Teeth of the Constitution

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment is arguably the most important: it is the "teeth" of our Constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin, United States
  • Why a Paraguayan flag?
  • Monday, September 25, 2006

    Now you see them, now you don't...

    Once again it is election time, and therefore time for the Left to take on their chameleon-like qualities, morphing into what they think the public wants to hear.

    Why do they do this? Because if they really voiced what they believe, they wouldn't win an election again. Ever.

    The Anti-gun left suddenly is "Pro Second Amendment" (just look at Kohl and Feingold), the Pro abortion left is suddenly more center, almost pro-life!!?? It goes on.

    What really floors me however is not that the Left does this - they have to if they even want a chance to win, but that people in the voting public actually buy into their lies.

    Sunday, May 14, 2006

    Slightly (?) Inactive, but Not Totally Abandoned...

    It has been a while since I posted on this blog, but it isn't for lack of things to write about. Partly it is a priority issue - there are things I'd rather be doing, and party it has to do with a feeling of defeat: no matter what I wrote, things kept getting worse. It seems our wonderful politicians are bound and determined to do everything they can to screw us and keep themselves in power.

    Feingold with his free speech limiting Campaign Finance Reform, who is now wanting to regulate the internet. Justices taking away private property under eminent domain to give to private developers, the allowing of millions of foreigners to enter the country illegally, then stay here with all the benefits of citizens and legal immigrants, the left trying to take away our Second Amendment rights... The list goes on.

    Anyway, I may not be making much of a difference, but I figured that giving up would imply defeat, and the last thing I want to do is let the liberal left take over this country.

    That said, I will make an effort to post at least once a week, and if anyone reads it, great! If not, at least I'll know I didn't give up.

    All for now. Check back later for a more substantial post...

    Tuesday, January 31, 2006

    Doyle Veto Stands for Concealed Carry - Good or Bad for Wisconsin Gun Owners?

    The veto override vote today in the Assembly failed by 2 votes - Democrats (Steinbrink (D-65) and Terry Van Akkeren (D-26)) caving in to partisan politics and voting to sustain Doyle's veto when they initially supported the bill.

    Is this bad news? Maybe, but not necessarily.

    Supporters of the bill claimed that putting "concessions" (more on that later) to the anti-gun left into the bill was necessary in order to pass any type of concealed carry. These concessions included things like a list of permit holders held by the DOJ, access to the list by law enforcement, excessive (in my opinion) fees, and more. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) lists at least 8 major anti-gun provisions in the bill.

    The strategy, supporters claim, is to get something - anything - passed regardless of the anti-gun concession involved. Later, work can begin to gut the bill of anti-gun provisions, and eventually end up with a Vermont style carry law (no permits, fees, etc.).

    Those against passage of this bill as it was written claimed that there should be no anti-gun provision whatsoever. As Corey Graff, Executive Director of WGO, wrote in the latest WGO news (Winter 2006, Vol II No. 1), in order to compromise, you need to be giving something up. Every time the pro-gun side "compromises" by accepting some of the anti-gun demands of the left, they are in fact giving up some of our Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What does the left give up in this compromise?

    NOTHING! They gain ground every time.

    So anyway, although I want Wisconsin to legalize concealed carry, I would rather wait until such time as we can get legislation passed that is not loaded down with fees, mandatory training, DOJ registration lists and other such anti-gun provisions. Once lists get started (my biggest objection to the bill as written), they can be very hard to get rid of later.

    If you really think about it, why burden the honest citizens of this state with red tape and fees when the criminals running around are already carrying concealed? I mean really, it's not like the criminals are going to apply for a permit if this would have passed...

    Sunday, January 29, 2006

    Self Defense a Privilege, not a Right in the State of Wisconsin

    I was reading through the Senate Bill SB 403 on concealed carry today, and came across the following in Section 37:

    2. Instruction on the privilege of self-defense and the defense of others under s.939.48

    The privilege of self-defense?? I thought that was our right! So I looked it up here, and found out that sure enough, the State considers it a privilege to defend yourself.

    After reading through s.939.48 it seems that the intent was to make it clear that if you provoke someone into attacking you you can't claim self defense as part of your legal defense. That makes sense, but it really bothers me that the idiots in Madison didn't word it differently - that we have the right to defend ourselves, but we can't claim self-defense if we provoke the attack.

    The next section (s.939.49) uses the same flawed logic in defending property - that it's a privilege, not a right.

