While the presidential primaries continue, and state and local races get into gear, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments March 17th on a case with huge political implications for gun owners: Heller v. The District of Columbia, or the Washington, D.C., gun-ban case.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gun Control Advocates Introduce 'Microstamping' Bill
(CNSNews.com) - A gun control group is hailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) for introducing legislation that would require gun microstamping in all fifty states.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
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)
