firearms once they have been convicted 'in any court' for a serious gun crime. Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law and said it covered convictions in foreign courts.”--The Los Angeles Times

In other words, our "pro-gun" president and the "strict constructionists" on the High Court think it's consistent with the vision of The Founders to strip a human being of unalienable rights because they were caught bringing Bibles to China.

It’s curious that justices who have previously endorsed considering international law in domestic decisions, notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor, sided with the majority, which correctly observed “[Fo]reign convictions may include convictions for conduct that domestic laws would permit" and acknowledged the potential for "convictions from a legal system that are inconsistent with American understanding of fairness."

It was the “conservatives,” particularly Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who insisted that the term “any court” means just that.

Hell, Clarence and Tony, you neocon frauds, the Taliban held court all the time.

In the arcane world of the black robes, citations and incantations trump the reason We the People ceded limited authority to them in the first place, mainly to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." No actions by any branch of government may legitimately result in any other end.

To me, the key words in The Times' piece are: "Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law..."

This isn't the first case where the Bush Justice Department has argued that foreign convictions should stand.

Gun owners put Bush in office. NRA reportedly spent $20 Million convincing them to "vote freedom first." Now this guy wants to change Senate rules to smooth the way for more "conservative" judges so that next time this issue comes up, they'll have the votes to uphold Sharia convictions?

No thanks. This latest outrage has convinced me to defer to Larry Pratt's judgment.

REFERENCES:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

The Majority Opinion

The Dissenting Opinion

Common Ground

"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."

That must be why he is requiring them to disarm to show fealty during the perversely-named "Celebration of American Values" at the annual meeting. And I'm waiting for the first apologist to come in here with a straight face and tell me that's not his choice and not totally within the control of his orders and actions. What's his security detail gonna do--arrest him?

Guess what, gun owners--we don't have a horse in this race. You can rationalize otherwise ad nauseum and that won't change. The reason we don't have a choice is because we have allowed ourselves to be used for years and never insisted on one. The Republicans are counting on gun owners being so desperate and afraid they can present us with anything, and Wayne & Co. will help gussy it up. They've been prepping us to swallow this for some months now.

Oh, but McCain voted against the "assault weapons" ban . True, but more recently than that, he told the Los Angeles Times he "Supports ban on certain assault weapons...McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details."

The AP also reported "McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows."

Vote for McCain and you'll be voting for "The Vote Freedom First President" on steroids. Just look at what's happening now, with Bush appointee "Pro-Gun" Mukasey running DoJ, and Bush/Kennedy/Kerry nominee "Maximum Mike" running BATFU. Yesterday's Olofson outrage happened on his "the buck stops here" watch. They're not even masking the contempt any more. They know they can rely on gun owner Judenrat "leadership" to take whatever they slop on the dish and serve it up to the membership as good for them.

And they're betting you will eat it.

UPDATE: FatWhiteMan has a copy of the Celebration of Amerikan Values disarmament edict email.

And I forgot to add: NRA could always say "No dice," too, if they wanted to. Go speak somewhere else--maybe to La Raza. That'd not only make headlines, the egg on his face would be priceless.

Courageous "gun rights leaders" would. If you think it through, he needs us worse than we need him--unless you're one of those who say we're going to "lose our gun rights," that is, surrender them with a whimper.

Justice for Gun Owners

The Clement brief reflects cowardice on the part of the Justice Department, and a desire for expediency over what is right...

Possibly, but I think it reflects more on the cowardice of gun owners who have enabled the betrayals all these years by continually rewarding the "lesser of two evils" with political power. They've actually got the justice they've earned, and now we all are living with it.

It also reflects on the cynical manipulation by some in convincing others that the "Vote Freedom First President" represented a vote for freedom, as well as gullibility to the point of willful negligence of those desperate to swallow a lie that told them what they wanted to hear.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman here. I think it's past time those with national prominence in the gun rights movement took the gloves off and gave this administration what fer.

I would like to see them take this a step further, and join with Gun Owners of America in calling on Bush to withdraw this brief. And GOA goes a step further by "invit[ing]the National Rifle Association to join it in fighting this anti-gun development."

Can anyone think of a good reason why they wouldn't?

snort...Honoring...snicker...Freedom...guf-FAW!!!

For her efforts to help more Americans live lives of purpose and dignity, I am proud to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Donna Edna Shalala. (Laughter.)

Oh, stop it, "Vote Freedom First President"! You're killin' me!

[Via Defender]

Meanwhile, Over at Faux News

See, if you continually make someone an "unperson", the public that relies on TV for their news will never know about him, and you can self-fulfill the "he'll never win" prophecy. At the party level, I'll not be surprised.

I wonder how they'll ignore him when he's drafted to run as an independent?

I'm also amused by all the "pro-gun" sites making excuses for drinking the GOP Kool-Aid. Guess what, guys--they'll never win with all the pissed off activists out there. The numbers will pan out and you'll see.

