<![CDATA[DefensiveCarry Concealed Carry Forum - The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/ Discussions of the Second Amendment, Federal State and local legislation related to our gun rights. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:42:07 GMT vBulletin 480 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/images/misc/rss.jpg <![CDATA[DefensiveCarry Concealed Carry Forum - The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/ <![CDATA[Obama's Homeland Security: Blame Guns for Fort Hood, Not Islamic Extremism - 6]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91336-obamas-homeland-security-blame-guns-fort-hood-not-islamic-extremism-6-a.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:13:58 GMT November 19, 2009
Obama's Homeland Security: Blame Guns for Fort Hood, Not Islamic Extremism - 6
by John Haughey

Jim Kouri in a Nov. 11 column in Mens News Daily examines how anti-Second Amendment Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's comments following the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood by an American-born Muslim, serving as U.S. Army psychiatrist, has inspired a great deal of angst from wide range of sources -- and spurred calls for her to step down.

Kouri notes that one of those groups is a non-profit organization devoted to national security -- MoveAmericaForward.org. "Napolitano noticeably demonstrates that she is incapable of protecting America from the threat of Islamic terrorism and illegal aliens, therefore she must be fired immediately if our country is going to be safe in the coming years," according to officials at MoveForwardAmerica.org, an organization that supports the U.S. military as well as law enforcement officials.

"MoveForwardAmerica.org notes Napolitano’s statements and actions are examples of her incompetence to serve as the top person at Homeland Security when she wrongly claimed that the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada to launch the attack, even though not one of the radical Muslims traveled through our northern border," Kouri writes.

Meanwhile, he adds, Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-OK) said in a statement that Napolitano is "out of touch with mainstream America" if she believes that returning war veterans and people who believe in the Second Amendment pose a terrorism threat to the nation.

"Like most Oklahomans I was amazed at her statements and actions," Fallin said. "First she approved a report that implied members of the armed forces returning from combat would follow in the footsteps of Timothy McVeigh. Then she insulted our friends in Canada by falsely claiming the 9/11 terrorists came from there. Is this really a person that should be speaking on behalf of our nation?"

For more, go to: http://mensnewsdaily.com/newswax/200...hood-comments/


Obama's Homeland Security: Blame Guns for Fort Hood, Not Islamic Extremism | Outdoor Life ]]> cbp210 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91336-obamas-homeland-security-blame-guns-fort-hood-not-islamic-extremism-6-a.html TN: Idiot Judge strikes down restaurant carry law http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91335-tn-idiot-judge-strikes-down-restaurant-carry-law.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:51:29 GMT
Quote:
Nashville Tenn. (AP) - A judge ruled Friday that a new law allowing handguns in Tennessee bars and restaurants is unconstitutional.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman said the law, enacted earlier this year over the veto of Gov. Phil Bredesen, is "fraught with ambiguity."

She ruled after an hour of arguments in a suit brought by a group of Tennesseans, many of then restaurant owners. The law allowed handgun permit holders to take their weapons into places serving alcohol, providing the establishment makes more than 50% of its profits from food.

There was no immediate word from attorneys for the state about an appeal.

The measure took effect July 14. Thirty-seven states had similar legislation at the time.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/D4...w+struck+down+

Once again, Tennessee shows its stupidity when it comes to common sense.

I would like to ask the morons who brought the suit, "Where are the drunk permit holders who have shot up all these bars and restaurants since the law went into effect July 14th? Where are these streets that would run red with blood? ]]> TN_Mike http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91335-tn-idiot-judge-strikes-down-restaurant-carry-law.html <![CDATA['Anti-gunner' OSHA nominee advances without questions 'By fiat could outlaw firearms]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91323-anti-gunner-osha-nominee-advances-without-questions-fiat-could-outlaw-firearms.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:56:15 GMT CZAR WARS
'Anti-gunner' OSHA nominee advances without questions
'By fiat could outlaw firearms in workplaces, parking lots across America'
Posted: November 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today approved without question and without comment the nomination of David Michaels, the chief of a George-Soros-funded Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, as the next head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

As WND reported, Second Amendment advocates sounded an alarm over Michaels, warning the most significant attack on gun rights in years soon could come in the form of workplace "safety" regulations.

