Louisiana ACT 874 is more GUN CONTROL..!!

************************************

******************************

Here is information on the Gun Control Legislation we will be voting on November 6th, 2012 needing your “Strict Scrutiny!”

The new Amendment has been touted as adding “teeth” to the current 1974 Louisiana Constitution. I, along with a few others, have examined the current Amendment and the proposed Amendment. We have drawn a comparison for your review. I highly recommend that you, as a Louisiana voter, weigh this comparison carefully before casting your ballot “For” or “Against” the proposed new Amendment! It will be almost impossible to change this Amendment if you are one of the Louisiana Citizens on whom “Strict Scrutiny” might be applied, and you don’t like the “bite” this Amendment adds!

The link I have provided below is to the latest version of SB 303 (ACT 874) whereby the new gun control amendment will be voted on this November 6th during the national election for President.

Here are the basics-

The 1974 Constitution currently reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

If the new amendment is passed, the Constitution will read:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The Ballot on Nov 6th will read:

“Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?”
“(Amends Article I, Section 11)”

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=812575

The MAIN problem with the NEW amendment is that the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence states that the “right …… shall not be infringed.” The second sentence states “any restriction” is allowed.

For a “Right” to “not be infringed” there can be NO “restriction” placed on it whatsoever. NONE. Privileges can have restrictions placed on them. “Rights”, as defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 cannot be “restricted” in any manner, as they are “unalienable,” which means not ‘alienable’….not able to be taken away, transferred or RESTRICTED…!!

The second problem with the amendment as written is that the undetermined “restrictions” which should NOT be in the amendment at all, “shall be subject to strict scrutiny” by persons or groups who are not named in the amendment. That could be anyone. It could be any public official, military commander or court.

That leads to another huge problem – “Strict SCRUTINY” by whom?

We cannot assume it means ‘court’ at all, since the word “COURT” does NOT appear in the Amendment… BUT it will appear on the ballot. Please notice that the ballot and Bill wording does NOT appear in the Amendment!

The “strict scrutiny” could be made by the City, Parish, District, State officials, or their courts, or the Supreme Court. The word ‘COURT’ might even be the World Court at the Hague, Netherlands. How many small town Louisianans will travel to The Hague, Netherlands to defend their Rights to own a firearm?
SB 303 makes four (4) references to the “Courts” but you need to ask your representative which “Court” hears the case, how that “Court” gets involved, what are the guidelines used by those “Courts” for strict “Scrutiny” and how does wording of “The Bill” apply to the Amendment when the Amendment does not call for any use of a Court system.

The wording of the Amendment simply does NOT address the Court system as the Bill does. The amendment certainly should be specific before it is implemented by our vote to approve this vaguely worded change to the Louisiana Constitution.

Actually, the second sentence in the amendment should be COMPLETELY REMOVED to be considered at all..!!

Here is some information on the “International Court of Justice” (Aka- World Court) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

District 33 Rep Mike Danahay has stated to me; the NRA wrote this bill.

Here is what the NRA Vice President said it stands for:
“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.” —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
(Source: NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22.)

That quote and more information on the deeds of the NRA can be found in this article:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3247

The NRA is one of the largest proponents of Gun Control in the United States as stated in the complete article from KeepAndBearArms.com. Please attempt to make it your duty to read the complete article before the November elections to learn what the Authors of Louisiana’s Senate Bill 303 “REALLY” stand for! You may not want to support this Bill once you study the proposed Amendment once you have better understand the author(s) of this Bill.

As it states in the Digest written by Thomas L. Tyler on page 2 of SB 303, the only regulation we currently have on firearms is on those who carry them concealed.

We should keep it that way. You and I can currently carry firearms within the state of Louisiana as long as it can be seen and is not concealed. No permit required. That’s more Liberty than what is being offered from the new Amendment if you ask me!
CalcasieuTaxPayers.com

*************

**********

PS…

‘Strict scrutiny’ is NOT necessary for protection of any rights, in ANY amendment to the Louisiana Constitution. There are no guarantees of protection of rights due to the insertion of any wording into an amendment at any time.

Tiered scrutiny, including strict scrutiny, is hardly a canon of constitutional law. It was invented in the middle of the 20th Century by the Warren Court.

The idea of ‘Strict Scrutiny’ did not exist before 1938, as a legal term. Those words have NO constitutional basis at all..!!

The notion of “levels of judicial scrutiny”, including ‘strict scrutiny,’ was introduced in footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944).

In all of its forms, tiered scrutiny is a balancing methodology which omits any reference to either text or history. Instead, it gives judges the “power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” If that is the case….there are NO rights at all, only privileges, to be meted out or totally removed, as judges see fit to do.

***************

****************************

***************

“STRICT SCRUTINY”

Here’s what Chief Justice John Roberts had to say during oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller:

“Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “strict scrutiny,” “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard.

“Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

“I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?”