Then you can either rail against naive traitors like me who are "throwing away our vote," or you can come to the realization thast the only way to keep a dem out is to abandon the criminal rino gang that long ago abandoned us, and truly "Vote Freedom First." Otherwise, it'll be you throwing away your vote.

I hope my hijacking scenario comes true. Meet our demands or feel our pain.

Oh--but then we'll lose our Second Amendment rights.

Any coward who says that has already surrendered them.

In the Spirit of Bipartisanship

From Sherrod Brown:

Thank you for expressing support for an amendment to S.2483, the National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act, that would allow loaded firearms in United Stated National Parks.

Passing legislation that allows states to override federal jurisdiction over carrying firearms in federal parks sets a precedent that implies it may be appropriate for the federal government to override state jurisdiction over other gun carrying laws. I do not think it is appropriate for Congress to override the separate jurisdictions of state and federal government. As I consider the implications of promoting state jurisdiction over gun carrying laws in federal parks, I will keep the views expressed in your letter in mind.

Hmmm:

...implies it may be appropriate for the federal government to override state jurisdiction over other gun carrying laws...

Well, let's see:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now consider William Rawle, whose "View of the Constitution" was the constitutional law text used at Harvard and Dartmouth until the mid-19th century. George Washington wanted Rawle to be the first Attorney General.

His take on the 2nd Amendment:

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

So yeah, no sh**, Sherrod.

But don't be too hard on him. In the spirit of "bipartisanship," democrat Brown is simply supporting the position of our republican "Vote Freedom First President."

I wonder if "this administration" feels the same way about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

And they say there are no stupid questions.

Proof That Bloomberg's Not "Anti-Gun"

Machine Gun-Toting Officers To Patrol NYC Subway...

"It's going to make me feel safer, much safer, yes it will."

Now hold on just a dang minute here.

I thought the purpose of these "bullet hoses" was to kill as many people as quickly as possible. How the hell are you going to deploy them in a crowded subway station, or sardine-packed subway car, with requisite precision and without massive "friendly fire collateral damage"?

And what's with names like "Hercules teams"? Kind of a comic book action hero mindset there, don't you think? In an elite "we have huge balls" 'roid rage kind of way. Just what we need more of for New York "Only Ones."

$151 million from Homeland Security? Bender's outfit? I thought I felt the "Vote Freedom First President's" touch on this.

I know "they hate us because we're free" and all, but I'm starting to wonder just how much "freer" the government intends to make us.

What with Bloomberg's and Ray Kelly's demonstrable love of high tech firepower, I don't suppose trusting the true "first responders" is an option...?

John Kerry's Friend

John Kerry, who has an F rating from the NRA and an F rating from GOA, is urging Idaho Senators to drop their hold on his friend Michael Sullivan's confirmation as director of the ATF.

So Kerry's for him, as is Ted Kennedy and Mr. Vote Freedom First himself--you know, the guy gun owners put over the top in the last two elections.

If "Maximum Mike" is confirmed, expect more of the same abuse.

This is bigger than who heads BATFU. The message to Republicans needs to be loud and clear. The GOP keep expecting us to put up with their betrayals, and they're offering us front runners with a history of doing just that. If they want to lose really big in '08, just keep it up.

In the mean time, as a token gesture of gratitude for past support and good will for the future, we need to make it known we expect them to oppose this nomination.

Of course, if it's just a few of us saying this, it will amount to nothing. You have written your senators, right? (I eagerly await the first late-comer to give the "but they're Democrats" excuse...click this link to see how to address that)

And by the way--how come our self-proclaimed leaders from Fairfax are nowhere near the fray, and purposefully quiet about the whole thing?

A Creed Not Subject to Debate

Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes? [More]

The paradox of "progressivism" is that its goal is to transform the New World into the Old.

I first heard the absurd "Our diversity is our strength" assurance from that idiot tool of Swamp interests, the "Vote Freedom First President."

Opposite Day...

Ignorance is Strength...

How YOU Can Be a Part of History

I first told you about Academics for the Second Amendment here.

They need financial help to fund their legal work on behalf of Heller. As we've just seen over the weekend, the novel betrayal by the "Vote Freedom First President" has made the need for compelling scholarship even more critical.

The work these men are doing on our behalf can be all consuming--they are devoting their time, their labor and their expertise to help bring us the best outcome possible.

We can continue to stand by as spectators, or we can do something to pitch in. Please help out by sending a donation and by spreading the word.

Wouldn't it be nice if our side prevails to know that you helped make it happen? Wouldn't it be pathetic if we lose and you know you didn't?

To reiterate who these guys are and their qualifications:

David T. Hardy
Clayton Cramer
Joseph E. Olson

[Via Greg L]

Ron Paul on the DC Gun Ban

The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.

Some readers have sent me the above title link outlining Dr. Paul's position on the DC gun ban.

Yes, it's absolutely right on and what I would expect, but it's an old post and not what I'm talking about:

I think it's important that he address the "Vote Freedom First President's" DoJ brief, give his opinion of that, and tell what he would do if he were in charge.

