Take Back Your Government

Tuesday night, I spoke before the Bonner County Republican Party Central Committee (all elected county officials in Bonner county are Republicans right now), in support of a resolution (which I had a small part in writing) supporting the second amendment and:

"Strongly urging" the county commission (all commissioners are Republicans) to enact an ordnance

1. Declaring all federal firearms laws in violation of the second amendment

2. Requiring the Sheriff (also a Republican) to refuse to enforce, or allow to be enforced, and to prevent enforcement in the county; any laws abrogating, violating, or substantially limiting our natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and others.

This resolution was adopted by acclimation by the county party, and was forwarded to the Idaho state Republican party, so that they can include it (and the similar resolutions of all 44 counties in the state) in the statewide resolution of the Idaho Republican party (which will be substantially similar):

Quote:

A Resolution of the Bonner County Republican Central Committee to be known as
The Second Amendment Resolution 

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution guarantees the natural and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and 

WHEREAS, Only laws made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution are deemed valid, and 

WHEREAS, The State and The People of Idaho possess and retain all powers not granted to the federal government, including the powers mentioned in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution, and 

WHEREAS, Bonner County being a duly recognized political subdivision of the state of Idaho, has the authority of the State of Idaho to honor Constitutional laws and disregard laws not made “in Pursuance of” the Constitution, 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Bonner County Republican Central Committee strongly urges the Bonner County Commissioners to enact the following Ordinance; following the example of the Founders and many States, Sheriff’s and local jurisdictions throughout the United States to wit: 

AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.” 

To prevent federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BONNER COUNTY DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1: The Bonner County Board of Commissioners finds that: 

A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “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.” 

B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment 

SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 

A. The Bonner County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county. 

B. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE 

A. This act takes effect upon approval by the Bonner County Board of Commissioners

We have been winning this issue on the federal issue for a number of years. With Heller and McDonald; and the great work of Alan Gura (of Gura and Posesskey), Alan Gottleib of the Second  Amendment Foundation, the NRA, JPFO, and others; we are going to keep winning this in federal courts.

But we have to do more. We have to make it clear that we will no longer accept the ratcheting violation of our rights and our liberty.

Further, the most restrictive laws, and the biggest dangers aren't at the federal level; they're state by state, and in some cases city by city. The way to win the country is to win state by state. The way to win each state, is to win county by county, and city by city. 

We need to win these issues locally. We need to take back our government. 

Yes, the Second Amendment really means what it says... and that means you too Chicago

This past Monday, Samuel Alito, writing for the majority (with separate concurring opinions from Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) in the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago and Village of Morton Grove; handed down what in 30 years will I believe, be held as one of (or perhaps half of a pair of, or the second in a series of) the most significant rulings in the courts history, not just for the right to keep and bear arms, but for the rights of all people in this nation.

I had meant to get this post out yesterday, but I had to take the time to read the entire opinion... all 214 pages of it... and think about it for a bit.

This judgment is notable, both for what it does, and for what it does not do; and I want to go into that in some depth... and I want to go into some of the background and issues surrounding the decision that aren't necessarily about the right to keep and bear arms

However, that is going to get long.... and if you aren't interested in constitutional law and the nature and exercise of the rights and powers of the states, it's going to be boring. There's only so much you can do to make enumeration and separation of powers issues over more than two hundred years, all that interesting.

Note: Also, for those of you who DO closely follow con law, this is going to be a gross simplification in some ways. I don't have time to write a book here, and a book is what it would take to cover this comprehensively (actually several... there are a few out there already, and Heller and its progeny are sure to generate more).

At any rate, I'm going to break it out into another posts, and I'll update this post with a link when I finish the other one.

... I should warn you, I'm already 5,000 words in, and I'm probably less than half done...


McDonald vs. Chicago is the first major gun rights case brought before the supreme court under the clarified Heller doctrine, to wit:

The right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes is an individual right, possessed by all citizens and lawful residents of this country (provided this right has not been statutorily stripped from them, with due process of law); and the core of that right, is the fundamental right to defense of self, and others.

Actually, McDonald is a bit more than just "first"... In fact, the case was prepared in advance, and filed immediately on the handing down of the Heller ruling; by the lead counsel on the Heller case, Alan Gura.

The issue at hand in Heller was to affirm and clarify the basic right; something which those on the left in general, and in the gun control lobby in particular, had been trying to deny for something like the last 40 years.

Note: The modern gun control movement as currently constituted really began in the late 60s; roughly coinciding with accelerating decay of civil order and rise in civil unrest, the rise of the drug and counterculture, and dramatically rising crime rates.

More than anything else, it was the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King that kick-started the gun control movement as it exists today.

The gun control movement in the U.S. as a whole has its roots in racial discrimination against immigrants in the pre-civil war northern cites, and blacks in the post civil war south.

Up until the late 1950s, the left as a whole actually advocated gun ownership, as a bulwark against the state... a position generally ascribed these days to the "far right"; but as the left post 1932 increasingly BECAME the state, their position on civilian non-police gun ownership changed.

