America

Krista Branch - I am America



Just play it.
(Use the small play button on the control bar)

And now a few words from our founders on
the Second Amendment
Perhaps the Chicago City council needs to see
this at their next meeting.



Music: Theme from The Patriot  (2000) from Columbia Pictures

Kagan Supreme Court Nomination
See what constitutional scholar David Kopel says about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  He makes clear the concerns of gun owners nationwide about putting her on the high court.



Kennedy to remain on high court.
Justice Anthony Kennedy made remarks to friends and family that he'll "stick around at least until 2013."  That means he'll wait to see who takes the White House after the current Obama administration. 

Justice Kennedy is often the "swing vote" that oscillates between siding with the four conservatives and the four liberals on the bench. This makes his opinion all-important to garner in Supreme Court cases.  In both Heller and McDonald, Kennedy sided with the conservative court in their narrow 5-4 decisions.  Just that one vote going "the other way" could have had devastating results to the RKBA.  With Kagan's appointment all but locked in by a Democrat controlled congress, if any of the conservative justices retires or falls ill, we could lose some of our rights once again. 


Liberals and the Second Amendment
That gun owners tend to be politically "conservative" and the anti-gun lobby tends to be made up of "liberals".  But if you consider yourself "liberal" or you are solidly a Democrat, you'll know that's not always true. But you should read Kali Joy Gray's opinion about why Liberals should love the Second Amendment. Then you should send it to friends and relatives who don't support the Second Amendment. 

Gun Rights Important to Americans
Pew Research is reporting that for the week of Jun 28 thru Jul 2, 28% of the news links in the blogosphere were cheering the McDonald victory.  This one of the highest ratings for a Supreme Court decision in over a year.  And one other interesting tid-bit from Pew research.

Gun control advocates opposing the decision seemed almost completely absent from the online conversation according to Pew Research.

I'll take that to mean the Brady Bunch is licking its wounds and trying to figure out a new strategy.  No doubt their new strategy will be to attack obliquely by redefining terms like "prohibited person" or "unusually dangerous".  Watch for them to try to sneak in misdemeanor crimes or even previously having had a warrant or restraining order issued (even in error).

More Guns, Less Crime
Borrowing the title from Dr. John Lott's book is an apt description for what's happening in Texas.  The news says that 15 years after adopting shall-issue CCW's, crime in the Lone Star state is down. Since 1994, the amount of murders and other violent crimes in Texas has actually decreased, despite the fact that there are six million more people living in the state now than there were 15 years ago states the article on MyFox Houston. And that's what matters.  Not that there were fewer "gun crimes" but that all violent crimes were down.

NRA Sues Chicago - Again!

Daley Administration Thumbs Nose

at Supreme Court

Just days after the Supreme Court decision that incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, Chicago passed new restrictive gun laws. When the new laws were announced in Chicago, Alderman Mary Ann Smith thanked "everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.” 

Chicago to The Supreme Court - "Screw off!  We'll do as we damn well please."

To prove that point, the Chicago donkeys enacted a new series of draconian and Machiavellian laws to prevent Chicago residents from legally obtaining firearms.  That the city aldermen and mayor have publicly stated their intent is to make exercising what is now a fundamental civil right as difficult as possible opens them up to a civil rights lawsuit. 

I'll go one further. Such an agreement amongst the city's leaders amounts to a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Chicago residents and/or to delay the intent of the constitutional guarantee of those rights.  Such a conspiracy is a federal felony and should be investigated by the FBI and an independent prosecutor. 

The new NRA lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago, details how Chicago's new laws are designed to make it impossible for Chicago residents to exercise their rights. Consider the following provisions of the new law.

● To have a firearm requires a Chicago firearm permit.

● You must be 21 in order to obtain a permit.

● 18-21 years olds, need a parent or guardian's permission.

● The parent or guardian must be eligible for a firearms permit.

So right away, Chicago wants to license a right to possess a firearm. But adults between 18-21 years must have a parent or guardian, who could qualify for a permit themselves, grant permission.  So, in Chicago, an 18 year old can be a U.S. Marine, qualified on the M9 pistol, M16 rifle, M240 SAW, and Browning M2 .50 Caliber machine gun, but must get his Mama's permission to buy or own a gun in Chicago?   And the law doesn't even address those poor souls who have no living parents and are living independently. 

