Posts Tagged Bill of Rights

Justice Breyer – Ideology vs Machete

Justice Stephen Breyer

Justice Stephen Breyer

In a bit of timely and ironic justice, Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote in his dissenting opinion in McDonald vs Chicago, “… the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense”, was robbed by a machete-wielding miscreant a few days ago on the island of Nevis. Despite the island paradise’s complete ban on handguns (much like the Justice would have preferred to be the case in Chicago) there still seems to be the odd armed robber, threatening peoples lives and inconveniencing vacationers. Normally the Justice doesn’t need to bring along his own firearms for protection like the rest of us, that is the job of the U.S. Marshals Service. I wonder where they were during the attack? You see this is the problem, there is never a taxpayer-funded, well trained, armed bodyguard around when you need one, even if you are a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

More from CNN

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Chicago Mayor Writes $399k Check to Second Amendment Foundation – Ouch!

SAF Check

CHICAGO WRITES BIG CHECK TO SAF . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation received a check for $399,950 recently for recovery of legal fees expended in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down the city’s ban on handgun ownership. The check, signed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is the largest the foundation has ever received, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. According to an Examiner.com news report, the funds will be directed into Moore v. Madigan, litigation that is challenging the constitutionality of Illinois state laws that prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms for personal protection.

, , , ,

No Comments

Gun owners are compensating for something.

, , , ,

No Comments

Texas concealed handgun carrier thwarts robbery at Denny’s

“Two armed suspects attempted to rob a Denny’s restaurant, but ended up fleeing for safety after a shootout with a customer.

Officials said two armed suspects wearing bandannas entered and attempted to rob the store. The sole customer in the restaurant, a licensed concealed handgun carrier, observed the suspects enter, pulled out his own gun, took cover and fired at the robbers.

Officials said the suspects returned fire and fled the restaurant. The customer followed the suspects, firing as he went. The suspects jumped into a white minivan and fled the scene.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45446615/ns/local_news-houston_tx/#.TtNUGk-kSyN

 

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

NRA Interviews Emily Miller

NRA interviews editor Emily Miller from the Washington Times about her quest to acquire a gun in D.C.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

UK Police Intercepting Cell Traffic

From: Threat Level

Britain’s largest police force has been using covert surveillance technology that can masquerade as a mobile phone network to intercept communications and unique IDs from phones or even transmit a signal to shut off phones remotely, according to the Guardian.

The system, made by Datong in the United Kingdom, was purchased by the London Metropolitan police, which paid $230,000 to Datong for “ICT hardware” in 2008 and 2009.

The portable device, which is the size of a suitcase, pretends to be a legitimate cell phone tower that emits a signal to dupe thousands of mobile phones in a targeted area. Authorities can then intercept SMS messages, phone calls and phone data, such as unique IMSI and IMEI identity codes that allow authorities to track phone users’ movements in real-time, without having to request location data from a mobile phone carrier.

A spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service verified to CNET that the agency has done business with Datong, but would not say what sort of technology it bought from the company.

The FBI is known to use a similar technology called Triggerfish, which also pretends to be a legitimate cell tower base station to trick mobile phones into connecting to it. The Triggerfish system, however, collects only location and other identifying information, and does not intercept phone calls, text messages, and other data.

more

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gallup Poll: Don’t take away guns

By TIM MAK

“This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.”

“Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.

Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.

With regard to semiautomatic guns … 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66874.html#ixzz1c13r6Fqr

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Could HR 822 be amended like the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?

The fears presented in the previous post on the dangers of amendments to HR 822 are not unfounded, they are based on precedent, and the fact that the NRA seems to have ignored addressing this issue is troubling. The net result  in 1986 was that the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” created a de-facto ban on the ownership of “machine guns” from that day forward.

This was not the original intent of that legislation and yet that is the legislation that was passed into law.

I’m not a legal expert and I would love to have the NRA experts explain to us how another Firearm Owners Protection Act debacle can be avoided.