SO…. in light of what Chief Justice Roberts said…

There Is NO reason for the last sentence of the new proposed amendment, and its inevitable ‘restriction,’ which should NOT be in the amendment at all.

********************************

*******************

*****

NOTICE

Personal attacks are unnecessary and will not be tolerated.

**********

********************************

44 Responses to “Louisiana ACT 874 is more GUN CONTROL..!!”

  1. Dave Says:

    The wording is oxymoronic. If it’s “shall not be infringed”, there can be no restriction. Besides being in violation of the intent of the 2nd article of amendment, it is void for vagueness.

    Furthermore:

    The term ‘strict scrutiny’ was never used in a legal sense until 1938. It appears to me that RKBA was doing just fine from 1791(Bill of Rights) until FDR’s New Deal in1938.

    ‘Strict Scrutiny’ did not exist before 1938.

    The notion of “levels of judicial scrutiny”, including ‘strict scrutiny,’ was introduced in footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designation areas during World War II. Statutes and policies that are subjected to strict scrutiny often but not always fail to meet it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    1938 is the same year there was a change to the US Constitution without an amendment, when the FRCP were adopted. This fraudulent move took regulation of the courts from congress and gave it to the SCOTUS.

    • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

      I believe the ‘oxymoronic’ wording was placed there by those wishing to cause more lawsuits…to generate more legal fees for the ones in the ‘business’ to handle the controversies, making money whether they win or lose the cases for their clients.

      The unsuspecting followers in the state house and senate, who are not attorneys, just followed the gang, to go along to get along. They do that so they can get their own bills passed later. They might call it ‘reciprocity’ or ‘compromise’ to make it sound nicer than…’trade-off.’

      Placing ‘shall not be infringed’ and ‘restriction’ in the same amendment assures future suits. BUT….. That ploy is ‘good for business..’

      Here’s why:
      ‘Infringed’ means unwanted touching, encroached or violated.
      ‘Restriction’ is a restraint or a limitation or a regulation, an encroachment, for sure.

      The meanings of the terms and words in the first sentence are in total opposition to the ones in the second sentence. That sets the stage for an argument….for lawsuits.

      “Shall not be infringed” means NO “restrictions” whatsoever….’Hands OFF..!!’

      Mix in the ‘strict scrutiny’ by the courts when the lawsuits are filed….and fees will flow abundantly….. The goal will be achieved. The people lose….again.

      In case you are wondering what I would suggest for an amendment…. I say strike the last sentence, and it will be perfect. It will more nearly match the one in the US Bill of Rights, of 1791, which does not contain any ‘restriction’ at all. They knew better than that. There were fewer attorneys involved.

      The one there right now is better, by a long shot. Read it, above.

      You can vote your opinion on it in November.

  2. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Hello.

    Right now my feet are firmly on the ground just outside the United Nation’s complex in New York City.

    You can imagine the scene…

    Wannabe one-world dictators are feverishly putting the final touches on the freedom-killing UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

    And much to the chagrin of Hillary Clinton, I’ve managed to get my hands on a draft copy! It’s just as I’ve been warning:

    “Small arms and light weapons” are listed as “covered items” right next to battle tanks and warships … and they’ve left the definition so wide, it no doubt will include everyday firearms Americans use for defense and sport.

    We only have until THIS FRIDAY July 27th to prepare for battle.

    Please click here to see my critical video update.
    Or visit: http://www.nagr.org/UNTreaty_Pledge2.aspx?pid=5b

    Thank you,
    Dudley Brown

    Executive Vice President
    National Association for Gun Rights

  3. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Gun Grab Coming: Congressman Broun’s Message
    July 26, 2012 —

    *******************************************

    Please….listen to Congressman Paul Broun’s urgent message on the UN Small Arms Treaty that will take away our guns..!!

    http://nagr.org/UN_PB_Video1.aspx?pid=gam01

  4. Misinformation About Louisiana RKBA Ballot Measure | Shall Not Be Questioned Says:

    […] There’s a lot of folks who seem to think this is gun control, because it changes: Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. […]

    • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

      I like your BLOG link above. They really know how to argue over there.

    • Pat Says:

      This was an interesting comment:

      Placing the term “strict scrutiny” in a proposed state constitutional amendment probably wasn’t a very good idea.

      Here’s what Chief Justice John Roberts had to say during oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller:

      ====

      “Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “strict scrutiny,” “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

      “I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?”

      ====

      A better phrase to propose might have been something like “highest judicial scrutiny.” But it’s just bad lawyering to directly cite judge-created rights-balancing language when your goal is to prevent judicial encroachment of a right.

  5. Mike Says:

    Ok, I’m on the fence here..both sides are making strong arguements. I would love to see it written “The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and shall not be infringed.” …that’s it, nothing else…but, obvisiously we can not get this.

  6. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Arguments generate billing hours….. We all know that. So, please have your checkbooks handy.

