Received via email from AlphaSon.
Later this summer, Arizona will become the third state to allow citizens to exercise their God-given, constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms without intrusive government licensing. Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation today:
“I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well,” Brewer said in a statement.
Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.
By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.
Another one down, 47 to go.
Images from a section of Rio de Janeiro known as the “Corner of Fear” have been published by undercover journalists. Even in Brazil, where crime is rampant, the pictures have sent shockwaves through the citizenry:
A boy steps boldly into the night traffic and waves a gun to bring the cars to a halt, clearing a path for a motorcycle which screeches into the intersection. Riding pillion is another boy, brandishing a machinegun.
Later two teenagers, also riding pillion on motorbikes, flash their guns at other motorists; nearby, a boy can be seen taking aim with a rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. Other youths wander the street smoking crack.
For residents, the junction between the busy Dom Helder Câmara and dos Democráticos, in North Rio de Janeiro, has become known as the Corner of Fear — and video footage of daily life there has shocked a nation already familiar with guns and violence.
Criminals thrive in this nation that has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world — it is ranked 20th in the world for homicides. And then there’s this from US Overseas Security Advisory Office:
The criminal threat for Rio de Janeiro is rated by the U.S. Department of State as critical. The Brazilian police and the Brazilian press report that crime continues to increase. Violent crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, carjacking, armed assault, and burglary are a normal part of everyday life. . . .
The Government of Brazil (GOB) continues to be locked in an intense struggle against drug gangs for control of large areas of the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area. The drug gangs control and in essence serve as parallel governments in the majority of the poor areas of the city known as favelas. The drug gangs are obtaining increasingly sophisticated weapons and are demonstrating a willingness to use them in order to maintain control of the areas they occupy. The determination of the government to wrest control of the favelas from the drug gangs has resulted in violent confrontations between the GOB security forces and the drug gangs.
Our loose gun laws lead to this kind of behavior. Wait, they don’t? Isn’t there a lesson there?
For the first time since I remember, the American people get it:
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
Now, if they will only start voting differently because of it.
Community Organizer B. Hussein Obama’s hometown of Chicago has had a deadly death toll this summer: 125 shot and killed, which is almost double the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period. Another 247 people were shot and wounded within the city limits (map here).
"Gang and gun violence continue to be the dominating threat on our streets," Bond said in an e-mail. "Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."
Personally, I reject all calls to pull out of the Chicago quagmire and abandon the citizenry. It is time to beef up the troops and start treating gang members like terrorists. Guantanamo has plenty of room.
Not to mention maybe giving the law abiding citizens that are held hostage in their homes the right to carry arms. Oh wait, that right is granted by God and enshrined in the constitution.
Obama and his cohorts just "organized" the citizens out of thinking that they still have that right.
HT to non-blogging Patriot Pat.
A lawsuit against gun manufacturers brought by Mayor Giuliani in 2000 was dismissed today by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as the panel unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Two of the three judges also found that the city’s public nuisance law did not create a legal exception to the federal law.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to protect the gun industry from frivolous prosecution by liberal big-city mayors as they attempt to blame the device, rather than the socio-economic factors of their failed policies that create a rich source of criminals.
New York City attempted to undermine federal law by saying gun manufacturers were creating a "public nuisance" because they failed to monitor retail dealers in order to keep their wares out of criminal hands:
The essence of the complaint was that the suppliers failed to monitor: gun shows where non-licensed sellers sold weapons; private or "kitchen table" sellers who are not required to conduct background checks or keep records required of Federal Firearms Licensees; "straw purchases" by qualified handgun purchasers for those who are not qualified; multiple sales of guns; intentional illegal trafficking by corrupt licensees; theft from licensees with poor security or false reports of theft; and, in general the oversupply of guns to markets in jurisdictions that have lax gun regulations.
In other words, once the gun manufacturer had created the gun and transferred ownership of the merchandise to a legal owner, they failed to follow the gun through it’s lifetime and make certain that each transfer was to a legal owner. This is absurd on the face of it.
But that won’t stop Mayor Bloomberg from continuing his fight against evil inanimate objects. He will continue suing gun dealers across state lines, saying:
Regardless of this ruling, we will continue our fight against illegal guns full-bore — in the courtrooms, on the streets, and in Congress.
Big city liberals, driving up the prices of mid-America’s beloved hobbies by abusing the justice system in pursuit of political gain. How stereotypical of them.
Writing for WaPo, Hunter does Heston right. Here’s a taste:
He was the hawk.
He soared. In fact, everything about him soared. His shoulders soared, his cheekbones soared, his brows soared. Even his hair soared. . . .
Later in his life, he took that stance into politics, becoming president of the National Rifle Association just when anti-gun attitudes were reaching their peak. Pilloried and parodied, lampooned and bullied, he never relented, he never backed down, and in time it came to seem less an old star’s trick of vanity than an act of political heroism. He endured, like Moses. He aged, like Moses. And the stone tablet he carried had only one commandment: Thou shalt be armed. It can even be said that if the Supreme Court in June finds a meaning in the Second Amendment consistent with NRA policy, that he will have died just short of the Promised Land — like Moses.
Charles Lane, WaPo journalist and author of The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction, penned a rather nice article last weekend on the necessity of an armed populace. Few events in our history illustrate the consequences of turning citizens into unarmed victims so well as the tragic outcome at Colfax in the aftermath of the Civil War, and Lane lends his expertise to the debate:
Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.
Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction’s defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them to vote. And, to clarify blacks’ newly secured freedom, Congress wrote laws identifying the specific rights of individual U.S. citizens. One of these was the right to have guns. . . .
In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.
That gun control grew out of Jim Crow laws is well known. That black Americans now accept these laws and even support them is an outrage.
Equally outrageous, however, is this paragraph that mars what would otherwise be a great article:
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
Herein is the siren song of the gun control lobby. The thought of being protected by a benevolent force for good is a powerful concept, and one that we are taught to believe by our parents ("If you get lost just ask a policeman for help. They can be trusted.").
But the truth is that our police forces are stretched too thin in these troubled times, and they cannot be everywhere. In fact, all too often they cannot be where they are needed in time. Otherwise, why would rapes, violent assaults and murders continue to happen?
But the real bottom line is that my right to self protection comes from a higher power than the nanny state, no matter how many policemen they employ. Lane should remember than.
"That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. [NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John] Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
So the NAACP says that gun rights was only so southern states could protect slavery. Yet they also often and loudly decry Jim Crow laws, part of which was the deliberate and targeted removal of guns from southern blacks so they could defend themselves.
I guess consistency isn’t something we can expect on this issue.