From: Wikipedia

Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4]that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No’s 72, 73, and 74.

Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision.

Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6]

The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.

, , , , ,

No Comments

H.R. 822: Protecting Gun Owners rights or handing more control to the Federal Government?

The NRA has come out strongly in favor of H.R. 822, while the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the exact opposite view, warning that H.R. 822 is a dangerous threat to the rights of gun owners.

The National Association for Gun Rights calls the bill a “Trojan Horse”, warning that although the bill looks OK on the surface, it’s writers are naively allowing the Federal Government more control in an area that needs to remain solidly under the authority of the States.

The position of the National Association for Gun Rights is that the Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, we don’t need or want the Federal Government to have any more control, adding layers of bureaucracy, making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms.

Dudley Brown, of the NAGR, says, “While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.”

The NAGR warns that the current bill makes it too easy for a rider or amendment to be slipped in, turning H.R. 822 from a positive-sounding measure to something that hands more power to the Federal Government – that gun owners face the serious risk politicians will pull a fast one and gun owners will lose ground that we will not be able to take back.

Dudley Brown said,

“So-called “pro-gun” Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.”

And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.

The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.”

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=7f78ca591c0132be677734e4b7c67219&CID=10092178493&ch=7DEEFFDE6801753738D7D7F4BA3F6C33

Brown also warns:

“This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.”

That is the real danger here.

These are few of the potential threats the NAGR says could result from H.R. 822 being passed:

  • More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
  • Higher fees;
  • More training requirements;
  • A demonstration of “Need” for a permit;
  • More frequent renewal periods;
  • Federally-mandated waiting periods;
  • A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
  • An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable

We’d like to think that the NRA stands solidly with gun owners, that they are using their political and financial clout to protect the rights of gun owners, but there is a precedent for bills starting out to be supportive of gun rights but winding up actually legislating stricter gun control.

A classic example of this was the the bill H.R. 4332, which eventually became the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.

“The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).”

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Gun rights advocates pushed for it and this is what they got:

  • It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act),
  • ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing,
  • permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and
  • addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.

“However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.

Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.”

So, although H.R. 4332 was intended to improve the status of gun owners, the Hughes Amendment ended up banning machine guns – which has not been reversed. In an Orwellian turn of events, the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act” ended up preventing Americans from owning an entire class of firearms.

Rights are easy to lose and very difficult to re-gain.

 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Man ordered to surrender guns – because of what he wrote on blog

‘My life’s in danger now. I can’t defend myself, I can’t defend you’

By Joe Kovacs

“An Arizona man has filed a federal lawsuit against some of the state’s top judges, claiming they’re taking away his freedom of speech and right to own firearms, all because someone didn’t like what he wrote on his blog.

“You can’t suspend someone’s constitutional rights [for blogging],” said Mike Palmer, who is bringing forth the legal action. “Everybody in America blogs or Twitters, so it’s a First and Second Amendment issue.”

The scenario started when Palmer, a 55-year-old Christian missionary from Phoenix, was online discussing “spiritual death” often referred to in the Bible.

But, according to the suit, a woman from Prescott, Ariz., Melody Thomas-Morgan, complained to authorities that Palmer was threatening her with “death,” keeping that word in quotes in her legal filings.

Kenton Jones, superior court judge for Yavapai County, went along with the woman’s harassment complaint and ordered Palmer to surrender his guns.

“The order says that I am not allowed to possess firearms or ammunition, and directs me to turn over any weapons to the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office,” Palmer told WND.

“I certainly want my gun rights,” he added. “There is no law in Arizona which allows the courts to suspend any constitutional right, but in this instance, my Second Amendment right. And, of course, my life’s in danger now. I can’t defend myself, I can’t defend you. I can’t defend my fellow man.”