Outrageous Implication

Most disgustingly is the implied punishment by blood provision.  If your sole living parent committed a single crime when he or she was just 18, Chicago will punish the offspring for the parent's offense by denying them a constitutional right.  The same thing happens if that parent is the only one willing to sign the consent form. 

But wait... There's more draconian bullshit ahead. 

● A training certificate w/at least 1 hour of range training

● Prohibits shooting a gun "except in lawful defense"

● The above makes it illegal to fire on a shooting range.

● But that's okay, because Chicago bans gun stores and shooting ranges within Chicago.

● Can't keep more than 1 "operable" firearm in the home.

● Can't buy more than 1 gun per month.

● Prohibits licensing an "unsafe" handgun as defined by the Superintendent of police.

● Vague safety criteria allows banning almost any handgun.

● Chicago permit is only valid at the address listed on the permit.

So let's get this right. To get a permit you first have to get training. But that training has to be held outside of Chicago because the city has banned shooting ranges.  You will also have to buy your gun outside of Chicago and find a way to store it there for up to 4 months while Chicago processes your permit.  Once you have your permit and gun at home, you can't shoot it or train with it anywhere within Chicago because that would be illegally discharging the firearm. Yet again, you must go outside of Chicago to practice. You can't possess your firearm at a address not on the permit, so you can't take it to your parents home overnight when local thugs threaten them. 

On top of all that, after spending between $500 and $1,000 for your gun, the city can later declare it an "unsafe" gun by whim of the police superintendent. Since permits cannot be issued for an unsafe hangun, if the superinendent decides that any or all GLOCK models are "unsafe", in theory, your permit becomes invalid. Yet there isn't any notification provision for the city to notify residents who own a GLOCK that their permit isn't valid anymore.

One can easily imagine Otis McDonald, a senior citizen and retiree, attemping to allocate the funds to do all of this.  He must pay a permit fee, a registration fee, a fingerprint fee, pay for mandatory "training", plan a trip outside Chicago for the training, a trip out of the city to buy the gun, pay for storage outside the city for up to 4 months, make another trip to bring his gun into the city after obtaining his permit.  All to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed by the consitution.

This is about equivilant to requiring Chicago voters to drive to Springfield in order to register to vote and to vote in elections. (Which might at least deter the dead voters in Chicago from voting.)

Can it get worse?  Sure. The jackasses that call themselves representatives of the people have prohibited use of a firearm for lawful self-defense outside the home.  By that, these clueless morons have said the home does NOT include the following;

● Any garage on the lot, even an attached garage.

● Any space outside the dwelling unit.

● Specifically any external stairs

● Specifically any porches

● Or any back, side or front yard areas

● Or any common areas.

Got all that?  This means that if your elderly mother is bedridden and on 24/7 oxygen support upstairs, you cannot shoot the gangbanger in your front yard as he prepares to throw a molotov cocktail at your home.  Hell, you can't even shoot him if he comes up onto the front porch to throw it through the window. 

McDonald's Estimated Cost to accquire:

Training class w/range time: $75

Training class ammunition:   $25

Chicago Gun permit fee:      $100(ea 3 yrs)

Chicago Registration fee:    $15 (ea 3 yrs)

Police Fingerprinting fee:   $15

Storage fee outside city:    $12/mo x 4

30 mile trip for training:   $24 @40¢/mile

30 mile trip to buy a gun:   $24 @40¢/mile

30 mile trip after permit:   $24 @40¢/mile

Approximate total expense:  $350

This does not include the cost of the firearm, sales taxes, a lockable transport container, lock, ammunition, cleaning kit or other supplies.

Want to comment?

Click here to send a comment

McDonald Follow Up and Random Tidbits

McDonald Case Follow Up

After decades of news articles and opinion pages denouncing firearms, it seems that many media outlets are making a slow U-Turn.  Across the country, here and there, slowly we are seeing editorials favoring gun ownership.  Some still advocate certain restrictions and conditions, but it seems the tide is turning.