    Makes you wonder how many more of your rights the politicians in Madison turned into privileges...

    Saturday, January 28, 2006

    Petition Congress: "NO United Nations GUN CONTROL"

    The National Association for Gun Rights has an on-line petition that will be sent to Congress in support of Senator Vitter's bill (S.1488) protecting our Second Amendment by withholding funding from the UN if they continue to move forward with their "Small Arms Control" initiative. Full text of Senator Vitter's bill can be found by searching:

    "Issues and Legislation ---> Legislation Sponsored by Sen Vitter" on his website.

    The related bill in the House of Representatives is H.R.3436.

    I urge everyone to sign the ON-line petition at the NAGR website.

    Monday, January 09, 2006

    Judge Samuel Alito Hearings Begin, and the Democrats Still Don't Get It...

    Today at work I was listening a bit to some of the opening statements in the Alito hearings, and I could only shake my head and wonder how some of these people ever got to the Senate in the first place.

    For example, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) wondered (these were opening statements, not questions yet) how Judge Alito would vote regarding the Senate's authority under the Protection of Interstate Trade and Commerce to pass anti-gun legislation:

    "Let me give you one example here – and that’s the Rybar case. Your dissent argued that Congress lacked the authority to ban the possession and transfer of machine guns, based essentially on a technicality that Congressional findings from previous statutes were not explicitly incorporated in the legislation." ....

    "I am concerned that the Rybar opinion demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress’s constitutional authority to enact legislation."

    Basically, I got the impression that Sen. Feinstein wants to know if he will begin to limit Congress' ability to throw damn near anything they want under the Commerce Clause, including things that were never intended by the Framers to be controlled by the Federal Government, like firearms. It should be obvious that the Congress is overreaching, and that anything that appears out of reach to them is put under the Commerce Clause. It seems Sen. Feinstein doesn't want to lose this power, and feels very threatened by Judge Alito - his "personal opinions"are her scapegoat.

    Senator Biden (D-DE) had the following to say:

    "I cannot imagine, notwithstanding what many of my colleagues who I have great respect for believe, I can't imagine the founders when they sat down and wrote the document and got to the appointments clause said: You know what? The American people are entitled know before we make him president, before we make her senator, before we make him congressman what they believe on the major issues of the day.

    But judges, Supreme Court nominees, as long as they're smart and honest and decent, it really doesn't matter what they think. We don't have to know.

    I can't fathom -- can't fathom that that was the intent of the founders. They intended the American people to know what their nominees thought."

    Well Senator, they were a lot smarter than you are because they realized that the Supreme Court is not a place for new ideas - it is a place to apply the Consitution, as it is written, to today's court cases. The reason the Founding Fathers put it that way is because they assumed that the appointments to the bench would be impartial, regardless of their personal beliefs. You obviously believe that the Court is where your own personal agenda and ideas of how things should be can be put into action.

    Other common threads from the Democrats were abortion (how will he vote????!!!!), playing of the "minority card" since he will be replacing a woman Justice: "And it's also important to note that you're slated to replace the first woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court. We can pretend that's not the fact but it is. And through no fault of your own, we're cutting the number of women in half on the court. (Sen. Biden), and upsetting of the "balance" of the court.

    All of these points brought up by the Democrats are nonsense, and have no business being discussed in this context.

    I only hope that if the Democrats decide to fillibuster this nomination, that the Republican majority takes action and does not allow it - for that is another thing the Founding Fathers never intended: a filibuster of Judicial nominees.

    Saturday, September 24, 2005

    Gun Seizures Halted in New Orleans

    This just in from the Second Amendment Foundation:

    The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisianathis afternoon issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA), bringing an end to firearm seizures from citizens living in and around New Orleans.

    District Judge Jay Zaney issued the restraining order against all parties named in a lawsuit filed Thursday by SAF and NRA. Defendants in the lawsuit include New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Edwin Compass III.

    “This is a great victory, not just for the NRA and SAF, but primarily for law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are proud to have joined forces with the NRA to put an end to what has amounted to a warrantless gun grab by authorities in New Orleans and surrounding jurisdictions.

    “Over the past three weeks,” he continued, “residents who had lost virtually everything in the devastation following Hurricane Katrina had also essentially been stripped of something even more precious, their civil rights, and their right of self-defense, because of these gun seizures.

