Category Archives: Gun Laws

The US Constitution Is As Plain As the Federalists (Who Wrote It)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES FOR the individual a right to keep and bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. A plain and solid reading of the language our forefathers fought and died many of them to leave us as our greatest American inheritance is not solely a restriction on the federal government. It is a restriction on ALL governing bodies. As one will note upon reading it, there are no local, state, federal or UN qualifiers. This amendment fears and contradicts ALL levels of government.

"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."

Arguments about the Second Amendment are always exercises in etymology, and turn on lynchpin definitions of a single word or another. We should point out that the Federalist concepts would only allow the phrase "well regulated" to mean, and thus it still means simply—prepared and quickly ready for action,—not to be confused with some knee jerk variation of half-blind power-seizing heavily controlled by a government deconstuctionist's impulsive reworking of the term. What would be the point in that?

A "free" state standing is the form of government established by the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. If not, pray tell, what on earth were they trying to establish? Many have noted that the Second Amendment makes itself plain as to where the right to keep and bear arms resides: It is a right of "the people."

We must agree. For we notice that the writers acknowledged three different entities when describing to each the powers that are called into existence with the ratification of the founding document of this nation.

The entity designated the states is not the primary issue in the Second Amendment. Enumerated elsewhere are the powers of the states. The same holds true for any specified powers the governing bodies of the United States of America are called to exercise. So let's be clear. This specific power of the right to bear arms is given specifically to The People all within the sensibilities informing the federalist republic the founders struggled to invent.

Man is bestowed by God the Creator of Natural Rights the primary right to defend himself, his family, and his community against aggression to the quiet enjoyment of these rights, even against an unjust government, foreign or domestic, as it infringes his own natural liberty. And when utilized as an effective tool in the sporting conservation of natural wildlife while providing food for the tables of tens of thousands of numbers of families, it defies common sense to consider abridging this very sacred right, a right when infringed is the very definition of social oppression.

The people of this country are guaranteed quiet enjoyment of their liberties with the responsibilities they command. We are taught, or at least, we once were taught never to sacrifice liberty for some temporary security, for he who does deserves neither liberty nor security.

The Second Amendment reinforces the principle the Declaration of Independence embraces wherein it was recognized that We the People have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to resist by a show of arms when specifically an oppressive government has breeched the peaceful call of liberty incumbent to a Free State.

All manners of public airing and effective redress of grievances become ineffective or unavailable in the case of an immediate threat against our life, liberty, and property, regardless of what Karl Marx or Mao Tze-Tong believed. This is the argument in a nutshell. One does not have a viable "right" unless he also has the ability to protect and defend it. We must agree, emphatically, as Americans, as rationalists, as seekers of liberty—the anti-constitutionists of whatever political persuasion have no standing until a greater power arrives.

Doesn't the recent Norwegian tragedy with all its ready-made hyperbole and suspicious evidence of the killer's ideological pedigree prove our point, all the more plainly, one more time. Norway's population has no access to guns, not even the police. And yet...

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI

ACTING ON BEHALF OF A GEORGIA resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their "territory," according to the complaint.

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

"Schrader's dilemma," explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

"No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way," he added. "Mr. Schrader's case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust governmentbureaucrats to enforce gun laws."

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer's bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn't happen to you.

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care. We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will
stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Of Gun Laws And Purse Strings

ONCE AGAIN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has left the black community defenseless against armed gangs and thugs who terrorize and plunder law-abiding Americans.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Gun rights groups hailed the ruling as a seminal moment in their ongoing fight to roll back restrictive gun-control legislation. As far as the National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned, McDonald settles the matter once and for all: "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period." Be that as it may, the McDonald decision is really a victory for and about black Americans. At least it should be.

Read it all.

Considering The Second Amendment

Second Amendment Crackpots, Cracked like the Liberty Bell
Second Amendment and the Liberty Bell[/caption]As breaking news that an illegal gun ring has been snared in a sting by the Feds hits the media wires as I write this with the knowledge that the Supreme Court will soon address the right to bear arms issue again in a case from Chicago, it is more important than ever to remember why the Second Amendment is important, even precious to Americans who understand the consequences of ignoring the much maligned US Constitution.