Rose Russel, associate editor at The Toledo Blade, agreed with the opinion by Justice Thomas in her July 3rd editorial.  Her final line in the editoral was "[t]oday, that right is essential to the preservation of life as well - when the weapons are in the right hands."  This is a good first step.

The New York Post actually says guns are not the problem in their July 3rd editorial How Judges Kill. This is one of those cases that infuriates most Americans and it's a good example of how some judges lose sight of justice. 

Even the über-liberal Huffington Post carried an article by Dennis Santiago praising the "long overdue victory for civil rights" in the McDonald decision. 

But all is not rosy with all the media.  The Sacramento Bee, the California capital's pro-gun control newspaper, finds something to whine about when our freedoms are expanded. The Bee's editorial complains of "more work for justice system" because the high court didn't specify how lower courts should interpret 2A rights.  Suffice it to say that most appellate court judges are not stupid and will carefully read the decisions and use strict scrutiny if they don't want a spanking from Scalia or Alito. 

And NPR gushes forth with an article about suicides being all too easy with a handgun.  They quote the Lake County, Illinois coroner, a man who, at age 17, had to cope father committed suicide by handgun. NPR, or the coroner, shamelessly omit statistics that show most people attempt suicide several times before ultimately succeeding. Instead, they say it's an "impulse decision" when evidence suggests otherwise. 

Chicago's Utopia
Yet another headline screams 3 dead, 13 wounded in overnight violence in Chicago.  You might remember that in June, 8 people were killed and a whopping 52 wounded in Daleyland. What's the difference between living in Chicago and living in Iraq during the war?  At least in Iraq, Americans could be armed and shoot back. 

Random Tidbits
The joint Federal/Ruger .327 Federal Magnum cartridge may be getting a new lease on life. Ammunition is starting to show up on the shelves (finally) as Federal begins to catch up with some ammo production.  Not only that, but there is a fair selection of revolvers from which to lauch the .327 Mag.  S&W has 2 models of the 632, Ruger has their SP-101, Blackhawk and GP-100 (7-shots) chambered for the .327.  Charter Arms makes at least one .327 snubby and Taurus is listing a .327 snubby too. 

But some companies are still missing the boat.  One customer at a local shop asked when we might see Ruger's polymer LCR chambered for the .327.  That'd make a nice, lightweight carry gun.  Others are disappointed Ruger hasn't offered it in their Single Six.  I'm suggesting that S&W bring out a lightweight K-Frame (a model 316?) with a 3-inch barrel, round butt grip, night sights and maybe 7-shots for the .327 as a near-perfect carry gun. 

Friend and gun-rights activist Jim March is not alone in wondering if Marlin will get a clue and offer the .327 Magnum in one of their lever rifles to compliment the utility of the single-action .327's.  This would be an excellent combination for home defense, especially for rural and small ranch owners. 

Colt's Lightweight DAO Government Model

I'm still waiting for Colt to release their new DAO lightweight Government model.  Think of your favorite full-size 1911 offered in a lightweight alloy frame.  Ummm, sounds good.  But I want to check out their DAO model to see if it's as nice as the one they had at the SHOT Show earlier this year.  With no single-action hammer notch, that eliminates the grip safety and the thumb safety as requirements.  Like the Kahr, Sig, HK and other pistols, it'll mean a faster draw and quicker first shot with a little practice. 

Bab Boxer Babbles
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sometimes just has to prove she's as vacuous as House Speaker Pelosi when it comes to people's rights. 

"After the Supreme Court ruling, my focus is on ensuring that California's [unconstitutional] common-sense gun laws that protect [deny the rights of] our families and law enforcement officers are allowed to remain on the books. These California laws include the [unconstitutional and illegal] state ban on assault weapons and [non-existent] armor-piercing bullets, the prohibition on carrying guns in a[n unidentified] school zone, and the law that allows law-abiding citizens who feel they need a concealed firearm for protection to get a permit from their local police or sheriff [by begging, bribing or using lawsuits]."

If Boxer thinks citizens of California can obtain a CCW for protection, I'll offer her a great exercise in using Federal dollars to uncover discrimination, bias and corruption in her state. All she has to do is let her office front the application fees for five (5) California citizens who work outside the government to obtain a CCW permit. Each of those citizens will put down "lawful self defense" as their "good cause" reason.  And each will be rejected -- except the one to which Ms. Boxer provides $3000 to donate to the local sheriff's campaign. If this is her idea of "common sense" gun laws or a free America, then I'll personally take out a loan to fly her to Moscow.

Want to comment?

Click here to send a comment

 

McDonald Victory - Chicago remains Stupid

McDonald Decision

By now, you should have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court (or SCOTUS for short) handed down a decision on Monday that says the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments too.  The 5-4 decision involved the same players as the 2008 Heller decision (with the "wise Latina" on the losing side in David Souter's place). 

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion which summarizes the history and purpose of the 14th Amendment. He discusses why the Freedman Bureau act wasn't enough and how racist Confederates were literally robbing blacks of their arms, then shooting them. Southern "black codes" singled out blacks for special laws.  Laws that forbade them to make contracts, serve on a jury, speak out publicly and, of course, own or buy firearms. 

Alito handsomely shreds the municipal arguments and tosses them out the window as confetti.  As an example, one of the arguments pushed by the city was that the 2nd Amendment wasn't covered by the due process clause.  They suggested that due process protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’” 

In the decision, Alito points out that many of our rights are unique to the American experience. Such things as our right to a jury trial, to have an attorney appointed, and our right to self-incrimination are distinctly American.  If these were necessary, says Alito, then it would follow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.

What it all means

This decision says that the 2nd Amendment also acts as a limitation on State & local powers.  Since most states have a right to keep and bear arms in their own constitutions, not much will change in those states unless they have used the "collective right" argument to justify gun laws.

States like California that have no equivilant to the 2nd amendment in their constitutions will now have to recognize the federal constraint.  Draconian state laws that severely limit gun purchases and ownership will face serious challenges. 

One way to look at some of the laws is to simply ask if they could be applied to the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments. If it would not make sense to limit one of the other rights using the same law, then it's likely unconstitutional when applied to the 2A. 

One easy example is the one-gun-a-month laws. It is obvious that the government couldn't pass a law restricting you to attending church once a month.  Or limit your ability to publicly speak to once a month. Why should any other fundamental right be so limited?

This actually plays towards the anti-gun lobby's side. In the next few years, our associations will have to spend large sums to challenge gun laws built up over decades. The anti-gun lobby can provide minimal help to the states, knowing they will fund the defense of those laws.  Meanwhile, they can spend their money "experimenting" by lobbying for new laws or changing the definition of "prohibited persons". 

Now is the time to give to gun-rights organizations so they can continue to fund legal challenges.  I'm contributing to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but you can contribute to whomever you prefer.

Chicago Remains Stupid

Maybe it's in the water at city hall

All of the history and legal justification was lost on Chicago's number one bonehead, Mayor Daley and the city's cadre of anti-civil rights aldermen.  As promised, his royal pomposity, the mayor, pushed through a new set of laws to keep Chicago residents from obtaining guns.  Pushing through the bill was no problem for Daley -- the vote was 45-0 by city aldermen - and a new set of rules will apply in Chicago. 

This group of brainless dolts voted, in a rush, to pass a new package of laws that requires Chicago residents to first get a permit -- which the laws says the police can take 1/3 of the year to approve - take 5 hours of training and pay registration and permit fees.  

So Chicago believes it can delay the exercise of a right, require you to obtain the city's permission (permit) to exercise the right, pay to exercise your right and mandate you pay for government-approved (and likely limited availability) training before exercising your right.  None of which are constitutional. 

Chicago newspapers should be screaming about the competency of the lawyers the mayor is using.  Any second year law student should know that rights cannot be regulated like car ownership or owning a business. 

I don't know if there is such a charge as "contempt of the Supreme Court", but if there is, Mayor Daley and Chicago's alderman should be facing it.   It is arrogance second only to a dictator to say that Chicago will continute to enact unconstitutional provisions against gun owners. 

Want to comment?

Click here to send a comment