    “SAF and NRA had no alternative but to take action,” Gottlieb added. “If these gun confiscations had been allowed to continue without challenge, it would have set a dangerous precedent that would have encouraged authorities in other jurisdictions to believe they also could suspend the civil rights of citizens in the event of some other emergency.

    “What must happen now, and quickly,” said Gottlieb, “is for authorities in the New Orleans area to explain how they will return all of those firearms to their rightful owners, and do it promptly. What this ruling affirms is that even in the face of great natural disasters, governments cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of their rights. Thanks to some great teamwork between SAF and the NRA, this sort of thing will hopefully never happen again.”

    Thursday, September 22, 2005

    Terri Schindler-Schiavo

    I know a lot is going on, and that makes it easy to forget about important events from the recent past.

    Here are a couple of links worth reading from the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation website.

    Read this, and this.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2005

    H.R. 800 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill

    H.R. 800 is an attempt to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits which are concocted by the anti-gun left specifically to bankrupt the industry. This is a good bill, and I encourage everyone to call their reps and stress the importance of passing the House version of this bill, and NOT the Senate Version (S. 397), which has anti-gun amendments put in there by none other than Wisconsin's Senator Kohl.

    It is important to note that groups such as the Brady Campaign post outright lies on their sites about this legislation. Here is an example of a Brady Campaign lie meant to deceive the public (see link above):

    "Despite the efforts of our Senate allies, a majority in the United States Senate, eager to accommodate the wishes of NRA and gun corporation lobbyists, voted recently to strip the legal rights of victims of gun violence and give sweeping legal immunity to reckless and unsavory gun dealers"

    Here's an excerpt from H.R. 800, proving that the legislation does not give "sweeping legal immunity...":

    "The term qualified civil liability action...shall not include...an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product..."

    There are many more cases spelled out in the bill that allow the industry to be sued. All you have to do is read the bill and you will realize that it is not giving the industry immunity from breaking the law (eg. knowingly selling firearms to criminals), liability stemming from defective products, or other similar instances.

    The Senate version of this bill has a provision to make the purchase of a gun lock mandatory when purchasing a handgun. What's the problem with this? Two things:
    1. It is basically a "tax" on purchasers of handguns, but more importantly,
    2. If it passes, I predict the next bill will make it a felony to not use the gun lock.

    And where does this leave the people who need a handgun at their ready disposal to protect their home and family? Fumbling for a key while the burglar has his/her way....

    CALL YOUR REPS TODAY and urge them to pass the House bill, H.R. 800, not the Senate version.

    Monday, September 12, 2005

    The Second Amendment Explained

    Have you ever had a hard time debating someone who believed the Second Amendment only protected a State's right, or collective right (militia or army) to keep and bear arms ? I have, mostly because I can't remember enough facts to clearly explain the two clauses "A well regulated militia..." and "...the right of the people...", even though I know that in fact it does protect an individual right.

    If you need more ammo (no pun intended) for your debates, read this article by Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D. of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

    The article is very well written as well as easy to understand, even for legal-language flunkies like me (legal jargon is kept to a minimum!).

    Please take the time to read it, and send it along to a friend!

    Wednesday, August 17, 2005

    Not in MY Backyard...

    It seems that the environmentalists are all for alternative energy, et.al., as long as it isn't in their backyard!

    The latest is the issue off the coast of Cape Cod where one group wants to put a bank of wind powered generators (windmills), and the other group are the rich elites that live on the coast. Apparently, the elites are claiming that their coastline is a "national jewel", and shouldn't be spoiled by putting the generators in. Before we rush to judgment however, the windmills will be so far off shore that they will appear from shore as 1/2" high dark spots, according to the developer. Not a real eye-sore in my book.

    These environmentalists are kind of like Rosie O'Donnell, who says that nobody should have guns except the police and military....oh, and HER body guards. Or like PETA, that claims no one should euthanize dogs and cats because they have a right to live....oh, unless you are PETA, and you don't have the money to keep them. Then it's OK.

    You get the idea.

    Monday, July 18, 2005

    Calls to Wisconsin's Senators

    Today I decided to call both Feingold's and Kohl's offices with my comments on 4 issues of importance to me:

    1. Repeal the Washington D.C. Gun Ban

    This bill is currently in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1288 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act), where I am confident it will pass. It is about time the citizens of D.C. are allowed to protect themselves and regain their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

    I asked them both to support this bill when it reaches the Senate.