Fred has. At least the first part.

That question should be put to all candidates representing themselves to gun owners as our pals, but that won't happen as long as such expectations are confined to lowly blogs...

Part of God's Plan

An American pastor who was sentenced to more than three years in Russian prison on Monday for smuggling hunting ammunition into Russia is confident that "what’s happening to him is part of God’s plan"...

Perhaps.

But it's also part of the plan that you're now a convicted felon, that is, a prohibited person, albeit it is a foreign felony. Say, couldn't promoting Christianity count as a felony with our good friends in China and Saudi Arabia?

No matter, because it's part of the "Vote Freedom First President's" plan that all foreign felonies be used to disqualify American citizens from firearms ownership.

And it's part of "conservative" Supreme Court "Justice's" plans that such foreign laws apply here. *

And it's part of NRA management's plan that all felons be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for "illegal" gun posession.

So much for the original plan, at least as far as the Framers were concerned. As for God's plan for Mr. Miles, I'll leave that between them.

* Ain't it curious how the "liberal" justices ruled in Small v US? And we're told the reason we must hold our noses and vote for McCain is because of his judicial appointments?

A Really Wrong Turn

A U.S. soldier being held by Mexican authorities said he accidentally drove across the border with guns, knives and ammunition while looking for a place to park.

Congratulations, Spc. Torres.

"The Vote Freedom First President" and his fawning cronies say a foreign conviction should put you on their prohibited persons list.

Aren't you glad you risked your life overseas to defend American "freedom"?

Hey, if you're not with us, you're against us!

Top-Down Subversion (Yawn)

"They are anticipating something drastic." [Watch]

I'll say.

The head of "Homeland Security," abetted by A-raters, says illegals have earned the right to vote.

CDC is doing its utmost to weaken our immune system against the biggest public health threat.

Prozi media applies Alinsky Rule 5 to any raising a flag (oh, and thanks for once more confirming Carrol Quigley's cynical "throw the rascals out" quote, "Vote Freedom First President"!)

Thank goodness we have Google Trends to show us what our countrymen feel is significant enough to merit their attention:

Any bets on how those people represented in the trend lines feel about "gun control"?
[Via Andrea Shea King]

"Vote Freedom First" President Speaks FOR "the Record"

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC Circuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.

And this is filed in the name of the Solicitor General. [More]

The brief is here.

I trust no one is surprised by this fraudulent neocon pawn in the White House? You shouldn't be. They made their position crystal clear back when then-Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted briefs arguing that "the Second Amendment [is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

And naturally, government--the body the Second Amendment was intended as a people's check and balance against--is the arbiter of who and what. We've just seen the path for half of the pincer cleared--this is the other. They've been telegraphing their moves while we squabble over arcane details.

Anyone surprised by this latest rape attempt hasn't been paying attention. Republican Kool-Aid (who else you gonna vote for?) has a tendency to blur the vision and hearing. Mix that with a preponderance of denial and just about any sleight of law is possible.

Think about the language: "types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was what they said back when they asked the court not to hear Emerson. Here's what they say now:

Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms. Those statutes include restrictions on private possession of types of firearms that are particularly susceptible to criminal misuse. The United States has a substantial interest in the constitutionality and effective implementation of those laws.

At least they're consistent.

Tell me--with a straight face--that can't--and won't--be interpreted to mean any type of firearm, depending on what a particular jurisdiction thinks it can get away with, and that stare decisis won't then be used to bind communities where such sentiment does not prevail. That's what the federal courts do.

I see people already commenting that this or that Republican presidential candidate would not allow this on his watch. I hope they're right, but now it's time to find out. Anyone with contacts in any of the campaigns, let's make a concerted effort to see which one(s) will issue a clear, immediate and unequivocal denunciation of this latest treacherous act of sabotage--and pledge to not only rein in the "Justice" Department, but to start the process to repeal the very laws we have to march through bloody hell to take to court--only to have the doors slammed in our faces when we get there.

UPDATE: Uh-oh. I'm in trouble now...

Freedom's Just Another Word

An American pastor walked free Tuesday after spending almost five months in a Russian jail for bringing hunting-rifle ammunition into the country.

No, not quite free.

If everything works out according to plan, he should now be a "prohibited person," ineligible to ever touch a firearm again.

At least that's what the "Vote Freedom First President's" lawyers have argued in the past.

Too bad for the pastor that he wasn't a rich and famous anti-gun actor instead of just an ordinary citizen like you and me.

"Willful" Disregard

"Our position is that laws are made by Congress, not bureaucratic agencies."

Unless that Congress is willfully neglecting its duties, the Judiciary is willfully ignoring the Constitution, and the "Vote Freedom First" Administration is willfully ignoring our rights.

If BATFU can redefine one word, what's to stop them or some other agency from redefining others? How does it go? Oh, yeah:

WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH...

[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]