We who appreciate the wisdom of our learned and conceptual founders have no choice but to oppose those in favor of touchy feely gun eradication laws, which leaves us helpless to defend ourselves and our families from intruders of every stripe, and worse, creating an environment where the rise of an oppressive fascist government intent on enslaving or abandoning its citizenry is inevitable.

Mari Thompson of Second Amendment Sisters offers a sterling remembrance.

A COMMON ERROR in Constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine the document in the context of its original meaning. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, suggesting to him that when examining and interpreting the Constitution, he should study the time in which the document was written, and “carry himself back to that time.”

This would seem to be good advice for today. The recent Heller vs. DC case might have gotten more votes in favor of Heller had the Supreme Court of today done just that.

We certainly know that during the time of the writing of the Constitution, every male citizen above the age of 16 was counted as a member of the militia. All males were assumed to own weapons (which most of them paid for), and be ready to muster when the call came. Of course, the first call for the militia was to fight the British in what has become known as the American Revolution.

Today, as during the early days of this country, the people are still the militia, in the usage of the word at the time of our founding. The actual purpose of having armed citizens was to guard against an overbearing government. In the inimitable words of our National Spokesperson, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, when speaking to Senator Chuck Schumer and other members of a Senate committee: “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect all of us (the people) from all of you (the politicians).”

We now live in a country that has been promised “Hope and Change” by our new president. Since we have no details of what “hope” and what “change” he was speaking about during the election, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. We must be ever more alert to signs of any government entity trying to erode the God-given and constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms and all other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mari Thompson is President of SAS, and is also one of its founding members.

An American Dilemma: Is Civil War Looming?

The American Genius

DOES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA need a drastic realignment of ideas and physical framework to deter a second American Revolution or Civil War and provide direction for the coming age where complexity is the norm? Yes. That is the opinion outlined in the penetrating Ludwig Von Mises Institute essay "On the Impossibility of Limited Government" described in more stringent detail in a most riveting book all patriots and political junkies should find time to absorb—Reassessing the Presidency:

"At the outset of the American "experiment," writes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is—an error."

Read it all. It's not what you think.

Students Unprepared For Adulthood

From the NRA today:

Gun Debate Tradeshow
Michael Kiefer, of DeFuniak Springs, Fla., checks out a display of rifles at the Rock River Arms booth during the 35th annual SHOT Show, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, in Las Vegas. The world's largest gun and outdoor trade show runs through Friday. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

I have heard the arguments against extending Right-to-Carry onto college campuses before, but I've never heard them stated in such a way that belittles college students. In the Tulsa World, columnist Wayne Greene (who makes some pretty ridiculous arguments himself) quotes a "former academic" named Mark Taylor, who says college students "are unprepared for dealing with adult decisions of any kind, and especially with decisions of life and death."

The columnist writes that Taylor believes overprotective parents "have produced a generation of students who don't know how to fend for themselves but believe that they are tremendously important."

That argument is so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin, and if I were a college student I'd find it incredibly insulting. Are these the same students who are taking part in ROTC programs at colleges around the country? What about the military veterans who are going to school on the GI Bill? Are they "unprepared for dealing with adult decisions of any kind"? What about non-traditional students who live off-campus but drive in for evening classes? Do they not know how to "fend for themselves"?

Right-to-Carry holders are, statistically, far more law abiding than the general population. Forty states in this country have or shall-issue Right-to-Carry laws, and not one state has moved to repeal their statute. Right-to-Carry holders aren't the problem—and in fact are part of the solution when it comes to public safety.

What will the effeminate Left not do to stop law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in the face of flagrant aggression? And yet when these very same law-abiding citizens try, under the aegis of well-founded law, to throw the book at murderous criminals, these criminals are coddled and supplied excuses for their vicious behavior. The fix is in, folks. There are people alive and in charge, or close to those who are, who desire and foment for a world on fire, whose secret and not so secret actions are slipped into our daily news along with impassioned pleas of peace, no less. Know your enemy. His name is Unsubstantiated Peace or Total Submission, so roll the dice or take your pick.

