NRA To Endorse Anti-Gun Harry Reid In Nevada?

I guess no organization is safe from committing political suicide. What has gotten into Wayne LaPierre? Why is he playing footsie with politicians who want to trample on the 2nd Amendment?

Erick Erickson over at RedState.com is wondering why the NRA would even consider endorsing leftist Harry Reid (who endorsed every single anti-gun judicial nominee) over the pro-gun Sharron Angle? Here is Reid’s record on gun-control votes:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases. October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment. November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill. November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun. August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years. June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program. September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder. September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school. May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds. May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner. May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks. May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns. May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote. May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada. March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27). March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements. April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows. April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates. May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order. May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.” May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures. February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows. July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks. March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

If LaPierre does end up endorsing the gun-grabbing Harry Reid, then I and hundreds of thousands of others will immediately cancel our memberships and the NRA will cease to exist. If that happens, look for me to join Gun Owners of America instead.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
July 1, 2010

The Fight To Limit Federal Power Begins (First Shots Fired At Montana And Tennessee)

The Founders were very wise to include the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This clearly says that the only powers the Federal Government should ever have are those powers specifically defined in the Constitution.

But the Federal Government has been overstepping its powers in recent years, going all the way back to the 1930s. Today, with at least 36 states declaring sovereignity under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the fight for power, a fight between the Statists of Federal Government and the people of the United States who want as little government interference as possible, has begun.

Two of the states that made their declarations are Tennesee and Montana. Both states have essentially said that under the Tenth Amendment, and re-inforced by the Heller vs. Washington D.C. decision, they will not allow Federal gun control laws to override duly passed state laws.

Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Well, an unelected bureaucrat named Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has decided that he has somehow been empowered to overturn these two state legislatures all by himself.

He has put out two open letters to the states of Montana and Tennessee essentially saying that his bureaucracy can trump state law and the Tenth Amendment be damned.

An excerpt:

The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

The letter to Montana is similarly worded, almost an exact copy.

This does not bode well. If unelected Federal bureaucrats feel that they can trample on the Constitution anytime they wish, then we will no longer be a Republic. The Oath of Office for the President states that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Where is Barack Obama now? Allowing an unelected bureaucrat to do something like this is a violation of that oath. As I wrote before, the politicians in D.C. ignore this at the peril of the Union.

We cannot allow the Federal Government to intrude this deep into our lives. The more power they take for themselves, the fewer and smaller our freedoms become.

You can access the letter to Tennessee on-line here:

Open Letter To All Tennessee Federal Firearms Licencees

And you can access the letter to Montana on-line here:

Open Letter To All Montana Federal Firearms Licensees

Political Humor: Divorce Agreement

I got this in an email from my sister today:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950′s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security. We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. Sincerely, John J. Wall Law Student and an American P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

The sad part is that if the Dems succeed in inflicting socialism on the United States in such a way that it become irreverisble through the electoral process, what you just read above may actually happen and the U.S. will split into to distinctly separate nations with one nation embracing the disaster known as socialism and the other going back to the roots of our Founding Fathers. You can already see the beginnings of it from the states that are declaring their sovereignty from the Federal government.

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing

The tea parties were only the beginning, it seems. Now, state governments are stepping up and showing that they can hear the voices of the people, especially the voices of the Forgotten Man.

Consider the following:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If you went to elementary school back in the 1970′s, like I did, then you will recognize from your 4th grade history lessons the words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Apparently, not everyone learned that lesson or their teachers failed to teach it. Whichever it is, several states are forcing that lesson back to the national forefront.

Henry Lamb wrote the following for Right Side News:

Nowhere among the enumerated powers is there authority for the federal government to be in the mortgage loan business – as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the banking, or insurance business – as in Citibank, and AIG. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the health care business, or the animal identification business, or in the energy business, or in most of the places where the federal government is now flexing its regulatory muscles.

Many states are trying to remind the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama (a lawyer who should understand the Constitution) of this very thing.

Oklahoma said it very plainly and unambiguously in their resolution of sovereignty:

“…the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

So far, 21 states have passed similar resolutions or are planning to. Among those states are Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, none of which is a Republican stronghold. This indicates that this is not a left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a people vs. the government issue.

The Federal government would do well to pay attention to what is happening. They ignore this issue and the tea parties at their own peril. Likewise if they continue to ignore the Forgotten Man.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
Henry Lamb
Right Side News
May 9, 2009

Rapists, Muggers And Robbers Rejoice! You Now Have Free Reign In The National Parks!

Ever wonder how criminals select their targets for their next crime? Very few do so randomly. Most size up a situation and carefully consider the risks before going in and doing the dirty deed.

Rapists often stalk their victims before moving in to strike. Robbers case houses to determine which ones will be the easiest to break into and which ones will have the most loot. Muggers tend to go after those that look weakest and least able to fight back.

You get the picture.

Now, let’s say that you are a mugger, robber or rapist and you want to know where the most fertile hunting grounds are. That analysis has now been made simple for you by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who presides in Washington D.C.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has issued an order from the bench (judicial activism) that people with concealed weapon permits may no longer carry their firearms in National Parks.

Thus, if you happen to be a mugger, robber or rapist, you can pack your own illegal firearm, head into National Park and begin to mug, rob and rape knowing that no one on those trails or in those camp sites will be able to fight back against you.

