Hunting News Daily » Gun Rights

Judge Orders Iowa Sheriff To Take In-Depth Course In U.S. Constitution After Deny Man Concealed Carry Permit

Tom Remington — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:51:16 +0000

This is a sad story but ends in what goes ’round, comes ’round. An Iowa sheriff had denied a man a concealed carry permit because he was an activist, and had “activated” against the Sheriff spending too much money. The denial was obviously retaliatory.

The case ended up in court and U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, overturned the case to allow the man his permit and finished up by ordering the Sheriff to take a course to learn the U.S. Constitution.

Tom Remington

Mel Gibson Has His Gun(s) Taken From Him

Tom Remington — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:12:21 +0000

Open for discussion! Please do some research and know the facts of this story before commenting.

Mel Gibson was ordered by a judge this week to turn over or get rid of his gun(s) and sign a sworn statement attesting to the fact. Gibson has never been convicted of any crime that would warrant his loss of Second Amendment rights according to the law.

Is taking Gibson’s gun(s) away from him unconstitutional?

Tell us your thoughts and please explain why based on facts and laws.

Tom Remington

Like Washington, D.C. Chicago Thumbs Nose At SCOTUS Gun Ban Ruling

Tom Remington — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:46:55 +0000

McDonald v. Chicago ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and as such defines that states, counties and local municipalities must guarantee individuals their right to self protection and be allowed to own a gun(s). The ruling also makes it clear that states, counties and local municipalities cannot create gun laws that supersede federal laws……or can they?

The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.

Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.

Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.

A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.

So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?

If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?

How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?

Tom Remington

NRA Continues To Anger Some On The Right

Tom Remington — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:48:54 +0000

Politico takes another look at how the NRA’s actions of late has angered some on the right. It appears that the NRA still considers itself powerful enough to do as they please in what they deem to be their responsibility to protect our Second Amendment; even if it means compromising those rights in order to maintain its power in Washington. Perhaps as more gun owners push back against a seeming arrogance at NRA, they would be wise to get down off their high horse and take a listen, but don’t hold your breath. Listening is not a strong point of the NRA. They will continue with business as usual.

Tom Remington

NRA Produces Video Ad To Oppose Kagan Nomination, BUT………

Tom Remington — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:23:41 +0000

The following is a video that the National Rifle Association will be spreading around in opposition to the confirmation of Elana Kagan to the United States Supreme Court.

While I am delighted the NRA has taken a position to contradict Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court, the NRA is stating that the Senate shouldn’t be fooled again like we were with Sonia Sotomayor. Not all of us were fooled.

Only the blind were fooled and every member of the Senate that voted for Sotomayor was fooled, duped or they were merely playing politics. Certainly the NRA has been around the block a time or two, they should have people on board now that understand that for proper vetting, one’s track record needs to be examined, not simply what they spew out during confirmation hearings. My God, did nobody learn anything from the Presidential elections of 2008 when people were only interested in hearing what Obama had to say in the immediate, refusing to look into his real past?

Sotomayor was on record as opposing a Federal protection of Second Amendment rights stating that the states themselves can make up whatever they wish for gun laws. And some were fooled because of what she said during the hearings?

There are plenty of actions, statements and non-actions Kagan has taken that only an idiot could not see as in opposition to an individual’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms. All it requires is a little looking around.

The NRA makes reference to the fact that Kagan, as U.S. Solicitor General under President Obama, opted not to file a brief in reference to McDonald v. Chicago. Some thought that a bit strange and at the time understandably so but since Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court we now know why. He didn’t want her having a record in opposition to gun rights. Obama would rather lie, cheat and steal and get another Sotomayor on the Supreme Court and get our Constitutional rights stripped that way.

If enough of us take the NRA’s advice from the video and contact our Representatives, we can make sure this person never serves as a judge……ever.

Tom Remington

After McDonald v. Chicago, What Gun Law Violations Should Be Prosecuted?

Tom Remington — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:42:17 +0000

It would seem that this would be a first, that law officials would actually honor a Supreme Court ruling concerning gun laws. After District of Columbia v. Heller, the District of Columbia thumbed its’ nose at the SCOTUS and continued its ban on guns until eventually allowing possession while still forcing people to jump through so many legal hoops and requirements most people were not interested.

Now we have McDonald v. Chicago, where the SCOTUS has ruled that states and local jurisdictions cannot deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms. In Wisconsin, the District Attorney for Jackson County says he will NOT prosecute certain infractions of gun laws that he says are in violation of McDonald v. Chicago.

Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? Do you think other district attorneys, etc. should make that decision and refuse to prosecute laws that are in violation of McDonald v. Chicago? Tell us what you think and why.

Tom Remington

Activism Works!

Tom Remington — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:46:50 +0000

Activism works both ways actually but isn’t it time that activism for conservatives and those looking to preserve rights and restore the United States Constitution, while shrinking the size and grasp of government, takes a front row?