The issue at hand in McDonald is substantially identical to Heller, with a crucial difference we'll discuss in a moment; that of incorporation of the second amendment against state and local governments, as other rights enumerated in the bill of rights have been.

In Heller, the substance and nature of the right were affirmed. However, though the assertion of the right is very clear; it's application is potentially limited.

Because the Heller case pertained to a federal enclave (Washington D.C. is not a part of any state. It is a federal enclave. Precedent in DC cases applies federally, but not necessarily to issues in the several states), the ruling only explicitly applied to the federal government.

In principle the right could be asserted against the states, or it could not be... depending on judicial interpretation. Either way a judge decided, it would almost be certain to be appealed... as indeed it was (in at least four cases so far, all of which were delayed pending the McDonald ruling).

Also, Heller left various questions open to interpretation, such as the standard of review for laws pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms, and whether interest balancing tests could be made.. or for that matter just what types of laws would be acceptable short of outright bans on firearms in the home (which were explicitly forbidden).

In Mondays decision on McDonald, it was affirmed (quite strongly), that the rights protected by the second amendment are equal in stature to the rights protected by the first amendment, and all the others.

In both the majority opinion, and the concurrences, the court made it explicit that the protections afforded by the second amendment applied against the state. Further, they made it clear that a strict standard of review was to be applied to any law regarding the right to keep and bear arms (though they do not by any means disallow all regulation. In both Heller and McDonald, it is acknowledged that some regulation of any right can be acceptable, but must be strictly scrutinized).

There is still one set of questions to be resolved, what exact restrictions against keeping and bearing arms will be acceptable under this standard of review. Just as there are many limitations against speech permitted by current jurisprudence, including many which probably should not be allowed under the constitution (such as most of what is called "campaign finance reform"); there will likely still be substantial restrictions allowed by the court. In any case, it will be years... likely decades... before the whole issue is settled law, and in the mean time, there will be a lot of contradiction and chaos.

The fight is certainly not over... in fact it's really just getting started.

This is where we get into the theoretical discussion about the constitution, so I think I'm going to end here and pick it up in the next, much longer, post.

You don't get to decide that sir

(note: this video is from 2007, but the enabling legislation for the proposal is currently before congress)

My father has the same name as I do. He has been on the no fly list, because he is a convicted felon, drug smuggler, murderer, and was once associated with the IRA. He had to sue to have his name removed from the list.

I have had firearms transactions held up because of this. I have been held for "additional security screening" because of this.

I have every right to firearms, and that list is an unconstitutional infringement on peoples rights to freedom of travel, nevermind using it to restrict peoples access to firearms.

You know what that list actually is? It's names. Just names. Including the names of congressmen, and law enforcement officers, and thousands of other innocent people who HAVE been stopped for no good reason.

No probable cause. No process for putting people on the list. No process for taking them off the list. Thus far, the only disclosures about the list, or removals from the list have been at the direct intervention of federal judges, cabinet secretaries, and members of congress.

No, you don't get to decide that sir. You do not have that right. You WILL NOT have that right.

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

Earlier today, I participated in a conference call with Missouri governor Matt Blunt, on the subject of gun rights, John McCain, and Barack Obama.

You may recall that recently, the Obama campaign worked directly with democratic party elected officials in the state of Missouri; engaging prosecutors and county sheriffs, to intimidate local media outlets, and prevent them from taking advertising criticizing Barack Obama.

Governor Blunt delivered a scathing rebuke of this blatant ethical misconduct (and violation of at least federal election regulations, if not federal law):

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s
Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Governor Blunt, who has decided not to seek re-election; has been campaigning in Missouri, and across the country, for gun rights, and for John McCain.

On the call with me were the organizers, Bryan Pick and John Henke from QandO.net, Jonathan Blank of the Cato Institute, Nicky Fellenzer from The Liberty Zone, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute and DaveKopel.com, David Codrea of The War On Guns, JR of A Keyboard and a .45, Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell, Cam Edwards of NRA News and the Cam and Company radio show, Bitter of The Bitchgirls, Dustin of Dustins Gun Blog, John Donovan of The Donovan, and Caleb of Call me Ahab.

It has been agreed that we can release the full audio of our conference call with the governor. I've put it up here:

Sorry, I cant get the embeddable streaming widget to work. Here's a link to the full file, and an embedded player that works, at archive.org.

Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

I have edited nothing from Governor Blunts comments; only the introductions and some chat between my fellow bloggers at the beginning and end of the call.

If time permits, I will post a transcript later.

The Better Bumper Sticker... and a bit more

So inspired by Rivrdog today, which do you think would make the better bumper sticker or t-shirt.

The Second Amendment: In case they "forget" the other ones

Or...

The Second Amendment: Defending the other ones since 1791

I had originally written "the other nine", and I still think it sounds better, but it's technically inaccurate since there are 27 amendments; even if most of those not in the bill of rights are essentially procedural in nature, not necessarily related to fundamental rights and liberties...