  7. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Well, alright, then. Consider this.

    U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, clause 2:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The United Nations Treaty is…..a treaty. Yes…a treaty. The supreme Law of the Land(not of the sea).

    Judges in every state are bound to the United Nations Treaty as the supreme Law of the Land….as stated “…bound thereby.” The state constitutions and state laws which conflict with this section of the contract have no standing.

    ‘Strict scrutiny’ means strict adherence to the UN Treaty. The ‘restrictions’ placed by the UN Treaty will apply…..as the orders are written in the contract, the compact, which is known as the US Constitution.

    Then read what the UN wants America to do:

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
    Disarmament Series 5
    Released September 1961

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

    Just one of the requirements is:

    “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

    Therefore, SB303 and the proposed amendment are MORE confining to the UN Treaty, which demands WORLD disarmament.

    Remember it was lawyers who wrote the UN Treaty, Alger Hiss being the most notable, and he served time in prison for lying about being a spy for Russia.

    [Alger Hiss (November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American lawyer, government official, author, and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.]

    And it was lawyers who got the US into the treaty…. the lawyers, who were Senators, who ratified it.

    Those are the facts.

  8. jeffinhouston Says:

    Um, all rights have restrictions. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the “right” to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. This amendment is intended to strengthen your gun rights, and will do so. You should support it. At the end of the day, nobody’s gonna take your guns away while you’re still breathing anyway, right?

  9. Pat Says:

    So, in this time of economic hardship, and in our attempts to cut costs and size of government, it might be best to not spend the money necessary to implement this change at all.

  10. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Great point, Pat. I was wondering about that, myself.

    Follow the money.

  11. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Some folks have submitted to me that with the new amendment the judicially-imposed “legitimate purposes” test (the weakest test) of judicial review would be replaced by the strongest test: strict scrutiny.
    Under “strict scrutiny,” the burden of proof is reversed; the government bears the burden of proving that a gun control law is constitutional. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be proven to serve a “compelling state interest” (not merely a “legitimate purpose”).
    Even if the law does advance a compelling state interest, the law is constitutional only if the government additionally proves that the law is “narrowly tailored” and is the “least restrictive means” to advance the compelling state interest.

    ((()))

    I agree with that statement. And that is one of the reasons why I oppose the amendment.

    Judges in every state are bound ‘constitutionally’ to uphold the UN Treaty as stated in Art 6, clause 2 of the US Constitution. To accompany that, a ‘compelling state interest’ would be easily noticed. It is still anyone’s guess as to the ‘least restrictive’ means to accomplish those stipulations.

    Then, decisions based on codes based on statutes provided by this amendment would bleed over to other states and venues.

    As it stands now….”You got a legitimate purpose…You get it.”

    Leave it alone. “I smell a rat.”

    As another commenter noted, changing the amendment will cost millions more to implement than it has done so already just to get it on the ballot.

    The one benefiting the most is the printing contractor.

    Judges will rule as they wish anyway. They say, “Appeal it.”

  12. Frederick Says:

    I believe I understand what the author of the original article is addressing here. He is showing that ‘strict scrutiny’ will be the only standard if the amendment passes. That means that the ‘rational basis’ and any others will be disallowed. If the ‘rational basis’ is disallowed, the UN Treaty will have to be followed, strictly, since the US Constitution mandates that, as it does all treaties. There will be no alternatives.

      • Frederick Says:

        Speaking of CONTROL, have you ever reviewed the Preamble to the US constitution?
        The Preamble to the US constitution was a declaration that the contract was by and between the United States and the United States of America and not the people of said United States of America who are not party to it.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        Everyone needs to WAKE UP the fact that as stated in the Preamble to the US constitution that the contract was by and between the United States and The United States of America pursuant to:
        Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
        14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)
        “No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it.

      • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

        Interesting. I had heard of Padelford. Thanks.

        I often wondered if something were already perfect, how it could be made ‘more perfect’ by mere men.

  13. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    All of us in the US have been living in a constant state of National Emergency since 1933:

    It turns out that in 1973 Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias reported, in SR 93-549, that all of us in the US have been living in a constant state of National Emergency since 1933, and possibly since the Civil War…..and maybe, even before that.

    I have found that what I ‘think’ and what I ‘know’ are usually vastly different.

    I ‘KNOW’ this was reported by Senator Frank Church in 1973:

    93d Congress
    Senate Report No. 93-549
    EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:
    PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW
    NOW IN EFFECT DELEGATING TO THE
    EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY
    IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY
    ________________________________________

    REPORT OF THE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
    TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
    UNITED STATES SENATE

    NOVEMBER 19, 1973

    SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
    TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
    FRANK CHURCH, Idaho Co-Chairman
    CHARLES McC MATHIAS, Jr.,

    FOREWORD
    Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971. (many more have been added since this report 40 years ago)

    These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

    Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
    seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

    (entire report at link)

    http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html

    • Frederick Says:

      Good job, I find your research informative. In reference to the proposed amendment to strengthen gun rights, I suggest that you also consider researching the writings of Leo Tolstoy who discussed the philosophy of Might Is Right in his 1897 essay What Is Art?, and specifically take note on page 159 that: “Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines …., have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero. Men should not be bound by moral rules invented by their foes.”

    • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

      This was easily found with further research:

      As a result of the efforts of Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias, co-authors of SR 93-549 in 1973, in 1976 Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. The act set a limit of two years on emergency declarations unless the president explicitly extends them, and requiring the president to specify in advance which legal provisions will be invoked. The Act terminated the emergency of 1950, Korean War, on September 14, 1978, which lasted 28 years.

      As a direct result of President Clinton’s efforts in 1995, President Barack Obama explicitly extended George Bush’s Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009, on September 10, 2010, on September 9, 2011, and on September 11, 2012.

      So, here they are today, Congress and the President, operating under a state of declared emergency, as was the case in 1973, as discovered by Senators Church and Mathias.

      That means NO amendments are in full effect.

    • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

      RE: Implementing Regulations – CFR

      More on Emergency Powers of the President:

      A friend read (a) and (b) and was elated and was writing a report on how great this section was to help win cases. Then….he read (c)….and he knew he/we were screwed:

      U.S.C. TITLE 44, Chapter 15 § 1505

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/1505

      (c) Suspension of Requirements for Filing of Documents; Alternate Systems for Promulgating, Filing, or Publishing Documents; Preservation of Originals.

      In the event of an attack or threatened attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack

      (1) publication of the Federal Register or filing of documents with the Office of the Federal Register is impracticable, or

      (2) under existing conditions publication in the Federal Register would not serve to give appropriate notice to the public of the contents of documents, the President may, without regard to any other provision of law, suspend all or part of the requirements of law or regulation for filing with the Office or publication in the Federal Register of documents or classes of documents.

      The suspensions shall remain in effect until revoked by the President, or by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

      The President shall establish alternate systems for promulgating, filing, or publishing documents or classes of documents affected by such suspensions, including requirements relating to their effectiveness or validity, that may be considered under the then existing circumstances practicable to provide public notice of the issuance and of the contents of the documents.

      The alternate systems may, without limitation, provide for the use of regional or specialized publications or depositories for documents, or of the press, the radio, or similar mediums of general communication.

      Compliance with alternate systems of filing or publication shall have the same effect as filing with the Office or publication in the Federal Register under this chapter or other law or regulation.

      With respect to documents promulgated under alternate systems, each agency shall preserve the original and two duplicate originals or two certified copies for filing with the Office when the President determines that it is practicable.

      • Pat Says:

        I am wondering if the President can use the alternate system as well as the regular system of publishing in the Federal Register, since we are under National Emergency today, as extended just last month.

        NOTICE
        CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
        Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
        Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2012. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

        This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
        BARACK OBAMA
        THE WHITE HOUSE,
        September 11, 2012.

  14. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    FYI –
    These acts still affect the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment.

    Excerpts from the 39th Congress

    http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofthirtyn01barn/historyofthirtyn01barn_djvu.txt

    [This is a portion of President Andrew Johnson’s return of the Civil Rights Bill on March 27, 1866. His address starts at p. 246, and ends on p. 253. Congress overrode the return and passed the bill, and impeached President Johnson. He had been a Senator, himself, and Governor and Military Governor of Tennessee. He wanted to follow the US Constitution. He vetoed only two of the forty-two they sent to him while in office. The other was the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill. Congress seemed very determined to get direct control of people in the states, even in those states that did not rebel. President Johnson fought and lost that battle. The two bills did not free anyone… that had already been done by amendments. The bills did, however, regulate the free and freed, alike. The bills permanently controlled all state courts, therefore, all the people in the states.]

    [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

    (246 THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS)

    “To the Senate of the United States:

    “I regret that the bill which has passed both houses of Congress, entitled ‘An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means for their vindication,’ contains provisions which I can not approve, consistently with my sense of duty to the whole people and my obligations to the Constitution of the United States. I am therefore constrained to return it to the Senate, the house in which it originated, with my objections to its becoming a law.”

    ((()))

    “In other words, when a State judge, acting upon a question involving a conflict between a State law and a Federal law, and bound, according to his own judgment and responsibility, to give an impartial decision between the two,

    (250 THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS)

    comes to the conclusion that the State law is valid and the Federal law is invalid, he must not follow the dictates of his own judgment, at the peril of fine and imprisonment. The legislative department of the Government of the United States thus takes from the judicial department of the States the sacred and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and converts the State judge into a mere ministerial officer, bound to decree according to the will of Congress.

