Michigan: Registration Reform Assigned to Senate Committee!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Please Contact the Committee Members Today!
House Bill 4490 sponsored by State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93) and House Bill 4491 introduced by State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103) have passed the House and have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing date has not been scheduled yet. The bills would repeal the required "safety inspection" for newly obtained handguns. Current Michigan law requires anyone who comes into possession of a pistol to take it to the police or sheriff’s department for a safety inspection. The requirement of a safety inspection is a burdensome waste of time for law-abiding gun owners and the bills will end that inconvenience. Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to support these necessary pieces of legislation.
Senate Judiciary Committee:
State Senator Wayne Kuipers – Chair
(517) 373-6920
senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Cropsey (R-33)
(517) 373-3760
senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Sanborn (R-11)
(517) 373-7670
senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Bruce Patterson (R-7)
(517) 373-7350
senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-23)
517-373-1734
State Senator Hansen Clarke (D-1)
517-373-7346
State Senator Michael Pruse (D-38)
517-373-7840
senMPrusi@senate.mi.gov
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Critics of staying true to your values.
Here is a good article by David Limbaugh on McCain and Conservatives. Now that McCain is almost the GOP nominee for president, I will not say that I will vote for Hillary or Obama, I just wish that we were able to nominate someone who would represent our party better. Someone who holds our values in every thing that they would do in office, now I wont even say Conservative values. I mean just good moral values that most Americans hold in their own life.
Holding up and defending the U.S. Constitution, not using other countries to decide how to interpret our Bill of Rights. No Nanny state we want less gov't in our lives let us decide what is good or bad for ourselves. More government only in the form of strength to defend our country whether abroad or on our borders from terrorist's attacks. Less taxes so that we may spend more of our income to keep the economy going strong, local and state.
Stumpy
Critics of McCain's Critics Should Chill
By David Limbaugh
Friday, February 8, 2008
Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain?
What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?
"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.
John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.
Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?
If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain -- ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.
It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.
They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.
Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.
We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?
The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan vs. Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.
McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.
One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.
Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.
Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government -- excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.
And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools -- and more -- of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.
Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.
But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
(From Townhall.com)
Holding up and defending the U.S. Constitution, not using other countries to decide how to interpret our Bill of Rights. No Nanny state we want less gov't in our lives let us decide what is good or bad for ourselves. More government only in the form of strength to defend our country whether abroad or on our borders from terrorist's attacks. Less taxes so that we may spend more of our income to keep the economy going strong, local and state.
Stumpy
Critics of McCain's Critics Should Chill
By David Limbaugh
Friday, February 8, 2008
Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain?
What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?
"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.
John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.
Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?
If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain -- ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.
It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.
They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.
Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.
We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?
The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan vs. Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.
McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.
One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.
Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.
Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government -- excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.
And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools -- and more -- of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.
Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.
But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
(From Townhall.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