Obama's nomination of Michaels, a George Washington University professor, drew reaction from Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com.

Olson said Michaels' strong views on firearms are "by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers."

According to Examiner gun-rights writer David Codrea, the committee today approved Michaels' nomination by a voice vote.

"Committee Republicans Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) requested they be recorded as 'no' votes," he reported.

The nomination, which now advances to the full Senate, was accomplished without "a confirmation hearing to question him and today's vote occurred with no discussion," according to the website Point of Law, despite "serious concerns about Michaels' views on science, law and business."

"So much for new openness and transparency in government," commented Codrea.

"Next up will be a vote in the full Senate," he continued. "I urge concerned gun owners to contact your senators and register your objections."

WND has reported on Obama's czars and has published a Whistleblower magazine issue on the "shadow government" officials gradually being installed in positions of power in Washington.

Two already have met problems. Green jobs czar Van Jones quit his post after reporting, largely by WND, of his self-described communist beliefs and his contention that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn, who launched a verbal assault on Fox News as an "arm" of the GOP, reportedly is stepping down.

Now Michaels, although he would need approval by the U.S. Senate, comes with views that concern Second Amendment advocates.

Two years ago, Michaels condemned proposals in Georgia and Florida that would have allowed workers to carry guns to and from their places of work for protection.

He continued in his 2007 writing to laud the ability of the federal government to respond by creating new laws to ban activities or behaviors.



"When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public's attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less," Michaels wrote at the time.

"In the U.S., we see an average of one gun-related homicide every 45 minutes, or 32 each day," he wrote. "These are usually treated as isolated incidents, until a horrific event like the Virginia Tech massacre reawakens the public and strengthens public health advocates who are attempting to prevent gun violence."

At RedCounty.com, writer Bryan Myrick noted that the Washington Times has urged the Senate to reject Michaels' nomination.

"OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America's businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of combining Obama's left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager at OSHA could prove toxic," Myrick wrote.

Codrea warned that some "public health" excuse could be used for imposing draconian restrictions on gun owners.

He cited the comment from a director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention that, "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."

Codrea asked: "Does anyone doubt that Michaels will bring a similarly creative agenda to apply through regulatory measures under the guise of 'occupational safety and health?'"

The National Gun Rights organization called him an "anti-gunner."

Columnist Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute in Colorado said, "Plenty of Obama's administration appointees have a longer record of anti-gun activism than David Michaels, but perhaps none of them have the ability to make such a dramatic, instant change in the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

"By its own fiat, OSHA could outlaw the possession of firearms in every workplace and every employee parking lot in the United States," he wrote.

"That David Michaels is anti-gun is undisputed," he continued.

"The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution means that a valid federal law or regulation wins in any conflict with a state law. Many states have laws that protect the rights of employees to store lawful firearms in parking lots at work. If an OSHA regulation prohibiting such storage existed, the federal regulation would trump state law," Kopel said.

"Under Michaels, OSHA could write a regulation stating that it is illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in parking lots. No handgun could be locked in the trunk of a car, even if the owner has a Right-to-Carry license. No rifle could be stored in the car, even if there’s no ammunition around and the gun will be dropped off at the gunsmith after work," he said.

Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, supported Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And since Obama has been in office, he's already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

'Anti-gunner' OSHA pick advances without questions ]]> cbp210 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91323-anti-gunner-osha-nominee-advances-without-questions-fiat-could-outlaw-firearms.html Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91322-attorney-general-holder-reveals-aggressive-gun-control-response-ft-hood-terror.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:50:44 GMT Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.