    2. Co-sign Senator David Vitter 's (R-LA) bill to keep any "small arms control" the UN passes out of the US

    It will be interesting to see how many co-sponsors this bill gets from the 100 Senators who swore to uphold the US Constitution. If I were a betting man, I'd say that a six-pack says neither Kohl, nor Feingold (who ran as pro-gun in the last election) will co-sponsor nor vote in favor of this bill. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong as this is a much needed bill (just as Bolton is needed as the US rep in the UN).

    3. 527's - leave them alone and quit taking away my First Amendment rights

    Not a lot to be said here, Feingold is at it again trying to silence the general population under the ruse that there is corruption in exercising our First Amendment rights. Sigh...

    4. The only nominees to the Supreme Court that should be blocked are those that are not originalists

    See, the point is that the only kind of justices we need on the Supreme court are those that will use the framer's original intent, as it is written, in forming their opinions on each case.

    I tried to impress upon the office clerks that it is the people who change the Constitution, and it is the Justices that use what "we" wrote for the basis of their opinions.

    Once again, except this time at Kohl's Washington office, the girl tried to tell me that the Senator is only against those nominees that go against the "mainstream", or that are "too far right or left in the political spectrum". I tried to explain to her that neither the mainstream (whatever that is), nor political orientation (Left or Right) should have anything to do with the qualifications of a Justice! All that needs be looked at is if the nominee, in past opinions, interpreted the Constitution as it is written, with the original intent of the Framers in mind.

    I don't think I got very far in getting this point across.

    Ah well. I tried.

    Sunday, July 17, 2005

    Senate Bill S271 - another one to stop, and H.R. 689 - light at the end of the tunnel

    McCain-Feingold are now at it again attacking our First Amendment rights, this time by trying to silence the public by basically shutting down 527s.

    527s were used widely in the last election as a way around the unconstitutional MaCain-Feingold "incumbent protection" law that astonishingly was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Call your Senators and ask them to stop this anti-free speech bill in its tracks.

    On a more positive note, there is House Bill H.R. 689 introduced by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. This bill would repeal the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, and restore our rights to talk about incumbents before an election.

    Write or call your Congressman to sign-on to this bill.

    Bill Proposed in Senate to Keep the UN from Destroying our Second Amendment

    Gun Owners of America reports that Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has introduced a bill that would block the UN from implementing gun control measures in the US. In addition, it would reportedly prohibit any U.S. funding to the UN unless the President certifies that the world body "has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition"."

    Apparently this bill is still in a draft stage, and I haven't seen the entire text, just what the GOA reports in the link above.

    Nonetheless, given that all Senators take an oath to uphold our Constitution, I would expect all 100 Senators to back this bill.

    The UN needs to be sent the message that meddling in our Constitution will not be tolerated. Call your Senators Monday morning and urge them to sign on to this bill. If they don't want to, then demand to know how they can put the UN above our Constitution.

    All you Wisconsinites out there remember - when you call Feingold's office, remind him that he campainged as a "pro-gun"candidate (which he definately isn't). Kohl's not pro-gun either, and he comes up for election next year I believe. Might want to remind him of that too.

    Thursday, June 16, 2005

    Enough of "Smoke Free Places"

    Hat Tip to my daughter Sarah who checked my blog down in Paraguay (she's there with her Mom visiting family) and politely let me know I haven't posted lately!

    I just watched a local news clip describing how SAFE ("smoke free areas for everybody" or something like that) is trying to pass an ordinance in Oneida County that would prohibit smoking in all bars and eating establishments. The Tavern League is apparently going to fight this to the bitter end, and I wish them luck in their efforts.

    These people who are so against smoking just don't get it:
    1. Smoking is a legal activity
    2. Bars and restaurants are privately owned and their respective owners should be able to set whatever standard they want as regards smoking
    3. Most importantly, everybody chooses for themselves where they want to go eat and drink.

    If you think that second hand smoke is that bad, then don't go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking!!

    If you think that second hand smoke is that bad for you, then don't take a job in places that allow smoking!!

    If nobody goes to places that allow smoking, then those places will either go out of business, or they will change their policy. Same thing about workers - if no one will work in these establishments that allow smoking, then they'll either go out of business or they'll change their policy!

    To all those fighting to make every stinking square foot in the nation "smoke free", stick it in your ear. Quit forcing your idea of a healthy environment on me. If enough people don't want second hand smoke in their face, then they will drive the change through their purchasing power in the market place.

    I get ticked off about this every time I hear of it.

    And I don't even smoke...