    ((()))

    “The question here naturally arises, from what source Congress derives the power to transfer to Federal tribunals certain classes of cases embraced in this section. The Constitution expressly declares that the judicial power of the United States ‘ shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting embassadors,
    other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.’

    “Here the judicial power of the United States is expressly set forth and detained; and the act of September 24, 1789, establishing the judicial courts of the United States, in conferring upon the Federal courts jurisdiction over cases originating in State tribunals, is careful to confine them to the classes enumerated in the above recited clause of the Constitution. This section of the bill undoubtedly comprehends case, and authorizes the exercise of powers that are not, by the Constitution, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. To transfer them to those courts would be an exercise of authority well calculated to excite distrust and alarm on the part of all the States; for the

    (CIVIL BIGHTS BILL 251)

    bill applies alike to all of them — as well to those that have as to those that have not been engaged in rebellion.

    ((()))

    252 THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS.

    “The ninth section authorizes the President, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act.’ This language seems to imply a permanent military force, that is to be always at hand, and whose only business is to be the enforcement of this measure over the vast region where it is intended to operate.

    “I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill. To me the details of the bill seem fraught with evil.

    ((()))

    “My lamented predecessor, in his proclamation of the 1st of January, 1863, ordered and declared that all persons held as slaves within certain States and parts of States therein designated, were and thenceforward should be free; and, further, that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, would recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. This guarantee has been rendered especially obligatory and sacred by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States. I, therefore, fully recognize the obligation to protect and defend that class of our people whenever and wherever it shall become necessary, and to the full extent compatible with the Constitution of the United States.

    “Entertaining these sentiments, it only remains for me to say that I will cheerfully cooperate with Congress in any measure that may be necessary for the protection of the civil rights of the freedmen, as well as those of all other classes of persons throughout the United States, by judicial process under equal and impartial laws, in conformity with the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

    “I now return the bill to the Senate, and regret that, in considering the bills and joint resolutions–forty-two in number–which have been thus far submitted for my approval, I am compelled to withhold my assent from a second measure that has received the sanction of both houses of Congress.”

    “ANDREW JOHNSON”

    “WASHINGTON, D. C., March 27, 1866.”

    ((((((((()))))))))

    (202 THE THIRTY- NINTH CONGRESS)

    Senator Davis of Kentucky claimed the US Government is a ‘close’ corporation.

  15. Pat Says:

    I do not understand why the word ‘restriction’ is in the amendment. It seems I am not the only one. I found:

    SB 303 – A LOUISIANA Constitutional Amendment to Strip Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms LOOK on the ballot November 6, 2012.SB 303 is a Louisiana constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot November 6, 2012. This bill changes the ‘right’ of Louisiana citizens to keep and bear arms to a ‘privilege’ that is determined by a court judge or, perhaps, his clerk!! The wording on the ballot appears to be favorable to the right to keep and bear arms, but the inclusion of the word ‘restriction’ negates your right. I believe that this is NOT a bill to allow concealed carry for all Louisiana citizens.

    http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=778396

    VOTE…!!!

  16. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    The courts ALREADY apply ‘strict scrutiny’ and Justice John Roberts makes a better point than all the Louisiana and NRA lawyers hooked in series.

    This amendment is superfluous, at best, and very ‘restrictive’ at worst, as the courts must already apply strict scrutiny to any hearing of a constitutional question. ‘Restriction’ should NOT be in the amendment… PERIOD..!!

    “U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the “liberty” or “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a “suspect classification” such as race or, sometimes, national origin.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

  17. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    I have seen numerous blogs and comments referencing my blog which you are reading now. The one below is the most amusing, and confusing. I am the ‘author’ he is referencing. The most amusing statement is that he is critical of me because I want to live in a world of absolute rights. Wow…!!!

    I am incredulous that someone would argue the words of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson made it very clear in the Declaration of Independence that he demanded “absolute” rights for all men, who were created equal, and those rights were endowed by the Creator. Yes, I would like to live in that world, as much as it is possible. I believe there was a ‘skirmish’ which was heightened to ‘revolution’ by that declaration of “absolute” rights of men.

    The blogger also went so far as to call me “invincibly ignorant” because I have rejected the opinion of a lawyer. Oh, yeah. Imagine that. Whether he is astute enough to know it or not…. “when the facts are patiently explained by attorney”….. is an OPINION offered by that attorney. So, with all due diligence, I got a second opinion…. MINE…!! The second opinion differed drastically, but, I chose the second one over the first one anyway. The second one was from the ignorant guy who wants “absolute rights.” And that begs the question, “IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND?”

    Answer:IT IS THE ONLY KIND..!!!