Going Through These Things Twice

World In Trance

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE, and it was happening again last week. An obscure man whose only tools were his brain and his pen was shaping the minds of men who shape the world. Winston Churchill had made one of this man's books "must" reading for the British War Cabinet and for Dominion Premiers who visited London last May. British liberals, scorned and derided by this man, had risen against him. A later book by the same man had just begun to make a stir in the U.S. The man is Leopold Schwarzschild, a German Jew who once was also a German idealist and democrat. The book that gripped Winston Churchill is World in Trance, a burning, raging indictment of the Versailles era— "years of lofty dreaming and low demagogy—the era of the empty phrase—the age of complacency—the years of self-destruction." When the book was published in 1943, it got almost no notice. But the book and its current sequel, Primer of the Coming World (Knopf), were news last week because:

  • The Allied attitudes and beliefs which these books examine are still alive in the world, and must soon be put again to the test of peace.
  • The German formula for recovery and reaggression after World War I, also examined by these books, is still the German formula, as no less an authority than Joseph Goebbels made clear last week when he asked the world to believe that the Germans are decent and worthy people who mean well.

The Myth.

Author Schwarzschild left Germany in 1933, moved from Paris to New York in 1940. At root, his thesis is simple: the Old Adam is, always has been and always will be uppermost in mankind. People have not improved much in the past, they are not improving now, and only fools assume the contrary. Woodrow Wilson and all those caught with him in the perfectionist dream of the Versailles years did assume the contrary, and led the world into chaos.

"Never again," says Schwarzschild, "must we succumb to the myth that power and armaments and compulsion are of themselves sinful. . . . All order, all civilization, all law and dignity, rest on the existence of weapons and power." The Illusion. Author Schwarzschild's No. 2 thesis is that Germans have more than their share of the Old Adam in them. Woodrow Wilson, believing that the postwar Germans of the new republic would be good and deserving democrats; the British, playing balance-of-power politics and encouraging a strong, pre-Hitler Germany; the assorted liberals, radicals, plain men of good will who trusted the Weimar Republic—all these, says Schwarzschild, were members of Germany's "foreign legions," and their illusion was part of the era's tragic foolery.

Of Versailles' Big Four—Wilson, Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, Georges Clemenceau—'only Clemenceau really impressed Schwarzschild. The old Frenchman's attitude, denounced the world over as a fatally stupid and selfish policy, was actually, says Schwarzschild, the only sensible policy. Only the Tiger understood that Germany was a jungle to be controlled for France's sake and the world's. Says Schwarzschild:

"For those who knew the German people, their longing for democracy was always extremely doubtful. In the field of foreign policy [Hitlerism] was only the continuation of previous German policy. Even if the Officers' Corps and their hangers-on had not made an alliance with Hitler...Germany would have inevitably steered her course toward the restoration of her overwhelming military power and eventually toward war."

The Remedy.

Schwarzschild's remedy is armed internationalism—total, indefinite occupation of Germany by U.S., British and Russian troops (600,000 would do the job, he thinks). Furthermore, Germany must be deprived of every means of making war, of preparing for war, or of teaching war. Says Schwarzschild:

"Nothing, positively nothing [must] survive which can materially or spiritually become the nucleus of a new military renaissance...not just for a few years, but for a minimum of 50 to 60. By A.D. 2000, the last Germans who have ever led or trained troops or manufactured weapons will have died."

The Rebuttal.

HG Wells called Schwarzschild "superficially intelligent and massively stupid." Journalist Michael Foot, called Trance "a facile, scintillating treatise which...has received applause from those weary brains which prefer the dismal past to the adventurous future."

Leopold Schwarzschild's appeal to ordinary folks is about as simple as the Old Adam. To them, he sounds like a man telling them what they already know, deep down: that they aren't really as noble, great and good as their Fourth of July orators make out. And that is at least half the story.

Keep this in mind when the Code Pinkers and Obama's minions come to take away your guns just as the Arabs and other distorted Muslims are ready to conquer the world with suicide bombers, Beslan-like motifs, or the explosion of sets of buildings at a time.