Gun Registration is Actually Gun Owner Registration

The following text is from legislation being proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein as documented on her official Senate website:

"Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: 

Background check of owner and any transferee; Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration."

Note the sneakiness and the dishonesty of the above paragraph. The introductory clause states that "weapons" are being registered. However, the rest body of the text reveals that the owner is being registered. This is textual proof that Feinstein's agenda is not about the actual guns or so called "gun control." The requirement to photograph and fingerprint proves that she is proposing gun owner control. 

Feinstein is laying the groundwork to control gun owners -- not guns. The left is intentionally masking their intentions through language manipulation. We are not being told about their plans to do once they have a comprehensive listing of gun owners. We can only speculate about what additional requirements will later be imposed upon registered gun owners, and what the consequences for failure to obey the law will be. (But it doesn't take a MENSA member to figure it out.)

The bottom line is that registration is not innocent or acceptable. This legislation must be completely defeated. We must beware of any "compromise" that moves away from Feinstein's proposal to make it "just" a gun registration law, because that is not what it will be -- it will be a gun owner registration law. 

The true agenda must be exposed. No form of compromise is acceptable. There are no asterisks in the Second Amendment. Complete defeat of any proposed legislation is the only acceptable outcome. 

Attacking the Bill of Rights through the Second Amendment

Constitutional Conservatives are not framing the current gun debate correctly. This issue is much larger than the right to keep and bear arms. It is about all of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights 

The Framers of the Constitution were mainly focused on establishing the framework of an effective federal government. Therefore, the original Constitution contained very few individual rights guarantees. Some prominent members of the Constitutional Convention (including James Madison) believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Charles Pinckney proposed that several rights guarantees be added to the Constitution, but his proposal was rejected. 

However, when it came time for the states to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists believed that the new system posed a threat to individual liberties. With ratification in jeopardy, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."  (emphasis added)

Note carefully the purpose of the Bill of Rights as articulated by Jefferson -- to protect rights against oppressive governmental infringement. 

Madison was eventually convinced that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution and he became the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights. Madison believed that the Bill of Rights would be a mechanism that could be used to rally people against a future oppressive government. 

Constitutional conservatives should be framing the gun debate as an attempt by an oppressive government to impose tyranny by destroying the entire Bill of Rights. This makes the current attack on the Second Amendment even more insidious than it appears on the surface. If the Second Amendment can be effectively overridden by executive order, there is nothing preventing similar overrides of the right of free speech (ever heard of the "fairness doctrine?"), free exercise of religion (e.g., Hobby Lobby), protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to "invoke the Fifth" against self-incrimination, or the right to a speedy trial. 

Even Americans who elect not to exercise their right to keep and bear arms should strongly oppose intrusion into the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, because there is no way to know which other right in the Bill of Rights will be next. 

Bring On the National Discussion about Gun Laws

If the Left would be intellectually honest for once, they would admit that only gun control law that would have any chance to prevent tragic situations like that in Connecticut (and the one that they ultimately want) is very simple: 

"No person, citizen or non-citizen, living in the United States who is not active-duty military, employed in law enforcement, or employed by a federal agency, may own or possess any firearm."

Unemotional logic and reasoning (which I recognize are concepts foreign to statist/leftists) will prove this point. Let's start with a brief analysis of the Connecticut situation. The Connecticut killer LIKELY violated the following laws (with my assumptions noted): 

Three counts of theft. (Assuming mom didn't lend him the two pistols and rifle.) 

Three counts of possessing a weapon on school grounds. 

Two counts of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. (Assuming he was “convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense,” which is a logical assumption based upon reports that he had a “checkered past” and had been a “troubled youth for most of his life.”) 

Two counts of illegal possession of handguns. (Concealed-carry permits aren't granted to anyone in Connecticut under the age of 21.) 

So that's at least four laws, and with a total of 10 violations. The killer broke several other laws as well, including homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, and trespassing. Those "counts" are incalculable today. If those laws had prevention as their purpose they failed miserably. None of those laws, including those that relate to guns, had any preventive effect. Laws like those Connecticut has on the books today can only punish violations in retrospect - i.e., after the violation has occurred. The killer's cowardly suicide precludes all enforcement options and renders these laws useless.

Gun control advocates are screaming in the mainstream media and on social networks that SOMETHING must be done to prevent such awful situations. To these well-meaning (giving them the benefit of the doubt), yet emotional and illogical individuals I ask: "What additional gun laws would have PREVENTED this situation and other recent mass killings? Why don't you propose them and then we can start the debate?"

Any law designed with prevention as its objective must involve an outright ban on the item or the activity, along with the enforcement mechanisms to detect violations. And even those typically fail miserably because of the persistence of criminals. Current drugs bans and our historic experiment with alcohol prohibition are prime examples.

So, let's have that "national discussion" about gun control. But let's insist that both sides are intellectually honest about the ultimate ends they are trying to achieve. How about this approach: Let's open up debate for a complete and total repeal of the Second Amendment through the Constitutional process and see where that takes us. OK? 

[DISCLAIMER: This is based on the "facts" about the situation being currently reported. These "facts" are fluid, and would affect the following analysis.] 

States Must Refuse to Implement Obamacare

Dear Governor [Perry],

Now that the election is over and the people of the United States have duly spoken, Obamacare will be quickly implemented to the destruction of our society as we know it. This law is an expansive overreach of constitutional powers and results in loss of liberty. This must not be allowed to happen. 

Alabama Governor Richard Bentley has taken a strong stance, declaring that Alabama will not establish a Health Insurance Exchange and will not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

As a [Texan] and as your constituent, I request that you immediately take similar measures and lead [Texas] in standing alongside Alabama to draw a line in the sand.

It's past time for the states of the Union to step up and reclaim the powers granted to them by our Constitution -- powers that have been usurped by the Obama administration.

Respectfully,

[name]

Is the Bond Case a Big Deal? Maybe. Maybe Not…

On June 16, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous (9-0) decision in the case ofBond v. United States. On the surface, the decision looks like a major victory for federalism and for individual citizens who want to challenge a federal law in court. However, only time and future decisions will tell whether this decision is a major victory for individual citizens’ and states’ rights, or if in the end it really won’t make much difference.

Background of the Bond Case

The story behind Bond has all of the elements of a made-for-TV drama. Mrs. Carol Anne Bond (the petitioner) discovered that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes had been involved in an affair with her husband, and was pregnant with his child. She started to harass the “other woman” in an effort to exact some revenge. Mrs. Bond put some sort of caustic substance on surfaces that Haynes was likely to touch, and the woman suffered minor burns as a result.

One of the objects on which Mrs. Bond placed the caustic substance was Hayne’s mailbox. This got the U.S. Postal Inspection Service involved, and Mrs. Bonds was charged with violating federal law, specifically § 229 of the United States Code. This statute then prompted the federal prosecutors to invoke the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention against Mrs. Bond. Mrs. Bond felt that the usage of the Weapons Convention against her was unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

Mrs. Bond filed a motion to dismiss the §229 indictment on the grounds that the United States Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

“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.”

The District Court denied her motion to dismiss the §229, ruling that she did not have “standing” (the legal right to sue) because existing Supreme Court precedent held that the legal rules relating to “standing” (i.e., eligibility to bring a lawsuit) required that the State had to be a party to the case. Mrs. Bond was acting as an individual citizen and the State was not a party. Mrs. Bond appealed the District Court decision to the Third Circuit, who agreed with the District Court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari (i.e., agreed to hear the case).

Why the District and Federal Courts Said Mrs. Bond Could Not Challenge the Federal Law

The lower courts based their reasoning on a 79-year-old Supreme Court case, Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”). For 79 years, lower courts have been assuming thatTVA stood for the proposition that state involvement was an absolute requirement in a case involving a Tenth Amendment challenge to a federal law. In other words, the courts felt that based on TVAprecendent, individual citizens could not bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to a federal law acting only as citizen litigants.

What the Bond Ruling Changed

However, in the Court’s June 16th decision, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the lower courts’ reliance on TVA was incorrect, and that indeed citizens can assert Tenth Amendment claims to challenge federal laws. The Court reversed the decision of the Third Circuit and remanded the case back to the lower court for a decision on the merits of the case.

The case will now go back to the Third Circuit on remand. The Third Circuit will now need to decide whether federal prosecutors, acting under the laws passed by Congress and under the authority of a treaty, did actually go too far in pressing criminal charges against Mrs. Bond.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Bond opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. In his opinion, he praised the shield for individual rights that exists in the divided government premise of federalism, stating “Federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

Kennedy further stated that federalism “protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions….By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states.” (Right on!)

But What Does It All Mean?

On the surface this sounds like a major victory for the conservative principles of states’ rights and federalism, and a serious blow against the federal government juggernaut. However, whether or not that is actually true remains to be seen. Here’s why I’m skeptical.

First. This was a unanimous decision. Even the notoriously liberal justices agreed with the holding. This fact in itself makes me believe that this was more of a technical decision than an earth-shaking game-changer. Why would the historically activist liberal justices agree to a decision that possibly limits the powers of federal government? It makes no sense to me. (Now, if it had been the usual 5-4 ruling, then I would have felt that it was a solid conservative victory.)

Second. The Supreme Court did not rule that the federal government had overstepped its bounds with § 229. Instead, the holding was simply that Mrs. Bond could bring that challenge as an individual citizen without involving the state as a party in the suit. This ruling was about procedure, not the substance of the case.

Third. This opinion reveals a somewhat schizophrenic Supreme Court. It was only a couple of months ago when the same Court ruled (also in an opinion authored by Kennedy) that individual taxpayers do not have a right to file lawsuits (i.e., they don’t have “standing”) when government funds allegedly were being used to support religious organizations (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 09-987). Moreover, the history of this Court is one of restricting the concept of “standing to sue” under the Constitution’s Article III.

Fourth. Justice Kennedy hinted in his opinion that this might not help citizens get their cases heard on Tenth Amendment grounds. Kennedy reminded us that the legacy Article III barriers to “standing to sue” remain intact by stating that, “If, in connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim; and, in some instances, the result may be that a state is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.”

Conclusion

Although this is certainly a positive ruling for states’ rights advocates, it’s too early to celebrate this ruling as a major victory. Only time will tell if individual citizens can overcome all of the barriers in place relating to the concept of “standing” to successfully bring suits against the overreach of the federal government. It might be a big deal, but it might have minimal impact because all of the other existing obstacles to citizen lawsuits against the federal government.

Footnote: There is possibly a silver lining in this decision. This ruling might mean that the Court is solidifying its position on federalism, which could be a positive sign that the Court will rule in favor of the states in the upcoming Supreme Court review of Obamacare. An excellent article from American Thinker, hints that this might be a big deal afterall. The article can be found here:http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/did_the_supreme_court_tip_its_hand_on_obamacare.html

Becoming Involved in "Patriotics" - Step 3

This is the third in a series of seven articles that explains how to become a patriotically active citizen of the United States.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization it expects what never was and never will be. – Thomas Jefferson

Step 3: Become generally informed about current events and the major issues facing America, and become well-informed about the issues that affect you the most. 

I love the Boy Scouts of America. The scouting program seeks to foster patriotism and a sense of responsibility towards America in many ways. To become an Eagle Scout, a boy must complete a series of required merit badges, one of which is Citizenship in the Nation. The third requirement for this merit badge is as follows:

Watch the national evening news five days in a row OR read the front page of a major daily newspaper five days in a row.  Discuss the national issues you learned about with your counselor.  Choose one of the issues and explain how it affects you and your family.

Although this requirement is just a bit outdated (who reads newspapers anymore, and what exactly is “the national evening news?”) why would the BSA make this activity a requirement for the merit badge? I believe that it is because one cannot truly be considered a responsible and patriotic citizen if he or she does not take notice of current events, become aware of national issues, and become competent to engage in responsible dialog about those issues.

Becoming Informed about Current Events

This step is much harder than it sounds. It does not mean to simply listen to one news channel or read one website. Those simple days are over. Today there are myriad voices competing for our attention, those voices are often loud, contradictory, and competing with one another for an audience. Figuring out who to listen to and which side to align with is very difficult. But you must make the effort.

However, once you start listening an interesting phenomenon will take place. As you start becoming well informed, you will find news sources and voices that will ring true in your heart. Over time you will develop a strong preference for one news source or the other. You will find yourself aligning with certain news analysts and commentators. You will not always agree with how they present the news or how they feel about a specific topic, but that’s not a bad thing. It means you are thinking independently and doing your own analysis. If you are finding yourself in personal agreement 80-90% of the time, you have found your best sources.

Becoming Enlightened about National Issues 

Our great nation faces many, many serious issues. Here is a list of just some of them:

• The proper role of government
• The role of the Constitution in today’s society
• Health care
• Education
• Immigration
• Social Security
• The national debt
• The national deficit
• Terrorism
• Foreign relations
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of religion
• The right to bear arms
• Race relations
• National sovereignty versus world government
• Crime and punishment
• Capitalism versus socialism
• The impact of drugs on society
• The impact of gambling on society
• Energy
• Abortion
• Taxes

And this list is not even close to being all-inclusive. Are you overwhelmed yet? I am. As a merit badge counselor for the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge, I can attest that passing off requirement three turns into a very long conversation.

Becoming Specialized in Select Issues

This is where the brilliance of Requirement 3 shines most brightly. Notice that it says to “choose one of the issues and explain how it affects you and your family.” This is the key to deciding which issues you should concentrate on. Figure out which of the main issues have the greatest impact on you and your family, and then research that issue to the point where you can speak both confidently and competently.

Becoming an expert is a difficult task. You will need to devote both time and effort into becoming informed. You will probably  need to study the law relating to the issue. Fortunately, for all of these issues there are volumes of materials available at the click of a mouse. As you conduct your research, you will form a strong opinion about the issue and you will become competent to argue your position.

Engaging in the Debate

One of my law professors explained the key to winning a debate. He said that an effective advocate will understand both sides of the debate so well that he could argue convincingly for the opposing side. Once you get to the point where you can effectively argue the opposing viewpoint, you’re ready to debate your side of the issue.

Our nation was founded on civil debate. After becoming an expert you need to engage in the national debate through civil dialog. You cannot be a patriotic citizen without speaking out on the issues. If you are overwhelmed about the number of issues facing our country, just imagine how your senator or representative feels when he or she has to cast votes relating to these issues.

This is where We the People fit into the political process. We must make our voices ring loud and clear in the ears of our elected officials so that they have no doubt about how their constituency feels about the key issues. If your elected officials don’t vote on the issues in a way that aligns with your personal feelings, well, you’ll know what to do when we get to Step 7.

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."

-Thomas Jefferson

Becoming Involved in "Patriotics" - Step 2

[This is the second in a series of seven articles that explains how to become an active and informed citizen of the United States. Links to the previous articles are provided below.] 

Step 2: Develop a respect and reverence for your country by visiting its monuments, appreciating its beauty, and honoring its symbols. 

The United States of America is a land rich in history, steeped in tradition, and sanctified by sacrifice of the founding fathers and other brave souls who, in Abraham Lincoln’s famous words, “gave the last full measure of devotion.” It is a land endowed with physical beauty. By partaking in the American experience you can develop a deep love for our country. 

As mentioned in the previous article, one of the requirements for citizenship is to have a fundamental understanding of the history of the United States. Although most of us went through the obligatory history classes in school, a patriotic citizen will continually study and reflect on the history of the United States and will remain vigilant against efforts to demean and defame the founding fathers.

Gaining an understanding of history does not need to be boring. It can, in fact, be a highly enjoyable pursuit. This article explains how to get personally involved with the history and culture of our nation outside of the musty textbooks. 

(1) Visit national and state historic sites

Our nation is full of historic sites that help its citizens feel the spirit of America. Your state probably has several significant sites that mark the location of significant historical events. As you travel with your family or on business, don’t pass up the opportunity to visit our national museums and monuments. 

Over the past ten years while living in Texas, we have made an effort to visit Texas’ historic sites. We have stood at the Alamo, where the American heroes took a stand against the Mexican army. There is an amazing feeling of reverence in that old mission compound. Although that was a losing battle, the story didn’t end there. The San Jacinto Monument, near Houston, tells the rest of the story. We have visited the State Capitol in Austin, and we have stood in Daley Plaza in Dallas. These sites have fostered in our hearts a love of both our nation and our state. 