...Well that, and the fact that I'm fundamentally opposed to:

• the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments: Because they were unnecessary.
  
  Once slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th amendment, then all citizens who were of age (21 at the time), of all races, sexes, backgrounds, prior conditions of servitude etc... should have automatically and clearly been allowed to vote under the 14th amendment, without any requirement for literacy or taxes.
  
  Any state laws to the contrary should have been struck down by the supreme court under the 14th amendment (and in fact they have been ever since. The 15th and 19th are generally ignored, and the 24th is usually invoked with dubious justification).
  
  
• the 16th Amendment: Because it establishes a de-facto slavery to the government.
  
  Some taxes are of course necessary, however taxes on incomes, earnings, wages, and assets are fundamentally theft or slavery.
  
  Additionally, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, and was enacted fraudulently; and has since its enactment been enforced fraudulently as well, because it authorizes taxes on income not on wages.
  
  Income, earnings, and wages are three different things by law and by centuries of precedent, but our government has chosen to treat the 16th amendment as if it authorizes all three. A tax on wages is involuntary servitude without compensation, the very definition of slavery.
  
  
• the 17th amendment: Because it fundamentally unbalanced our system of checks and balances on state and federal power in favor of the federal government.
  
  The house of representatives was meant to represent the interests of the people as individuals, and the senate was meant to represent the interests of each state. This is why representatives are apportioned by population, but senators are apportioned two per state.
  
  We were founded as a representative federated republic; and direct election of senators has essentially removed the middle out of those three; much to the detriment of our nation.
  
  
• the 18th and 21st amendments: Because they address an issue that is not properly a matter of law, but of morality. Passing the 18th amendment was against the principles we founded our government on, and should never have happened. The 21st therefore shouldn't have happened either.
  
  Additionally, the 21st established in law the ability for the states to make their own prohibitions, which shouldn't have been a matter for the federal constitution to address, unless it was to prohibit such state laws to be made.
  
  
• the 22nd amendment: Because term limits are also fundamentally wrong under our system of government.
  
  If the people are stupid enough to elect a scumbag over and over again; so long as that scumbag hasn't been disqualified by unlawful actions, then they should be able to run as often as they like.
  
  In engineering (and in the military, which share a similar mindset towards problem solving), this type of law has a saying about it: this is a technical solution to a non-technical problem (also called a hardware solution to a software problem and other variations)
  
  The problem is that the people are electing people they "shouldn't." The solution is not to make electing those people illegal; it's to educate the electorate better so they won't want to elect people they shouldn't.
  
  
• The 23rd amendment: Because the District of Columbia either IS a state, or it is not; you can't have it half way.
  
  Giving DC representation in congress, electors in presidential elections, or any kind of position on the national stage is ridiculous. We don't allow New York City to have electors separate from it's state government, why would we allow Washington to do so.
  
  This is not disenfranchisement, this is clearly a structural issue. A single city should not be given the status of a state in any way. We should either leave DC without representation (including in elections), or we should make it a state, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of the people within.
  
  
• the 27th amendment: Because it is not a structural issue, which is what the constitution and it's amendments are intended to address.
  
  Congress has the power to set it's own rules, and it's own policies, procedures, and compensation under article one section six. There is nothing in the constitution which prevents them from changing those rules once established.
  
  This amendment was essentially grandstanding by politicians saying "see, we're so committed to "good government" and "reform" that we can't vote ourselves a pay raise without an election first".
  
  I would have no issue with this amendment if it were simply a matter of law and congressional procedure. It should never have been proposed or passed as an amendment.
  

Man... all that from thinking about bumperstickers.

A Statement of Position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The recent Parker decision, has as usual brought out the opponents of the second amendment; those who would repeal it, or make it's repeal effective through the disingenuous twisting of language.

These people must be opposed, refuted, educated, and actively resisted at all turns, by all free men; as must all attempts to abrogate our essential rights and freedoms.

The second amendment has a very clear, and very important purpose:

All men by their essential nature have the right to defend themselves and their property from harm or oppression, be it by other individuals, or by the state; through whatever means necessary up to and including lethal force.

That right is fundamental to our nature as sentient persons. No law or amendment granted that right. No repeal or passage of any amendment may abrogate that right. No repeal or passage of any law may take away that right. No government or society may say that right is invalid, unnecessary, or “uncivilized”. That right is absolute.

The second amendment recognizes that right, and specifically limits the governments ability to attempt to infringe upon it.

Some may say that such a right is unnecessary, or outdated, or that the constitution and second amendment did not recognize and should not be construed as protecting that right.

They are wrong; by ignorance, by denial, or by design.

If you want proof you need not look far...

Sudan, Rwanda, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Congo, Germany, Armenia, Russia... The only thing that ensures against genocide, is an armed, and educated populace. The Warsaw ghetto should be all the example you ever need.

It is our duty as free men, and as citizens, to ensure that our populace remains both educated, and armed.