Daily Archives: February 13, 2008

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns


I’ve had the pleasure to meet Larry Pratt at a Restoring Our Heritage event in Evansville, and there’s no finer warrior to stand for our gun rights.

We face treason from the usual suspects, and even from among those who we might consider ‘on our side’. The Founders warned us about human nature and what happens to men when they get into positions of power. Once in power, the elite’s fear losing that power and as such – an armed populace is a threat that they will work tirelessly to eliminate. Thus the last 70 years has seen the erosion of our rights, the last secure bastion being our Second Amendment Rights that again hang in the balance of men in black robes who are unaccountable for their rulings.

Many might roll their eyes at the prospect of the Second Amendment being banned or abolished as nothing but the rantings of conspiracy theorists, but the same could have been said a decade ago over the notion of banning smoking, which has today all but become abolished and virtually criminalized. The same could have been said about private property rights – but the KELO decision by SCOTUS has relegated that right to the government. The same may hold true of the Second Amendment when the High Court rules in May on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals or if the States can regulate and even abolish that Right.

Given the KELO decision of the Court – I’m pretty confident the Men In Black will again rule in favor of the government to strip us of our Constitutionally-protected Right under the Second Amendment.

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns

Leave it to the Bush Administration to put forward the argument that the Constitution permits “reasonable” infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, of the United States is the lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.

The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.

On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be a reasonable restriction or ban.

The brief asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that there is an “unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . ..” It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. In Fairfax County it is more than 100 times less than the D.C. murder rate.

In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase “shall not be infringed.” But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.

The opinion of the DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) overthrew the DC handgun ban (and ban-by-trigger lock of long guns) on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This categorical view of the Amendment should be sent back to the Appeals Court for another look, according to Bush’s brief. The Appeals Court should be told to look at the District’s gun ban in terms of what is “reasonable.”

Nary a thought about what the founders meant, and thus what the Second Amendment requires. The law should be “developed incrementally” according to Clement – the living Constitution assertion that has been put forth to justify legislation by judges (i.e., lawlessness).

Clement’s language is the language of tyrants throughout history. He claims for the government the right to change the meaning of the law and the Constitution on a continuing basis – on a whim. This avoids the messy business of proposing and debating constitutional amendments. It is so much tidier to have a small group of rulers emerge from behind closed doors to announce what the law is today, and what is illegal now that was legal a few minutes ago.

Clement, and most judges, have bought into an unconstitutional way of interpreting the Constitution that permits judges to consider various levels of scrutiny that are appropriate. Thus, they might decide (for reasons best known to themselves) that a higher level of scrutiny is required for interpreting a particular section of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might decide that a lesser standard of rational or reasonable scrutiny is all that is needed.

When we hear judges talk about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in a particular case, the proper translation of the legal jargon is: “How far from the meaning of the Constitution can we get away with going?”

It is worth noting that the Second Amendment was written with the level of scrutiny appropriate for interpreting it, i.e., “shall not be infringed.” That means that a discussion of the proper level of scrutiny, which is found in the Bush brief, and all other anti-gun briefs, is simply a coded discussion of the question: “What can we get away with this time?”

The Bush brief submitted by the Solicitor General was co-authored by Stephen Rubenstein, the head lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Not surprisingly, the brief expresses alarm that federal gun bans, licensing requirements, registration laws, import restrictions and other unconstitutional federal laws and regulations might topple if “shall not be infringed” is the required level of scrutiny.

In the Clement-Bush brief, the phrase “shall not be infringed” is never used. That is not surprising, since the game would be over if they did. It is so hard to say gun ban or licensing requirement in the same breath with “shall not be infringed.”

D.C. v. Heller would not immediately result in such a happy situation. The case was designed to ease weak-kneed judges in a slow walk back to the Constitution. All that would happen if the decision of the DCCA were simply left standing is that DC would return to its pre-1976 law. And that law is about as bad as what one finds in New York City today. Heller does not present the judges with keeping a gun ban or erasing all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books. Of course, the Court could do that, but such an outcome would be quite surprising in view of the lowest common denominator that would be necessary for any kind of a favorable decision.

Unhappily, the Bush brief makes it more likely than not that the Second Amendment will be gutted (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court. No wonder Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is seeking to get his colleagues to co-sign his letter urging Bush to pull his brief. Those wishing to so urge their Representatives can go to http://gunowners.org/a012308.htm to send an email with that request.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture War, News

Obama – Pictures Speak Louder Than His Smooth Words


The Candidate for President who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegience or wear an American Flag Lapel Pin makes many wonder where his actual loyalties lie.

Well…apparently he and his campaign staffers love and admire Che Guevara – Fidel Castro’s version of Heidrich Himmler. In a FOX News expose, Obama’s Houston offices showed not one – but TWO homages to the late Cuban Terrorist and Executioner.



America is going to rue the day it decided to allow the Marxists and Stalinists of the Democrat party rulership over the nation.

Barack Guevara

How is it a front-runner for the highest office in the land can reject an American flag on his lapel but permit the display of a huge Cuban flag at one of his offices, emblazoned with a mass murderer’s mug?

Improbable as it sounds, it’s true. Barack Obama, displaying the same “anything goes” standard of patriotism he showed when he ostentatiously refused to wear a U.S. flag in his lapel, now shows he’s got a whole different idea about patriotism.
One of Obama’s volunteer offices in Houston was caught operating under a huge flag of communist Cuba with Che Guevara’s face printed on it, according to images shown on Fox News. Flak from bloggers ensued — followed, of course, by spin control.
But rather than repudiate the image, Obama would only call it “inappropriate,” apparently without insisting it be taken down. That contrasts with his dismissal of his Senate colleagues who wear lapel flags as “hypocrites.” Some hypocrites.
The display of the Castroite flag with Che’s picture on it sends a particularly disturbing message about his campaign. Apparently, Obama tends to attract the kind of people who think of mass murderers like Che and Fidel as romantic revolutionaries. Those same people see Obama as a man with a messianic message. These are the voters he’ll be indebted to should he win higher office.
Worse yet, it signals that a U.S. commander in chief tolerates supporters with loyalties to nations other than the U.S., including those loyal to enemy states that spy on and seek to harm the U.S.
It coincides uncomfortably with Obama’s call for no-strings-attached diplomatic relations with communist Cuba. He’s even offered to meet with the dictators of Cuba, sanctimoniously implying that other administrations had no good reason for not doing so.
Obama’s naive idealism is based on a false understanding of history. Cuba is a nation that aimed Soviet missiles at us in 1962 and is likely to do the same if and when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez gets advanced weapons from Russia or Iran. That’s not all:
• Also in 1962, Cuba attempted to launch the first 9/11-style attack on New York’s subways and department stores — with the mastermind behind that none other than Che Guevara himself.
• In 1982 it tried to get the USSR to launch nukes at the U.S.
• In 1996, Cuba shot down two U.S. planes, killing six Americans whose only “crime” was trying to rescue Cuban refugees at sea. Had a political candidate in Latin America pasted up a picture of Che at election time, there’d be no doubt where he stood — ones who did just that are now running countries with names like Bolivia and Venezuela. Is that what Obama really stands for?


Who is Maria Isabel?


Filed under Politics