    Then, the blogger admits that state courts have handed out “mis-interpretations,” that is, courts have gotten it wrong. No kidding..?? Ask Ms Kelo what the courts did to her. See:
    KELO V CITY OF NEW LONDON (2005). It is an example of VERY BAD interpretation, so bad that ‘conservative’ Justice O’Connor resigned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

    Getting it wrong will still be the case, no matter how many demands, rules and guidelines are set in place. Placing “strict scrutiny” in a sentence will not stop misinterpretations. Nothing will accomplish that. The statute writers will continue to write lousy lobbyist-paid statutes. The implementing regulations and codes will be just as bad, or worse. People will be pushed around by enforcement agents. And judges will still get it wrong. (BTW: Some judges have been so wrong in their decision making as to end up in jail themselves. There is a former one going to trial for criminal charges right now in Lake Charles for stealing from his clients.)

    Then, the blogger plugged in his crystal ball and saw where the proposed amendment would, somehow, magically, “remedy” all the future interpretations of all judges in all courts. Oh, well.

    I remain, PROUDLY, with President Jefferson, “invincibly ignorant.” (LOL)

    (((_)))

    “Surprisingly, some people in Louisiana are opposing the Amendment on the grounds that it supposedly promotes anti-gun laws. For example, at this website, the author remains invincibly ignorant, even when the facts are patiently explained an attorney from the Louisiana Shooting Association. The website author wants to live in a world of absolute rights. Be that as it may, Louisiana today is not a state of absolute rights; it is a state where the right to arms essentially does not exist, as a matter of state constitutional law, as mis-interpreted by state courts. The amendment would remedy the misinterpretation, and make it drastically harder for future courts to uphold anti-gun laws.”

    • Frederick Says:

      As Halloween approaches, the ‘Trick-or-Treaters’ are everywhere…!!! Some are really scary this year.

      Here is an example of some ‘tricky’ and ‘scary’ reasoning. It seems there are those who believe that there are different classifications of ‘rights.’ Evidently this law blogger would have us believe that there are ‘rights’ to be judged, which are actually privileges, and something else called ‘absolute’ rights.

      BUT… please know that “rights” are not rights unless they are totally “absolute” rights…. like… “inalienable” rights… the ones that Jefferson referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

      Men should not be bound by moral rules invented by their foes.

  18. Pat Says:

    Speaking of lessons about constitutional matters:

    Please read Eisenhower’s Study. He had a BIG problem at a military base hospital, and wanted to know how to handle it.

    Things were NOT done ‘properly’ from the beginning…in 1787..but ‘fraudulently’ is a better term.

    The delegate set up a fraudulent contract, which was rejected by the people in the states, and many of the delegates.

    People in the states voted down the constitution, THE contract of war and debt, when put to a vote, so the delegates passed it on their own, self-proclaimed, authority. In Rhode Island they voted 10:1 against it.

    Patrick Henry would not attend the convention because he “smelt a rat” and he was correct. He did not sign the constitution either. It was not signed unanimously, which means that not all delegates wanted it.

    The original contract, constitution, was set up for enabling debt and war, and establish martial law…..especially through Art.I, sec 8, cl.17.

    It got even worse when the tyrannical Lincoln gained office, and murdered untold millions.

    Chief Justice Salmon Chase noted that the power for military rule existed in the original contract.

    This may help. I found it in 1987:

    Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President
    April 1956
    Reprinted by Constitutional Research Associates
    UNITED STATES
    GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    WASHINGTON: 1956
    Reprints available from:
    P.O. Box 550
    So. Holland, Illinois 06473

    Instant Study and Report of Federal Jurisdiction Over Areas Within States of 1956 as ordered by Eisenhower to examine Art.I, sec 8, cl.17.

    From the study:

    “Objections made by Patrick Henry and others, based upon the dangers to personal rights and liberties which clause 17 presented, were anticipated or replied to by James Iredell of North Carolina (subsequently a United States Supreme court Justice) and Mr. Madison. They assured that the rights of residents of federalized areas would by protected by appropriate reservations made by the States in granting their respective consents to federalization. ***(It may be noted that this assurance has to this time borne only little fruit.)”

    http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fed_jur.htm

    Original date: 1995/9/25 — Last updated: 2012/4/22

    Jurisdiction Over Federal
    Areas Within the States
    Report of the Interdepartmental Committee
    for the Study of Jurisdiction Over
    Federal Areas Within the States

    http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj1-3.htm

    JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL
    AREAS WITHIN THE STATES
    REPORT OF THE
    INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE
    FOR THE STUDY OF
    JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS
    WITHIN THE STATES
    PART I
    The Facts and Committee Recommendations
    Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President
    April 1956
    Reprinted by Constitutional Research Associates
    UNITED STATES
    GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    WASHINGTON: 1956
    Reprints available from:
    P.O. Box 550
    So. Holland, Illinois 06473

    The White House,

    Washington, April 27, 1956

    DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am herewith returning to you, so that it may be published and receive the widest possible distribution among those interested in Federal real property matters, part I of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States. I am impressed by the well- planned effort which went into the study underlying this report and by the soundness of the recommendations which the report makes.