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, follows up on a Glenn Reynolds’ article of how activism worked in the McDonald v. Chicago gun ban case. This activism is being based on long-term consistent and persistent efforts to keep the public informed of every step the government and all anti-gun groups take to strip us of our rights.

Morrissey says that this is the same effective power the Tea Party can have in its efforts to reduce the size of government but it can’t end after this November’s election. They must see the big picture, the future and be persistent and eventually their activism will pay the dividends they seek.

Tom Remington

MSSA Considers Review Of Gun Laws Banning Guns On State University Campuses

Tom Remington — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:19:41 +0000

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, told the Great Falls Tribune that he is reviewing Montana state laws and considering whether it is feasible to challenge laws on college campuses that prohibit possessing firearms. After the recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, Marbut wonders if such laws could be overturned.

Marbut was quoted as saying, “The Montana Constitution does give the Board of Regents broad power to manage the university system, but it doesn’t give them any power at all to suspend people’s constitutional rights.” He is reviewing the current laws in Montana to determine if it is appropriate to challenge the bans.

In an email that was sent out to members of the MSSA, Marbut made reference to a separate interview he did with another news reporter. Here’s what he said concerning that interview.

As an anecdotal aside, I was interviewed the same day by another reporter for another daily Montana paper. The reporter seemed to need education about RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] issues. At one point in delivering this education, I offered the observation that most gun control advocates are irrational. The reporter stopped me and challenged me to justify that comment. Since we were talking about guns on campus, I responded this way to the reporter’s challenge:

Suppose a madman determines to commit a Virginia Tech-style massacre on the Montana State University campus. Gun control advocates believe that this madman, who has already decided to violate humanity’s most profound taboo against taking innocent life and all the laws associated with that, and who expects to die in the process (all mass murderers expect to die in the process) – gun control advocates believe this madman will somehow become aware of an unenforceable university policy against guns on campus and because of this existing policy the madman will abandon his plans for mayhem, mass murder and his own death simply out of respect for this policy. Such thinking, I told the reporter, is clearly irrational by anyone’s standard.

There was a period of silence. Then the reporter said “Thank you for the interview.” End of interview.

Tom Remington

Montana Shooting Sports Association Opposes Elena Kagan

Tom Remington — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:35:05 +0000

Editor’s Note: The following is a letter sent to U.S. Senators from Montana, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Gary Marbut, President of Montana Shooting Sports Association.

June 30, 2010

Senator Jon Tester
Senator Max Baucus

Oppose Kagan

Dear Jon,
Dear Max,

During the confirmation process for Justice Sonya Sotomayor, you assured Montanans that nominee Sotomayor would respect the Constitution (including the Second Amendment), notwithstanding some troubling indicators in her professional history in that regard.

Your assurances turned out to be worthless and flat wrong in the recent McDonald v. Chicago decision by the Supreme Court, in which Justice Sotomayor voted for the idea that the Second Amendment has no restraining effect on states and local governments, unlike most of the other rights the people have reserved to themselves in the Bill of Rights.

Now the confirmation of Elena Kagan is before the U.S. Senate. Just as with Sotomayor, Kagan has troubling history in her background to suggest that she, too, is hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. We are unwilling to trust any freshly-minted assurances that Kagan has suddenly grown to respect the Second Amendment. We consider Kagan to be opposed to and an enemy of the right to bear arms, period. She is a bad choice for the Supreme Court, notwithstanding any other attributes or qualifications.

For that reason, The Montana Shooting Sports Association firmly asks that you vote against the confirmation of Elena Kagan for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

A Vote For Kagan Is A Vote To Take Away Your Guns

Tom Remington — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:30:22 +0000

The Left is screaming for victory in the McDonald v. Chicago case claiming that with this ruling gun rights supporters can no longer claim that the left has any power to “take away your guns”. Don’t swallow that crap! It will forever be an ongoing battle. So long as there are liberals who live and breathe, so long we shall have those who want to “take away your guns” and they will use any means possible, including attempts at back door treaties signed through the United Nations and then figure out a way to slide those through the Senate without any scrutiny.

John Lott, contributor for Fox News writes, “A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns”

Tom Remington

Hunting News Daily » Gun Rights

Judge Orders Iowa Sheriff To Take In-Depth Course In U.S. Constitution After Deny Man Concealed Carry Permit

Related Articles

Mel Gibson Has His Gun(s) Taken From Him

Related Articles

Like Washington, D.C. Chicago Thumbs Nose At SCOTUS Gun Ban Ruling

Related Articles

NRA Continues To Anger Some On The Right

Related Articles

NRA Produces Video Ad To Oppose Kagan Nomination, BUT………

Related Articles

After McDonald v. Chicago, What Gun Law Violations Should Be Prosecuted?

Related Articles

Activism Works!

Related Articles

MSSA Considers Review Of Gun Laws Banning Guns On State University Campuses

Related Articles

Montana Shooting Sports Association Opposes Elena Kagan

Related Articles

A Vote For Kagan Is A Vote To Take Away Your Guns

Related Articles