"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

* Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.
* Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons." {Emphasis added}

LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"

Home

SOURCE Law Enforcement Alliance of America

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. ]]> cbp210 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91322-attorney-general-holder-reveals-aggressive-gun-control-response-ft-hood-terror.html <![CDATA[Canadian Co-Worker's Interest In 2A]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91277-canadian-co-workers-interest-2a.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:53:10 GMT I spent the last several days with the Master Black Belt from our parent company assisting me with a project I was doing. The MBB was from Canada. When my other co-worker was with me he made a comment about me carrying guns. At the time, we were in MD and I was not carrying nor had one in my car. Now here is the interesting part. He spent every spare minute he had questioning me about guns and our wonderful second amendment. I patiently answered all his questions to the best of my ability and said the next time he comes to PA that we would go shooting pistols together. It was a strange experience. The man was just amazed at everything I told him. It was a real eye opener for me to realize what a special right we have here and need to protect it. I spent the last several days with the Master Black Belt from our parent company assisting me with a project I was doing. The MBB was from Canada. When my other co-worker was with me he made a comment about me carrying guns. At the time, we were in MD and I was not carrying nor had one in my car. Now here is the interesting part. He spent every spare minute he had questioning me about guns and our wonderful second amendment. I patiently answered all his questions to the best of my ability and said the next time he comes to PA that we would go shooting pistols together. It was a strange experience. The man was just amazed at everything I told him.

It was a real eye opener for me to realize what a special right we have here and need to protect it. ]]> MP45Man http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91277-canadian-co-workers-interest-2a.html Stat twisting and omission... http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91244-stat-twisting-omission.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:37:35 GMT Gun Guys Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed 8 Law Enforcement Officers, 77 Private Citizens Over Two and a Half Year Period According to New On-Line Resource That Tallies News Reports of CCW Killings (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3529) How many illegal guns? Not a lick of data on that. Gun Guys Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed 8 Law Enforcement Officers, 77 Private Citizens Over Two and a Half Year Period According to New On-Line Resource That Tallies News Reports of CCW Killings

How many illegal guns? Not a lick of data on that. ]]> Siafu http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91244-stat-twisting-omission.html Court: Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91241-court-criminal-record-may-not-prevent-gun-ownership.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:24:46 GMT This is another victory for 2A - common sense prevails. The news report is a bit lengthy, that's why I didn't copy it in the thread.

Court: Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership - Taking Liberties - CBS News ]]> boricua http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91241-court-criminal-record-may-not-prevent-gun-ownership.html Here we go again... http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91238-here-we-go-again.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:12:22 GMT Gun Guys Gun Violence Prevention Organizations Call On President Obama To Use Executive Authority To Ban Import of Armor-Piercing Pistol Used In Fort Hood Attack (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3530) Gun Guys Gun Violence Prevention Organizations Call On President Obama To Use Executive Authority To Ban Import of Armor-Piercing Pistol Used In Fort Hood Attack ]]> Siafu http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91238-here-we-go-again.html <![CDATA[UVU student newspaper opinion editor opines on so-called "rights" on campus...]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91162-uvu-student-newspaper-opinion-editor-opines-so-called-rights-campus.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:35:56 GMT An editor muses on ...collective versus individual rights on firearms AND alcoholic consumption on college campus (huh?)... assumedly after emails and comments condemning the idiotic editorial condemning the right-to-carry on campus as unwarranted and dangerous (10/15/09 "(Utah Valley University student newspaper) Concealed weapons pose a threat to campus" thread).

Quote:
Opinion: "Asking Wrong Questions"
By Chris Rowley 11/16/09

Here in the opinions section we have recently seen articles dealing with gun control and allowing alcohol on campus, at first glance these issues may seem unrelated, but on second glance I think we can see we are really dealing with the same issue: collective rights versus individual rights.

Some people want to go to school in a gun free zone, and some would like to be able to protect themselves. Some people would like to drink on campus, while others would like to be an alcohol free school. Both sides seem fairly reasonable, so how do we decide?

I think we are asking the wrong questions. When we ask if alcohol or guns should be allowed, or if we have a right to have them the natural question to ask is what gives a person a right to do anything in the first place? This is, to put it mildly, a complicated subject, but some light can be shed on the matter in even a small space.

A right that can be applied consistently from person to person in all times and places is what might be called an individual right (though many would have a different definition).

This is opposed to collective rights that would be more likely to reference “the greatest good for the greatest number” or “for the good of society” (or “for the good of the school”).

However, collective rights face a problem, namely the vast differences between people (race, class, gender), but only a limited number or way of organizing individuals.

In other words, society does not exist independently of individual human beings. Society does not have feeling, needs and desires – individuals do. For this reason if we are going to have any concept of rights that is actually relevant to human nature, they must be individual rights.

There is only one solution that can be applied consistently: that each person is entitled to his or her own time and energy. This is essentially libertarian position: private property, and non-aggression. You have your right to your time and energy and everyone else has a right to their time and energy so long as they do not interfere with one another. You have a right to a gun, as long as the person whose property you are on doesn’t mind. You have a right to drink beer, so long as the restaurant owner is OK with it.

So what is the answer when it comes to the school? In short, there isn’t one. Our school is paid for by a hybrid of private trade and taxes. As far as property goes, the school belongs to no one. But this is the reason why we must understand what rights are before all else, and then debate about them; other wise we are going to be caught intellectualizing midstream, rather than principles first.
]]> cyberdogg http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91162-uvu-student-newspaper-opinion-editor-opines-so-called-rights-campus.html Second Amendment Protects All Americans, Supreme Court Told http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91112-second-amendment-protects-all-americans-supreme-court-told.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:44:25 GMT Second Amendment Protects All Americans, Supreme Court Told - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Gun rights advocates have sketched out arguments they hope will convince the U.S. Supreme Court that no state can be a Second Amendment-free zone.

In a 73-page legal brief filed on Monday, the groups representing four Chicago residents asked the Supreme Court to overturn the city's extremely restrictive firearms laws, some of the most severe in the nation.

"It is unfathomable that the states are constitutionally limited in their regulation of medical decisions or intimate relations, because these matters touch upon personal autonomy, but are unrestrained in their ability to trample upon the enumerated right to arms designed to enable self-preservation," says the brief, written by attorneys Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va. and David Sigale of Lisle, Ill. on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Translation: Even though abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, courts have nevertheless declared it to be a fundamental right. Shouldn't the Second Amendment, which originally was requested by more states than the First Amendment was, receive at least equal treatment?

Much of the brief -- the vast majority, in fact -- reads more like a history textbook than appellate writing. Gura and his co-counsel use that space to recount, in exhaustive detail, how the post-Civil War measure called the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect anyone's fundamental rights from being infringed by state governments. Their argument, which I wrote about last month, traces the Fourteenth Amendment's "privileges or immunities" concept through American history and offers contemporaneous evidence that it protects gun rights against infringements by states and municipalities.

Some background: the Second Amendment, of course, says that Americans' right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. Last year's decision in D.C. v. Heller applied that prohibition only to the federal government and federal enclaves like Washington, D.C., but left open the question of "incorporation" -- that is, what state laws were permissible or not.

As a result, in the wake of Heller, anti-gun court decisions have proliferated. There's the Maryland appeals court that concluded residents enjoy no constitutional gun rights (Maryland's constitution is silent on the topic), a similar New Jersey ruling, and another one from Illinois.

Because the Supreme Court already has specified that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the current case will center on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and historian who has written a book titled Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, has reviewed the debate in the U.S. Congress over extending the right to bear arms to the newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. He concludes: "The framers of that amendment understood from hard experience that the rights to personal security and personal liberty are inseparable from the rights to self defense and to keep and bear arms."

At some level, gun rights are like abortion rights: Every justice likely has an opinion on the Second Amendment, meaning attorneys for the city of Chicago and the Second Amendment Foundation won't be persuading as much as offering arguments that members of the court can adopt as their own. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor appears to hold the same not-very-gun-friendly position as David Souter, whom she replaced.)

Neither side expects a revolutionary outcome. Laws barring felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms will stay on the books. The majority opinion won't emphasize a constitutional right to manufacture or purchase fully-automatic weapons.

But those are examples on the extremes, and many state and local ordinances target law-abiding gun owners planning to buy something less powerful than, say, a Solothurn S-18/1000 anti-tank gun. Which laws will stand, and which won't? Assuming that the justices agree that the Second Amendment applies to states, the most important sentence from the opinion will be the one instructing lower courts on where, exactly, to draw the line. ]]> JonInNY http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91112-second-amendment-protects-all-americans-supreme-court-told.html <![CDATA[Assembly Bill A1282 "Citizen's Protection Act" needs to be brought to a vote!]]> http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91084-assembly-bill-a1282-citizens-protection-act-needs-brought-vote.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:21:40 GMT Hello all,

For all who are interested in supporting Assembly Bill A1282, "Citizen's Protection Act" (right-to-carry) in New Jersey, please read below.

I have contacted my local assemblyman, Michael Doherty in reference to this bill. After several emails, he has explained that this bill has been introduced and re-introduced every two years for quite some time. It sits in the NJ Law and Public Safety Committee where it eventually dies. Then, it is re-introduced only to die again. It has NEVER been brought to a vote!

Assemblyman Doherty had urged me a number of weeks ago to contact Assemblyman Gordon Johnson because he is the "Chair of the Committee" (Law and Public Safety Committee) and would need to be persuaded to resurrect this bill and bring it to a vote. After calling and speaking with one of Assemblyman Johnson's representatives, he advised me to contact everyone who is on the Law and Public Safety Committee and especially Assemblyman Joe Roberts. Joe Roberts is the "speaker" of the Committee.

The representative also explained to me that the best way to ensure that the Assemblymen/women hear our voices is to send an "old school" letter...snail mail. Calling is good, emailing is good, but a letter is the BEST! I recommend all three to ensure we are exhausting every avenue of approach; we need all the help we can get.

So I'm asking you on behalf of the people of New Jersey who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to call, email and WRITE to the following individuals prompting them to support Assembly Bill A1282 and to allow it to be brought to a vote on November 30, 2009. Again, the next meeting is November 30, 2009 so this needs to happen now!

"Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today..."

Assemblyman Gordon Johnson (Chair of the Committee)
Phone: 201-541-1118
Fax:201-541-1071
email can be found at: Gordon M. Johnson (D)
Mailing address: 1 Engle Street Suite 108 Englewood, NJ 07631

Assemblyman Joe Roberts (Speaker of the Committee)
Phone: 856-742-7600
email can be found here: Joseph J. Roberts Jr. (D)
Mailing Address: Brooklawn Shopping Plaza Rt 130 South & Browning Road Brooklawn, NJ 08030

Assemblyman Nelson T. Albano
Phone: 609-465-0700
email can be found here: Nelson T. Albano (D)
Mailing Address: 21 North Main Street Cape May Court House, NJ 08210

Assemblyman Jon M. Bramnick
Phone: 908-232-2073
email can be found here: Jon M. Bramnick (R)
Mailing Address: 251 North Avenue West 2nd Floor Westfield, NJ 07090

Assemblywoman Elease Evans
Phone: 973-247-1521
email can be found here: Elease Evans (D)
Mailing Address: 100 Hamilton Plaza Suite 1400 Paterson, NJ 07505

Assemblyman David P. Rible
Phone: 732-974-0400
email can be found here: David P. Rible (R)
Mailing Address: 1955 Highway 34 Bldg 2A Wall Township, NJ 07719

Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer
Phone: 973-624-1730
email can be found here: L. Grace Spencer (D)
Mailing Address: 223 Hawthorne Avenue Newark, NJ 07112

Don't forget to contact your local Assemblymen/women urging them to support this Bill once it is brought to a vote!