    It would seem particularly desirable that the report be brought to the attention of the Federal administrators of real properties, who should be guided by it in matters related to legislative jurisdiction, and to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and appropriate State officials, for their consideration of necessary legislation. I hope that you will see to this. I hope, also, that the General services Administration will establish as soon as may be possible a central source of information concerning the legislative jurisdictional status of Federal properties and that agency, with the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of Justice, will maintain a continuing and concerted interest in the progress made by all Federal agencies in adjusting the status of their properties in conformity with the recommendations made in the report.

    The members of the committee and the other officials, Federal and State, who participated in the study, have my appreciation and congratulations on this report. I hope they will continue their good efforts so that the text of the law on the subject of legislative jurisdiction which is planned as a supplement will issue as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

    The Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr., The Attorney General, Washington, D.C.

    (III)

    LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

    Office of the Attorney General,

    Washington, D.C., April 27,1956.

    DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On my recommendation, and with your approval, there was organized on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee to study problems of jurisdiction related to federally owned property within the States.
    This Committee has labored diligently during the ensuing period and now has produced a factual report (part I), together with recommendations for changes in Federal agency practices, and in Federal and State laws, designed to eliminate existing problems arising out of Federal-State Jurisdictional situations.
    Subject to your approval, I shall bring the report and recommendations to the attention of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the purpose of bringing about consideration of the Federal legislative proposals involved to the attention of State officials through established channels for consideration of the State legislative proposals involved, and to the attention of heads of Federal Departments and agencies, for their guidance in matters relating to this subject.
    Part II of the Committee’s report is now in course of preparation and will be completed in the next several months. It will be a text which will discuss the law applicable to Federal jurisdiction over land owned in the States. Immediately upon completion of the legal text it will be sent to you. The Committee is of the view, in which I concur, that the two parts of the report are sufficiently different in content and purpose that they may issue separately.

    Respectfully,

    Herbert Brownell, Jr.,

    Attorney General

    • calcasieutaxpayers Says:

      Well…. Looks like this study took 17 months from start to finish, just to figure out where the federal government could tell average folks what to do. I guess they can’t tell people what to do with their guns in every location within the states. Interesting. (The Federal Government lacks exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases whatsoever.)

  19. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    I found some very interesting comments here:

    Amendment to Louisiana’s state constitution – 2A Rights – to be Voted on Nov 6th

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/149575-amendment-louisiana-s-state-constitution-2a-rights-voted-nov-6th.html

    *************
    Here is one comment, with which I agree:

    The constitution says NOTHING about removing those very same rights from felons. Taking guns away from Felons that served their sentences is consequentially a gun control platform in it’s self. It would also appear that our legal system has more felonies that one can commit than misdemeanors which I find quite funny being that once a felon your constitutional rights (WHICH YOU WERE BORN WITH) are no more? This is quite the contradiction of what is legally written and sealed in blood and ink by our founding fathers and patriots alike.

    Yet if half of you on this same forum actually believed in or quite frankly understood the Const. then you would have to swallow your discomfort about time served discharged felons owning guns.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” -Quite frankly I cant see past SHALL NOT as meaning anything else. A bad person will kill you, not necessarily a discharged time served felon. A good person will probably NOT kill you regardless of felony or not. The gun doesn’t kill you. Bad people do regardless. Stop trying to dictate my life and others felon or not with your emotions.

  20. Pat Says:

    In a 1992 course, I read “Questioning Techniques and Tactics (Trial Practice Series)” by Jeffrey L. Kestler. I found that, contrary to most beliefs, law is NOT a search for the truth at all.

    The book presented a quote from a federal judge which stated, “Law is NOT a search for the truth. Law is the greatest amount of justice in the least amount of time, at the least expense to the government.”

  21. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Even more to the point….

    Here’s what Chief Justice John Roberts had to say during oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller:

    “Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “strict scrutiny,” “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard.

    Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

    “I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?”

    SO…. in light of what Justice Roberts said…

    There Is NO reason for the last sentence of the new proposed amendment, and its inevitable ‘restriction,’ which should NOT be in the amendment at all.

  22. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    REVIEW CONFERENCE ADOPTS TEXT RENEWING COMMITMENT TO PREVENT, COMBAT, ERADICATE

    ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS, LIGHT WEAPONS

    Concern Voiced over Accuracy, Lack of Stronger Language in Some Areas

    Concluding its two-week session today (7 Sep 2012), the second United Nations conference to review the 2001 Programme of Action on trafficking in small arms and light weapons adopted a consensus outcome document that highlighted the international community’s renewed commitment to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade.

    The document’s adoption represented a major achievement for delegations, who had failed to agree on a final outcome at the first review conference, held in 2006. “We accomplished something great today,” said U. Joy Ogwu ( Nigeria), President of the Conference, formally known as the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

    According to the text, Member States renewed their pledge to rid the world of the scourge brought upon it by the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread in many parts of the world. They also committed to mobilizing the necessary political will and resources to implement the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, with the aim of achieving clear and tangible results over the next six years, through 2018.

