Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

REMEMBER in NOVEMBER! Here Are the 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to the UN. Now NOVEMBER it will be OUR Turn to VOTE!

From Tea Party Crusaders
United States Senators who were willing to sign over your 2nd amendment rights to the United Nations
The anti-gun senators are all Democrats or so-called Independents. Meet all 46! Write Down their names, and Share them with everyone you know.

Senate Bill 139 passed 53-46. 46 US Senators voted against this: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

Wizbang reported:
Fortunately, the odious, anti-American treaty was again voted down by the full Senate, but 46 Senators voted in favor of handing over our Constitutional rights to the UN.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) offered Amendment 139 that was passed with a 53 to 46 vote. His Amendment contained language to affirm that foreign treaties would not trump the U.S. Constitution.

“Mr. President,” Inhofe said on the floor of the Senate, “I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms.”

He went on to say, “I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the Second Amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties.”

But many Democrats simply didn’t agree with Inhofe’s insistence that the U.S. Constitution trump the UN.

Forty-six Democrats-Independents favored ceding your Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.


Saturday, February 23, 2013

"The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles"

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, addressed the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington, D. C. on February 13, 2013.

Monday, January 28, 2013

SC Sheriff Schools CNN’s Costello On The Constitution

Kudos to Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon for refusing to enforce federal gun laws he feels are unconstitutional and for attempting to educate CNN’s Carol Costello on the United States Constitution.  Carol would have absolved a lot of good Nazis for "just following orders."

Thursday, January 24, 2013

A Vatican Spokesman's Misguided Statement on Gun Control

By Philip F. Lawler

Let’s make something clear right away. Pope Benedict has not endorsed the Obama administration’s gun-control plans. The Pope has said nothing on the subject. But Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office—has released a statement on gun control, in his weekly editorial commentary for Vatican Radio. Inevitably his editorial will be portrayed by careless reporters as an official statement of the Vatican’s position. It is not; Father Lombardi does not set policy for the Vatican, or make authoritative statements for the Catholic Church. 

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Rep. Charlie Rangel on Guns: ‘Some of the Southern Areas Have Cultures that We Have to Overcome’

( - Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), speaking on “MSNBC Live” on Jan. 16 said that “some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome” when it comes to gun control.

Rangel was asked by anchor Thomas Roberts whether new gun control measures passed in New York State should serve as models for other states:

“If you’re proud of what New York has done, obviously there is not going to be any perfect policy or perfect law that everybody is going to agree on from both sides saying that this is key perfection but do you think that New York, and what has been done in this state, could be used as a role model for other states that would like to enact something of New York’s model?”

Rangel responded by saying: “Well I hope so. New York is a little different and more progressive in a lot of areas than some other states and some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome.”

He added: “But we do have a model set of what Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals have come together and put the party labels behind them and come forward with something that says ‘Hey, we may disagree, but one thing is clear that we have to do something' and that’s exactly what they have done.’”

Last week, New York State passed stricter gun control measures in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14. The new law calls for an expanded assault weapons ban, and a new registration of already owned semi-automatic weapons.

The new law also calls for a limit of seven rounds on magazine clips and for mental health and law enforcement officials to be informed when it is believed that a patient is likely to be a danger to themselves or others.

The bill passed the New York State Senate by a vote of 43-18 and the Assembly by a vote of 104-43. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law on Jan 15.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Obama Regime's Assault on Your Second Amendment Rights

The following, prepared by Fox News, lists the fiats prepared by the Obama regime to curb your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  Among other measures, the Mexican and Benghazi gun-running regime has deputized your doctor and requires that he/she inform "authorities" of any suspicions about you.

The video is a nationally aired response from the National Rifle Association.


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 

11. Nominate an ATF director. 

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. 

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The Second Amendment - Back to First Principles

Growing tyranny under the Obama regime, executive orders that bypass the Congress and Constitution, vast bureaucracies like Homeland Security and its para-military population control agencies, and the sweeping away of God-given rights that have been recognized and protected since the Anglo-Saxon kings, have given renewed importance to the Second Amendment.  Americans know, like the founding fathers knew, that if freedom is to prevail, there must be a balance between the rights of men and the ambitions of government.  

Let's be honest about the gun buying frenzy of recent years.  Conservatives have a patriotic duty to arm themselves.  Their loyalty is and must always be to country, not to the domestic enemies that control its government.

America's Coming Gun War
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Eight days after the massacre of 20 first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary, where each child was shot with a Bushmaster .223, The Nation's Gun Show, the biggest east of the Mississippi, opened.

"A line already snaked around the building shortly after the three-day event began at 3 p.m., and the parking lot was jammed" at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Va., wrote Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post:

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Senator Wants to Mandate Background Checks for All Gun Sales

We would suggest that for every attempt by Senator Schumer and his ilk to undermine the Second Amendment, pro Second Amendment legislators should introduce legislation requiring background checks for every candidate who seeks a federal office.  Federal civil service employees are subject to such background checks, why should those making our laws be exempt?  There should also be stiff penalties for those withholding criminal and mental health records from the FBI ... and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Perhaps if we had background checks as exhaustive for the President of the United States as some propose for sportsmen, we wouldn't have a President who claims to have studied at Columbia University and yet was not seen by a single eyewitness, and whose birth and academic records are more closely guarded than national secrets and diplomatic cables.
By Mike Lillis
All gun sales – even private transactions – would require a background check under legislation unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Current law requires that only licensed firearms dealers perform background checks, but Schumer says those rules don't go far enough to keep guns from the hands of violent criminals, the mentally ill, drug abusers and other prohibited buyers.