Thank you! ]]> NJndsCCW http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91084-assembly-bill-a1282-citizens-protection-act-needs-brought-vote.html A modest proposal http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91057-modest-proposal.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:49:03 GMT washingtonpost.com

Quote:
A modest proposal

By Al Horne
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

With Congress tied up over health reform -- legislation whose initial, much-discussed goal was to extend health insurance to as many as 47 million uninsured Americans -- this may be as good a time as any to propose another, less divisive reform.

The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimated in 2008 that more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens. Since President Obama's election last November, newspapers and electronic media have reported a sharp increase in U.S. gun sales, spurred by rumors that the new administration had secret plans to block gun sales to law-abiding Americans. Normally, about 4.5 million guns are sold in the United States each year, so this surge in sales means that Americans own roughly 260 million guns, in a population of nearly 309 million.

Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S. households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.

Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not.

Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009 -- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued $500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)

How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that this proposed legislation would not require creating any new bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy guns and would not be counted in the Census.

So there it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health insurance, why not require them to buy guns? Sure, maybe the Congressional Budget Office could overestimate its cost, and some wimpy liberals could file a court challenge, but the Supreme Court would slap it down on a clear 5-to-4 vote. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, here's one issue where you can count on at least a couple of Republican votes.
]]> DaveH http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91057-modest-proposal.html 6 things you need to know... http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91050-6-things-you-need-know.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:15:28 GMT About the 2nd Amendment.

I couldn't see if it's been posted before or not, so sorry if it's a duplicate.

YouTube - The Second Amendment

This is a pretty good video :image035: ]]> Pro2A http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/91050-6-things-you-need-know.html Virginia Firearms Freedom Act http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/90995-virginia-firearms-freedom-act.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:35:17 GMT Check this out. http://www.vc4l.com/downloads/Virginia-Firearms-Freedom-Act.pdf Check this out.

http://www.vc4l.com/downloads/Virgin...reedom-Act.pdf ]]> Diesel 007 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/90995-virginia-firearms-freedom-act.html Gun Control Through the U.N. http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/90932-gun-control-through-u-n.html Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:54:23 GMT I said a few months ago that gun control could be tried through the U.N.


Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control
NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights

By Drew Zahn


United Nations headquarters

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.

Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.


Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application
. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."

Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."

"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces – widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. "Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."

But Bob Barr, a former U.S. representative and presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, explained in a separate interview with the NRA's Simone how a treaty that looks like it's all about fighting international crime will necessarily lead to erosion of Second Amendment gun rights:

"Even though [treaty advocates] all say, 'We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won't be affected by all this,' that's nonsense," Barr said. "There's no way that if you buy into something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that firearms transfers internationally don't fall into the hands of people that the U.N. doesn't like, there's no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking."

Bolton not only agrees with Barr's assessment but also sees the treaty as an Obama administration end-run around the Constitution:

"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he said. "The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

Clinton's October statement of support for the treaty negotiations was filed with a caveat that the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operate under the consensus rule of decision-making, essentially that its provisions be adopted unanimously.

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the treaty," she stated, "and to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly."

But Bolton warned gun owners not to think the consensus rule will stop the treaty from passing.

"Consensus at the U.N. is a way of saying unanimity, everybody agrees, but in fact, the U.N. in the last eight years could have been very close to consensus on exactly this kind of treaty but for the Bush administration," Bolton said. "So I don't think her comment about consensus offers Second Amendment supporters any consolation, because absent the United States, nobody is really going to put up an objection to this."

Citizens wishing to speak out on the issue can contact the State Department or the National Rifle Association.

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control ]]> Spirit51 http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/90932-gun-control-through-u-n.html