    Further by the text, States emphasized that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to sustain conflicts, exacerbate armed violence, undermine respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law, aid terrorism and illegal armed groups, and facilitate increasing levels of transnational organized crime, as well as trafficking in humans, drugs and certain natural resources.

    Recognizing the primary responsibility of Governments in preventing, combating and eradicating small-arms trafficking, Member States welcomed the progress made so far in implementing the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, including the creation of national laws and action plans. However, they stressed that implementation remained uneven, and that challenges and obstacles still stood in the way of full implementation.

    (Full Document):

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/dc3389.doc.htm

  23. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out
    Posted on 11/20/2012 by Drake
    Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out
    Alan Korwin – Author Gun Laws Of America GunLaws.com
    Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.
    Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.
    Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
    Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
    M1 Carbine,
    Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
    AR-15,
    Bushmaster XM15,
    Armalite M15,
    AR-10,
    Thompson 1927,
    Thompson M1;
    AK,
    AKM,
    AKS,
    AK-47,
    AK-74,
    ARM,
    MAK90,
    NHM 90,
    NHM 91,
    SA 85,
    SA 93,
    VEPR;
    Olympic Arms PCR;
    AR70,
    Calico Liberty ,
    Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

    Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
    Calico M-110,
    MAC-10,
    MAC-11, or MPA3,
    Olympic Arms OA,
    TEC-9,
    TEC-DC9,
    TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
    Uzi.

    Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
    Armscor 30 BG,
    SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
    Striker 12,
    Streetsweeper.
    Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
    A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
    (ii) a threaded barrel,
    (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
    (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
    Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
    A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
    (i) a second pistol grip,
    (ii) a threaded barrel,
    (iii) a barrel shroud or
    (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
    (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
    A semiautomatic shotgun with:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
    (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
    (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
    (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

    Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”
    Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
    The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
    Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
    Forward or send to every gun owner you know…

    Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
    YouTube – CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!

    A partial list of gun rights groups:
    Gun Owners of America

    http://gunowners.org/

    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org/
    FREEDOM=GUNS

    http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm

    Second Amendment Committee

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/

    Second Amendment Foundation

    http://www.saf.org/

    Second Amendment Sisters

    http://www.2asisters.org/

    Women Against Gun Control

    http://www.wagc.com/

  24. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    ****

    Remember… the 2nd amendment ‘grants’ nothing. It ‘grants’ NO rights. Neither does the new amendment to Louisiana’s constitution.

    ****

    Be sure to vote November 6th.

  25. Frederick Says:


    The intent of Amendment is to appease those who are uninformed.
    When push comes to shove, MIGHT makes RIGHT pursuant to Justice Chase as stated in EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) 71 U.S. 2 (Wall.)
    “….the US Constitution was set up, originally, with the authority given to the congress, or president, to call for and maintain Martial Law Proper whenever they wish, and for as long as they see fit.”
    And
    ” There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction:

    (1)one to be exercised both in peace and war;

    (2)another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated [71 U.S. 2, 142] as belligerents;

    (3)and a third to be exercised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or during rebellion within the limits of states maintaining adhesion to the National Government, when the public danger requires its exercise.

    The first of these may be called jurisdiction under MILITARY LAW, and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces;

    the second may be distinguished as MILITARY GOVERNMENT, superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress;

    while the third may be denominated MARTIAL LAW PROPER, and is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, when the action of Congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights.”

  26. Pat Says:

    I will vote. But, I know voting is just a way to let off steam, and keep down riots and revolutions. The money takes over after the elections, no matter the issue.

  27. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    That is a fact, Pat.
    After the amendment is changed, the lobbyists will write the legislation. And with the help of the NRA and the same folks pushing the amendment change, new bills will fly in. The legislators will not read the bills. The bills will be passed based on money paid. Some will not even be present. They will tell their buddies to push the green button for them, while they are at the restaurant or race track or duck hunting…paid for by the lobbyists. That’s the way it is done today….and has been done that way for a long time.

    That’s real politics….real lawyers at work.

  28. calcasieutaxpayers Says:

    In case you missed it. The NRA leaders may have different ideas than its members:

    Louisiana’s legislators in favor of the amendment have bragged that the NRA helped with the wording.

    ***************

    NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

    In fact, they’ve supported gun rights infringements “since…1871.”
    by Angel Shamaya
    Founder/Executive Director
    KeepAndBearArms.com
    March 29, 2002

    “The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
    —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
    NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

    INTRODUCTION

    When I recently used the term “NRA-supported” in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn’t believe me, I prepared this historical record — to prove my claim and inform others.

    I agree that blaming today’s NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management’s longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that “My NRA” of today views the Second Amendment differently than America’s Founders did — and they have for a very long time.

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3247


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: