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

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