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349713

, ,

No Comments

Appeals Court OKs Challenge to Warrantless Electronic Spying

From: Threat Level

A legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of a federal law authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans inched a step closer Wednesday toward resolution.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the second time rejected the Obama administration’s contention that it should toss a lawsuit challenging the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. Among other things, the government said the plaintiffs — Global Fund for Women, Global Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, The Nation magazine, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union and others — don’t have standing to bring a constitutional challenge because they cannot demonstrate that they were subject to the eavesdropping or suffered hardships because of it.

, ,

No Comments

9/11 Completely Changed Surveillance in U.S.

From: Wired

Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein handed a sheaf of papers in January 2006 to lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, providing smoking-gun evidence that the National Security Agency, with the cooperation of AT&T, was illegally sucking up American citizens’ internet usage and funneling it into a database.

The documents became the heart of civil liberties lawsuits against the government and AT&T. But Congress, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), voted in July 2008 to override the rights of American citizens to petition for a redress of grievances.

Congress passed a law that absolved AT&T of any legal liability for cooperating with the warrantless spying. The bill, signed quickly into law by President George W. Bush, also largely legalized the government’s secret domestic-wiretapping program.

Obama pledged to revisit and roll back those increased powers if he became president. But, he did not.

more

, , , , , ,

No Comments

FBI’s new program, “Communities Against Terrorism” — would you be considered “suspicious”?

Recently, the FBI started sending copies of a letter to military surplus stores in Colorado under the premise of a new program called “Communities Against Terrorism.”

Their intent is to have Americans report on fellow law-abiding citizens if they suspect them of any terrorist activities.

But here’s the catch: Guess who they want to be viewed as “suspicious”?
People who “insist on paying in cash”;
People who buy “Meals Ready to Eat”;
People who buy “weatherproofed ammunition containers”;
People who buy “high capacity magazines”;
And even people who buy “night flashlights.”

The Feds are going after a group of Americans known as “preppers.”

Those who want to be prepared for emergencies and possible disasters.

People who don’t want to rely on the government for every possible need – the same type of people who I respect – and feel that they are their own “first responder.”

And now, that kind of attitude is worthy of getting you put on a terrorist watch list.

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=cf953c0b33b0bae390484593dd94a19d&CID=9622194623&ch=CF042A2C2629F68121C9A2EDD9C27E85

, , ,

No Comments

Prosecutors Demand Laptop Password in Violation of Fifth Amendment

From: EFF

Prosecutors Demand Laptop Password in Violation of Fifth Amendment

EFF has urged a federal court to block the government’s attempt to force a woman to enter a password into an encrypted laptop. During the investigation, the government seized the device from the home she shares with her family, and then asked the court to compel the woman to type the password into the computer or turn over a decrypted version of her data. But EFF told the court that the demand is unconstitutional, violating her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times

by ELLEN TUMPOSKY

“A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.

Vanessa Guerena thought the gunman might be part of a home invasion — especially because two members of her sister-in-law’s family, Cynthia and Manny Orozco, were killed last year in their Tucson home … She shouted for her husband in the next room, and he woke up and told his wife to hide in the closet with the child, Joel, 4.

Guerena grabbed his assault rifle and was pointing it at the SWAT team, which was trying to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown, when the team broke down the door.

At first the Pima County Sheriff’s Office said that Guerena fired first, but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. “The safety was on and he could not fire,” according to the sheriff’s statement.

SWAT team members fired 71 times and hit Guerena 60 times, police said.

A report by ABC News affiliate KGUN found that more than an hour had passed before the SWAT team let the paramedics work on Guerena. By then he was dead.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112

“I’m a former Marine absolutely outraged by this story. The question I have asked and continue to ask is this- why are American citizens being treated this way?

When I was deployed to Afghanistan, we hardly ever did no-knock raids into homes. We get intel on a subject and cordon off the building and knock on the door. Greet the homeowner, and search the home. No one gets shot, no one gets killed, if we find something, we detain the guy.

Here we have police that get questionable intel, kick in the door and just start shooting. It’s absolutely absurd.”

– strikefo

, , ,

No Comments