Two Posts in One Day... same topic though

I wanted to post this in a separate post. First of all, I haven't been posting much as we collectively held our breath waiting for the Heller decision. Now that we have it in our hot little hands, I couldn't keep my views inside for very long. I had to vent. So, round two of my venting comes here.

I have serious concerns about a quote from the minority opinion penned by Justice John Paul Stevens. I haven't had a chance to read all of the opinions yet... I admit I have only skimmed them at this point. I will read them all in the near future. I understand the main points from the majority and wanted to read it last because I knew the minority opinions would get my blood pressure up and the majority opinions would help restore my faith in the Justice System. So, without further ado, here is a wonderful quote from Justice Stevens' opinion:

"[The majority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

I have shocking news for Justice Stevens... that is EXACTLY what the Framers of the Constitution wanted to do. The Framers were the same people that wrote the Declaration of Independence. They are the same people that were watching British forces kick in doors and confiscate firearms from citizens because the Crown wanted to try and disarm their subjects before a revolution began. They are the same people that lived in an oppressive government and knew they had to have the ability to defend themselves from that government and overthrow it if necessary. They are the same people that risked their lives, their livelihood, and their families to make this country free.

They are the same men that watched their friends die at the hands of the British. They are the same ones that nearly froze to death at Valley Forge. They are the brave, free men that wanted to make sure no government of this magnificent nation could oppress her people again.

Yes, Justice John Paul Stevens... that is exactly what they meant. And it terrifies me to my very core that you don't understand this.... and that more Justices like you may soon sit along side you.

Sirius

Supreme Court gets it right... barely

The supreme court produced its verdict on Thursday June 26, 2008 in the case of Washington DC v. Heller. In it, they upheld that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional and that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. This right is now the same as all of the other ones in the Bill of Rights in that it applies to individuals and keeps governments from improper use of their authority in the oppression of a free people.

This is wonderful news.

Yet, it needs to be noted that we should be horrified. The vote was 5-4. 5-4. That vote means that we were one Justice away from loosing our second amendment rights. One vote. There were four people on the bench that thought it was perfectly OK to not allow people to own a functional firearm and that outlawing pistols was perfectly fine. One vote.

Now, we need to think very carefully about this... there will be vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next Presidency. Possibly as many as three. If Barack Obama gets the presidency he has pledged to put Justices on the bench "...who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through." He has pledged to put people on the bench like Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter... all of whom voted in the minority on this case with the fourth vote being Paul Stevens.

If Obama is president, we will loose our right to keep and bear arms.

This is not a threat. This is fact. If he is able to appoint justices such as Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens to the vacancies then the next vote can be as high as 6-3... but in the opposite direction. At this moment, lawsuits are being filed in New York City, San Fransisco, and Chicago to fight their gun bans based on this ruling. Some, if not all, will make it to the Supreme court but that will take time. 5-10 years of time. During the time it takes to make it to the Supreme Court of the United States the entire composition can be different. We can, and will, loose our fundamental right to self defense if we allow an Obama presidency.

I am not the biggest fan of McCain. There are things within his policies that I do not like. There are reasons I would prefer a different candidate. Yet, I know he will nominate judges that believe in the Constitution and in the founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence. I know that McCain will hold the course in the most important item of the next presidency... appointing the right, constructionist judges.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are for life. Whoever has the power to nominate judges will leave a legacy that will stretch for decades. Never before in my life have I been a one topic voter. This year I will be. As I consider the candidates I will use six words to guide me.

Supreme Court. Supreme Court. Supreme Court.

Sirius

CCRKBA Says Press Purposely Downplays Key Role of Armed Student in Jerusalem

Attached below is a news release from the CCRKBA. It is interesting to see that the US press is stressing the "off-duty soldier" aspect. Everyone is considered a member of the Israeli Defense Force and is "off duty". They purposely down play the fact that it was a student who is licensed to own, carry, and use a firearm that stopped this rampage with two well placed rounds to the head of the terrorist. I wonder how many more people we have to sacrifice in victim disarmament zones before we stand up and say "No more!" I wonder how long it will be before we have more rights to protect ourselves and our families than the criminals have to come and kill them.

Sirius

============================================================
CCRKBA Says Press Purposely Downplays Key Role of Armed Student in Jerusalem
Posted : Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:22:13 GMT
Author : Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Category : PressReleaseNews Alerts by Email

BELLEVUE, Wash., March 7
PRNewswire-USNewswire

An armed student at Jerusalem's Mercaz Haray seminary played a crucial role in stopping a gun-wielding terrorist Thursday, but the American press is downplaying his heroism because it proves that armed students can stop campus gunmen, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Yitzhak Dadon, 40, was described as "a private citizen who had a gun license and was able to shoot the gunman with his pistol" by reporter Etgar Lefkovitz with the Jerusalem Post. However, many news agencies in the United States are downplaying Dadon's decisive role in the incident.

"Yitzhak Dadon is a hero," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "and he is living proof that armed students have a place on college campuses. Thankfully, his quick action was reported by the international press, including Mr. Lefkovitz, so unlike incidents here in the United States where the press was able to completely ignore the actions of armed students or teachers, the truth about this incident will not be suppressed.

"Mr. Dadon is not going to become a victim of this conspiracy of silence," Gottlieb continued. "Elitist American college administrators, the national press, nor anti-gun politicians can sweep this incident under their rug.

"Internationally published reports say Dadon studies at the yeshiva, and had his pistol when the shooting erupted. When the gunman emerged from a library, Dadon reportedly shot him twice in the head. The gunman was subsequently shot by the off-duty soldier.

"Yitzhak Dadon's apparently well-placed bullets interrupted a rampage," Gottlieb said. "What a pity that someone like Mr. Dadon was not in class last April at Virginia Tech. What a tragedy that anti-gun extremism would keep him from attending class at Northern Illinois University. He would never be allowed to teach at Columbine High School, hold a job at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, or go shopping at Omaha's Westroads Mall.

"America's acquiescence to anti-gun hysteria has led to one tragedy after another," Gottlieb stated. "This disastrous policy has given us nothing but broken hearts and body counts, and it's got to end. The heroism of an armed Israeli seminary student halfway across the world sends a message that we needn't submit to murder in victim disarmament zones. That's why his actions are getting such short shrift from America's press. It's a story they are loathe to report because it affirms a philosophy of self-reliance that they despise."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

What is the Militia?

As the debate about D.C. vs Heller rolls around, I was compelled to find out what the legal definition of a "Militia" is within the United States. The 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To give a touch of background, I come from a very liberal family. My mother never wanted me to own a toy gun because it "promoted violence". My sisters live in the most liberal part of the state and think that guns are evil incarnate. So, I was raised to believe that the 2nd amendment only applied to a militia and that meant the National Guard. Now, I know better. If you read below, you will see the analyses of the sentence structure provided by the 2nd Amendment Sisters. Also, any time the words "the People" is used in the framing documents, it refers to individuals and individual rights. This fact is lost on the rest of my family, so I decided to take a different tack. What is a militia?

After much searching over the past few years, a friend of mine on a discussion forum posted a link to the actual law defining a militia. I will quote it below, but it can be found HERE. I do have to thank the Cornell School of Law for providing a searchable database of Federal Law. The part we are concerned about (if you want to find it through an impartial reference) is US Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 311 which states: (bold/italics added for emphasis)

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The other piece I wanted to quote was an answer to "Who is exempt from the militia?" This is covered by US Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 312

§ 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

So, what this means is that every able bodied man who is between the ages of 17 and 45 and every woman who is in the National Guard are members of the Militia unless they are exempted by § 312.

That means, I am a part of a well regulated Militia. Since a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of this great nation and our freedoms, I have the right to keep and carry a firearm. This right will not be infringed. That is the Law. That is the Constitution. That is a right that is protected by the formation of this great country.

God bless the founding fathers.
God bless those fighting to keep our rights.
God bless Mr. Heller.
God bless the USA.

Michigan celebrates 6 years of Right To Carry

Below is an editorial from the Lenawaee Connection Daily Telegram

EDITORIAL

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:23 AM EST

State figures dispel anti-gun predictions

At issue: A look back at Michigan’s concealed carry gun law, six years after it took effect.

Our view: Data indicates law-abiding citizens, given a chance to make good choices, have led to improved safety as well as to more freedom.

Laws tend to restrict citizens, if only — we’re told — for our own good. The ever-growing “do not” list now includes smoking in your own private business (unless, for now, it happens to be a bar or restaurant), not wearing a motorcycle helmet, failing to buckle your seat belt, playing dodgeball or tag on certain playgrounds, gambling on the Internet, refusing to buy health insurance (if you live in Massachusetts) or, in other areas, serving food cooked with trans fat.

So imagine a law that not only gives the public more individual freedom but, six years after implementation, seems to have contributed to a safer society.

According to a Detroit Free Press story published Sunday, Michigan now has more than 155,000 residents (about one in 65) legally licensed to carry a loaded firearm. That’s a six-fold increase since the state’s concealed carry law took effect. Most of us remember how nanny-state supporters objected to the law, assuring us that giving people more freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights would “obviously” produce a flood of violence. Hundreds more people, they predicted, would die in shootouts on highways, city streets and businesses.