According to the National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action:

On Thursday, March 19, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. In Thursday’s ruling, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior rule that took effect on January 9, 2009. The revised rule allowed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense in national parks and national wildlife refuges located in states that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

In recent years here in Virginia, we’ve had a few high-profile killings in the Parks and along the Appalachian Trail.

Judge Kollar-Ketelly has no common sense on this issue. Essentialy, she has sent a message to anyone who wishes to commit crimes: Go into the parks. No one will be able to stop you from inflicting harm on other people.

So, if you go hiking on a trail in a National Park, beware. You could run into a mugger or rapist or a drug-dealer who wants to protect his crop of marijuana plants.

BTW, please don’t try to say that Park Rangers will be able to protect everyone. The average response time for law enforcement in a poorly marked wooded area is more than long enough for a criminal to commit a crime and then get away virtually undetected. Besides, Park Rangers won’t respond until after the crime is committed.

You can access the original press release on-line here:

Concealed Carry In National Parks Suspended — NRA Files Motion To Appeal
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
March 20, 2009

Ken Blackwell: Reagan Coalition Must Unite

There are three pillars of the Reagan Coalition: Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives and National Security Conservatives. When all three of these pillars are united, the Republican Party wins. When they are not united, disaster happens.

That is what happened in 2006 and 2008. There was no unity between these three pillars. That is the reason for the massive losses on November 4th. Some in the party, like Colin Powell, are saying that we should abandon Social Conservatism altogether, but the GOP moved away from Social Conservatism in 2008 and we lost big time. Clearly, abondoning Social Conservatism is not the way to go.

Ken Blackwell, writing for Town Hall, shows us what this unity means for us and why it is so important. He writes about the concerns of Social Conservatives:

The issue of judges, most especially the Supreme Court, has been the foremost issue for social conservatives for a generation. It has been the highest priority for the pro-life movement ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Lawsuits since 2003 involving gay marriage have made it the focal point on that issue as well. The courts have also been ground-zero since the 1960s on controversies involving faith and religion. And after the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts might become the central arena over Second Amendment rights as well.

But that doesn’t mean that Economic Conservatives shouldn’t be right alongside:

In 2007, the Supreme Court handed down Massachusetts v. EPA, where some states were suing the federal government to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all sources of carbon dioxide. The theory was greenhouse gases such as CO2 cause global warming and should be designated a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Court stunned legal observers, turning all sorts of longstanding legal doctrines on their heads, and decided the suit was proper. It then ordered the EPA to decide whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect the environmental and, if so, to set up a regulatory scheme that will control every source of these gases in America—including every car. The EPA is still working to implement the Court’s order. This decision, criticized by conservative legal scholars as an activist ruling, could cost the American economy hundreds of billions—and possibly over a trillion—dollars. The EPA case will impact countless businesses across the country, with devastating consequences. Economic conservatives should wake up to this decision as a sign that a 5-4 majority of the four liberals on the Court, plus the Court’s one moderate, are willing to engage in economic policymaking through judicial fiat that could have a crippling impact on business.

And what about National Security Conservatives?

The Supreme Court has recently begun second-guessing the policy judgments of the president and Congress on how to manage national security matters arising from an ongoing war. This is completely unprecedented in American history. The most extreme example was the Boumediene v. Bush decision. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 split decision that the writ of habeas corpus extends to terrorists captured on the battlefield that are not U.S. citizens and held on foreign soil. Habeas corpus gives these terrorist detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian U.S. courts. Military personnel can be forced to testify under oath and classified evidence can be forced to be revealed. All the other rights designed to protect American citizens can be exploited by our enemies to gain release back onto foreign battlefields. This stunning decision changes American national security policy forever. Dozens of lawsuits are already underway, brought by many of these terrorists seeking either release or for the government to publicly expose the intelligence gathered against them and their terrorist networks. One national security law expert I consulted informed me this one decision is the single worst national security mistake the Supreme Court has ever made in our country’s history.

All three branches of Conservatism must unite now and over the next four years do everything in our power to prevent the socialists in the Obama Administration and the socialists of the Democrat Party from completely taking over our judicial system and forever ruining the fabric of the American way of life with their twisted ideas of government intervention enforced by judicial activists who are not responsible to any electorate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Reagan Coalition Must Unite
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
December 12, 2008

Mexican Police Officer Killed Because He Was Armed With A Toy Gun

This comes from the “Well, Duh!” Department.

From KRGV News Channel 5, Harlingen, Texas:

REYNOSA, Mexico – City officials in Reynosa say their police officers need their guns back. The Mexican military took the officers’ guns away last week. Mexican officials say one of their own was shot when he was trying to stop an armed robber. The officer pulled out a toy gun, since he did not have a real one. The suspect did not give in, and instead he allegedly shot the officer several times. Reynosa officials say this proves unarmed police are in danger.

This also proves that the gun-control nuts who think that passing laws to disarm everyone will somehow make us all safer, are absolutely wrong. Looks like the Mexican military forgot to take the guns away from the criminals before they took them away from the police.

And how many among us believe that the criminals will voluntarily turn in their firearms just because some leftist politicians passed a law?

As for Reynosa, now that the criminals know the police can’t fight back, do you think the violent crime rate will go up or down? My bet is that it is going to spike upward.

You can access the original story on-line here:

Reynosa Officer Killed After Trying To Use Toy Gun
KRGV Channel 5 News
November 15, 2008