Several years ago during a trip to Hawaii, we took the opportunity to visit the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor, where brave servicemen died defending our nation on the morning of December 7, 1941. The memorial stands as a reverent reminder that constant vigilance is necessary to defend our freedom. 

On a trip to Washington D.C. many years ago, I stood before the display containing the Declaration of Independence and pondered upon the bravery it took for those early American Patriots to courageously take a step that, if unsuccessful, would amount to high treason. But, fortunately for us and our posterity, they were successful in founding our nation. 

I have visited Ellis Island, where some of my ancestors first set foot in this country with nothing but the clothes on their backs, but with visions of the new opportunities that awaited them through effort, dedication, and hard work. During that same trip we visited Ground Zero, where thousands of innocent Americans died one September morning, while millions more of us experienced the tragedy vicariously via news broadcasts. 

Even a trip to Disney World can inspire a love for your country. The American Adventure pavilion in Epcot Center is one of my absolute favorite tributes to the United States. 

All of these experiences have helped me and my family understand the sacrifice, the suffering, and the hard work that has gone into the building of the nation that we now enjoy. These visits have also deepened our respect and admiration for the armed forces. 

(2) Enjoy the natural beauty of the United States

The United States is blessed with a great diversity of natural beauty. I’m not even going to try to describe my experiences camping, hiking, and driving through this country. I’ll let John Wayne express how I feel about this country’s spectacular vistas.

"America, Why I Love Her."


(3) Understand the significance of the flag and the National Anthem


The flag of the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the National Anthem serve as constant reminders of the history of our country, the sacrifices that have been made to build the nation, and of the duties we have as Americans. We have a sacred duty to honor these American rituals and symbols. 

The Flag of the United States


The flag of the United States is important enough to warrant its own section in the United States Code (USC). Title 4, Chapter 1 is entitled simply, “The Flag.” This chapter of the U.S. Code outlines how the flag is to be displayed. All U.S. citizens should become familiar with the rules of etiquette relating to our flag. 

Title 4, Section 8 states: “ No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America…”

The flag stands for our land and our people. It symbolizes our highest national principles, our way of life, and our heritage. It serves as a constant reminder of the sacrifice of those who have bled and died for freedom. 

Over 30 years ago I was invited to participate in a grade school essay contest. I was asked to explain (in 100 words or less) what the American flag means to me. My feelings have not changed over these many years:

"What the American Flag Means to Me"

The flag to me stands for a mighty nation. It means we will stand up for the freedom we hold so dearly.

It also stands for the many brave people who shed blood for our country, men who wanted freedom more than their own lives.

The flag is a symbol of leadership over all nations. Many countries try to copy us but they will never equal us. 

That is what the flag means to me. 

Here is one of my all-time favorite tributes to our flag, by Johnny Cash: 


"The Ragged Old Flag"

The National Anthem

“The Star Spangled Banner” has its roots in the War of 1812. On September 13, 1812, the British Fleet had entered Chesapeake Bay and closed in on Baltimore, Maryland. To capture Baltimore, the British had to get past Fort McHenry, which guarded the harbor. The British guns trained their fire on a huge American flag at the fort. 

Francis Scott Key was a young American lawyer who had sailed out to a British warship before the fighting began in an attempt to sure the release of a friend who was being held prisoner. He was detained, and had no choice but to wait out the attack from the warship. 

When dawn arrived on the morning of September 14, he spotted the Stars and Stripes still proudly waving through the smoke. Fort McHenry stood, and the British were abandoning their plans to capture Baltimore. 

Key was overcome with emotion. He put pen to paper and wrote out his thoughts, beginning with “O say, can you see by the dawn’s early light…” His poem was printed and distributed in Baltimore, and was later put to music. Almost a century later, in 1931, Congress designated the song as our national anthem. 

Typically only the first verse of the anthem is sung by cheering crowds at sporting events and other occasions. The fourth verse, although rarely sung, is my personal favorite. Here is the full text of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:

'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,

A home and a country should leave us no more!

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

The following video explains in great detail the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Star Spangled Banner. It is well worth nine minutes of your time. 

"The Story Behind the Star Spangled Banner"


May we all seek to foster a greater love of our country in our own hearts and in the hearts of our family members. God bless America. 

[to be continued]