Instead, the opposite occurred. As permits have gone up, shootings have gone down and so has violent crime. In fact, the FBI reported Tuesday that violent crime in Detroit fell a surprising 12 percent in the first sixth months of 2007. This came despite a terrible economy that caused one university criminologist to anticipate a crime increase.

While it is not scientific to assign a cause-and-effect relationship to this phenomenon, similar results have been reported for years in most of the approximately 40 other states that have less restrictive concealed-carry firearm permits. On New Year’s Eve in Indianapolis, a shopper with a firearm stopped a supermarket armed robbery in progress and detained the suspect for police, without needing to fire a single shot. It was just another example of how more law-abiding citizens are protecting themselves and others.

The current data should be considered by Michigan lawmakers. They have a chance to pass House Bill 5162 that could give state teachers who try and who pass background checks and CCW permit training the option to legally protect their classes with a concealed firearm. The exasperated protests that students would be less safe if schools dropped their “gun-free zones” is identical to the claims we heard six years ago, claims discredited by experience.

It’s time to acknowledge that society is more free — and more safe — when criminals are not the only private citizens who might be carrying a firearm.

Good article on PoliceOne.com

Here is a great article that I found on policeone.com It has some good things to say about the importance of personal carry. It is reproduced here in it's entirity. Please visit www.policeone.com and support their sponsors.


Instant Response: Carry off-duty

By Dick Fairburn, Illinois State Police

Several years ago a comprehensive study of active shooter incidents found that most were over too quickly for a Rapid Deployment Contact team to assemble and make entry into the kill zone. In almost every incident where an active killer was stopped before they fully ran their plan, someone on-scene took immediate action. Generally, these “Instant Responders” were security guards or ordinary citizens. Even when police officers did stop the shooter, they were either on-scene when the shooting started or the first to arrive at the call.

The church shootings in Colorado last month followed the same pattern. At the first attack, the shooter was gone before police could arrive. At the second shooting, about 12 hours later, the killer was himself killed by a courageous volunteer security worker carrying a weapon on a concealed weapons permit, thus stopping him before he could do more damage. Similarly, an off-duty officer minimized the killing last spring at a Utah mall. Just a few days before the Colorado incidents, another mall shooting in Nebraska was over before police could get on-scene.

Rapid Deployment training is great training. It should be mandatory for all officers and should be refreshed at least annually. But, Rapid Deployment must be considered a follow-on technique to supplement the Instant Response of on-scene personnel or first arriving officers. Any other technique will delay contact with the killer and allow them more time to snuff out innocent lives. Even at the World Trade Center, a large percentage of those rescued and evacuated before the collapse where directed by civilians who stepped up and filled a vacuum of leadership. The 9/11 report dubbed these heroes “First - First Responders.”

I recommend one iron clad rule all sworn officers should obey. Carry a weapon off-duty. For those of you who feel your only off-duty obligation is to be a trained observer: I disagree. And, more importantly, the reality of this spiraling increase of mass murderers also proves otherwise. Remember examples such as the security guard in Colorado and the construction workers at the World Trade Center, who were last seen headed up the stairs to direct the evacuation of one more floor. Step up and remember your oath to protect and serve.

A look at the list of active shooter incidents show that a significant number occurred in religious facilities - of all faiths. Even dedicated officers may feel strange wearing a concealed sidearm at church - until the unthinkable happens at their church and they have the means to save many lives. Carry off-duty wherever you may legally do so.

I live in one of the only two states that have no provision for concealed carry by permitted civilians. A researcher who tracks concealed carry statistics claims several potential mass murders are stopped each year by legally armed civilians, often without a shot being fired. Most of these mass killers are frightened little boys trying to make themselves famous as they go out in a blaze of glory. When confronted by a confident, armed adversary, many such shooters surrender with little more than a whimper.

Step up. Find that off-duty sidearm you carried in your youth and get in some practice time at the range. Be aware of your surroundings at all times - Condition Yellow - Relaxed Alert. In case the elephant does appear in front of you, train your family to get the hell away from you and call in your description to 911. If the shooter does want to fight, you will quickly become a bullet magnet.

Oh, and one last piece of advice. Carry a reload for your sidearm. The off-duty officer who responded at the Utah mall did yeoman work with a .45 and a single magazine ... but said he sure would have liked to have a few more rounds for insurance!

About the author

Dick Fairburn has had more than 26 years of law enforcement experience. He has worked patrol, investigations and administration. Since 1996 he has been with the Illinois State Police serving as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst, as the Section Chief of the Academy’s Firearms Training Unit and as the Critical Incident Training Coordinator.

He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published hundreds of articles and a book titled, Police Rifles.