"Lax reporting by states and federal agencies has allowed guns to get into the hands of dangerous individuals with consequences that have been tragic and deadly," Schumer said Wednesday in a statement.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Oath Keepers Withdraws from Virginia Open Carry Rally

Oath Keepers, Inc., a network of America's finest patriots, and one with which we are proud to be affiliated, has withdrawn from an open carry "Restore the Constitution" rally in Virginia next week.

As with alleged incidents when ObamaCare Democrats provocatively walked among those protesting the socialized medicine being forced down America's throat, radical left-wing activists of the Alinsky school infiltrate peaceful and legitimate protests with the intention of using foul language and provoking incidents that will reflect badly on conservatives exercising their First Amendment rights. Since the President is a trained practitioner of the Alinsky method, we should expect these tactics from the Administration and all those former colleagues of his in ACORN.

There is truly a cultural war underway for the future of America, and this year is pivotal. The good news is there are millions of patriots, like those in Oath Keepers, who are wise to what the Marxists are up to. Following is Oath Keepers announcement regarding the Virginia rally:

The Board of Directors of Oath Keepers, Inc. has decided against participating in the "Restore the Constitution" rally in Virginia near Washington D.C. scheduled for April 19, 2010. That rally is organized by a very honorable U.S. Marine Corps veteran who saw combat in Iraq, and who is also a patriotic member in Oath Keepers. The organizer is Daniel Almond of the Georgia Oath Keepers Chapter. Oath Keepers salutes Daniel Almond for organizing this pro-Constitution rally.

Oath Keepers endorses Americans' protected right to keep, and bear, arms. In keeping with our stance, Oath Keepers' representatives have recently performed oath ceremonies at open-carry rallies at several State capitols, including before the capitol buildings in Kentucky and Montana. We fully support the right of Americans to peaceably assemble and publicly exercise their right to bear arms right along with their right to free speech, association, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

However, because of published statements by some participants in the upcoming Virginia rally, Oath Keepers as an organization feels that a confrontational stance, such as has been published, places this event, in public perception, outside the terms of our stated and published mission. The mission of Oath Keepers is not to confront the government. Instead, our mission is to reach out to people within government - to police, military, firefighters and first responders - to teach them about their obligations under the oath they took to defend the Constitution, to increase their knowledge of the Constitution, and to inspire them to defend it by refusing to obey unconstitutional, unlawful orders. That's it. And if we can reach enough of them with that message, it could prevent possible future egregious violations of the Bill of Rights in a very peaceful way. Confronting the government is not included in the Oath Keepers stated and published mission and as an educational organization focused on the current serving, Oath Keepers refrains from confrontation in deed and rhetoric.

Oath Keepers wishes Daniel Almond and all his supporters a fruitful and meaningful rally. Oath Keepers is not asking our membership to withdraw from attendance, but Oath Keepers is formally asking all Oath Keeper members who attend to do so as individuals, not as representatives of Oath Keepers. We are further requesting that Oath Keeper gear and garments not be worn at this event.

Oath Keepers shall, as planned, participate in the Washington D.C. Second Amendment March on April 19 ( and shall offer the public an Oath Keepers ceremony in which citizens can themselves stand and reverently take an oath to defend the Constitution right along with current and prior service police, military, and fire personnel (who will be renewing their oaths), all together as patriotic Americans. Please see our banner announcement for this march in Washington D.C. on April 19, 2010, at

Stewart Rhodes, Founder and National President, Oath Keepers, Inc.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

State No. 6 Tells Feds to Stuff Their Gun Regs

Arizona declares weapons exempt from national firearms paperwork

A sixth state – Arizona – now has declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations in a surging movement among states that one supporter describes as a direct challenge to "a government monopoly on the supply of firearms."

Read the rest of this entry >>

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Raising the Bar for Nullification

From the Tenth Amendment Center
By Michael Boldin

Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.

Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.


Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”

No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”


“where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.


In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.


Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for Current Nullification Efforts

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Gun Rights' Defeat May Have Political Repercussions

"Your freedom to worship doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to speak freely doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is universal -- so why not gun rights?"

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown

The Libertarian Party is urging voters to hold 39 senators accountable at the ballot box for voting yesterday against their gun rights.

Yesterday the Senate fell two votes short of the 60 needed to pass an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would have allowed people with concealed carry permits in their states to carry guns in all other states that have concealed carry laws. Fifty-eight senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), supported the amendment; 39 voted against, including Republicans Dick Lugar (Indiana) and George Voinovich (Ohio). (See roll call vote)

Donny Ferguson, communications director for the Libertarian National Committee, says he is troubled that 39 senators believe Americans' constitutional rights end at the state line.

Donny Ferguson (Libertarian National Cmte.)"Your freedom to worship doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to speak freely doesn't vary from state to state, your freedom to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is universal -- so why not gun rights?" he asks.

"It's very simple -- and especially since the people often targeted by criminals are truckers and travelers, it just seems like it would be common sense for states to honor one another's concealed carry permits."

Ferguson predicts voters will throw politicians out of office for voting against their gun rights. He points out that Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania lost his Senate reelection bid in 1994 because of his support for the assault weapons ban.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Gun-Rights Amendment Divides Dems


A measure that would let gun owners carry weapons across state lines could threaten the filibuster-proof edge Democrats have in the U.S. Senate, observers note.

The Republican-backed language, introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., would override stricter laws of many jurisdictions, giving preference to state
s with looser standards, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

From Our Mail: Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment -- Won't Answer Whether She Believes There's a Right to Self-Defense

From: Gun Owners of America

Re: U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor!

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue.

Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago. Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls.

And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless.

Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights.

GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live.

Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with an open mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But after her testimony these past two days, there is no way that she should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense, Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question." Sotomayor would not answer directly, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of Rights?

I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score any vote related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether it's a vote on cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010.

Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of Americans can see how their Senators voted on this most important vote.

GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of the most significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as there has been no other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.