U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller and that ruling declared that the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. But that didn’t stop Chicago from continuing its gun ban, like Washington, D.C. had before the ruling and still does to some degree.

Chicago claims that the Federal Government does not have power over the states and/or municipalities to create their own gun laws. That claim has been challenged and appealed to the highest court in our country. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald vs. Chicago.

We know that the newest member of the Court, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, sat on an appeals court and supported a ruling in New York very similar to the McDonald vs. Chicago case in which she ruled that Federal gun laws cannot overrule state laws.

It may just be that the Supreme Court will decide whether its ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller also extends to the states. Heller did not clarify that and I speculated back then that the day would come when a decision from the courts would be needed. But there are issues in this that will make the case interesting.

As I see it, some are wanting their bread buttered on both sides. Many individuals cry out for Second Amendment protection for their individual right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time demanding enforcement of the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment spells out that the only power the Federal Government has over the states is what is given them by the Constitution.

That in and of itself presents a problem to those seeking to have protection of the U.S. Constitution to own guns and yet if states have the power to make and enforce their own gun laws, as is supposedly granted by the U.S. Constitution, then we have a problem.

But it’s not even that simple. Recently the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment therefore giving the Federal Government power to control guns.

With several states now either having or considering laws to challenge the Federal Government in order to reinsert their rights under the Tenth Amendment, does it not make sense that states, such as Illinois, will need to examine their own constitutions to see if gun ownership is guaranteed.

McDonald vs. Chicago may prove to be decisive in two ways. It may clarify federal power over the states, something many states are trying to get away from or it may be one more step toward dismantling the strong arm of the federal government.

This case will be heard sometime next year.

Tom Remington

Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights

The several states are lining up to reclaim their sovereignty and telling the federal government to butt out. The American Flag is not flying high in those states currently. This is being done in myriad ways but all are related in that most claim that the Tenth Amendment protects the states from federal tyranny. States are passing resolutions, memorials and two states have passed laws and they intend to apply those laws for their citizens. The two states are Montana and Tennessee.

It was expected that at some point these laws would be challenged and it appears actions to do such has begun. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has published open letters to federal firearms license holders in Montana and Tennessee explaining that federal law trumps state law when it comes to gun laws.

“As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.

In a report filed by CBS News, it seems to indicate that even though these states are claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal Government may have power over such gun laws as the Firearms Freedom Act, via the Commerce Clause.

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government’s powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce.

World Net Daily points out in an article of their own that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act bill declares that Congress has not “expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition”.

I have been saying for some time that all of this will eventually wend its way through the courts ultimately landing at the feet of the United States Supreme Court. This is one reason the approval of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice is vitally important, especially due to the fact that she is anti Second Amendment and has shown little regard for the original intent of the Constitution.

Also at issue in this debate are pending lawsuits challenging gun laws in other states. Chicago’s gun ban is being challenged after the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision reaffirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that federal gun laws do not pertain to the states, a position taken by Sotomayor.

This is an interesting ruling considering that prior to this the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment and therefore federal law, which now holds the ruling of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision, applies to the states rendering them unable to create gun laws that supersede federal laws. This will end up at the Supreme Court.

While we are discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Amendment and Ninth and Tenth, the BATFE is sending out public letters, assumed to be authorized by the Obama administration, to federal firearms dealers in Montana and Tennessee, stating that federal law supersedes state laws, at least as they pertain to firearms and ammunition.

Where will this all end up? I believe the Supreme Court but I know not how long this may take. In the meantime, the Obama administration, made up of mostly anti-gun people, are grasping to gain control over your right to keep and bear arms. From the day Obama was elected, the people rushed to stores buying up guns and ammunition at unprecedented rates. With the combination of a new president and staff known to want to ban gun and gun sales and the District of Columbia vs. Heller ruling, it has helped spur more laws to relax gun restrictions. This, I am positive, angers the Obama administration.

None of this comes as a surprise to Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. Marbut was directly responsible for the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. In a letter sent to his members of MSSA, Marbut points out what he views as little concern over the letter and how it was expected.

1) The letters are addressed only to FFLs and purport to assert authority only over those licensees already under the federal thumb because of their licenses. We’ve always assumed that people with existing FFLs would not be players in the state-made guns exercise because they will not wish to risk thwarting the earned reputation the BATFE has for vindictiveness. The letters are not addressed to non-FFLs, those folks who are potential participants in the state-made guns business.

2) The BATFE letters may lack any official import because they are not signed by the official who appears in the signature block, but by some unknown other person. It’s difficult to place much credence in a missive upon which the purported issuing person is unwilling to put his signature, and for which the signer is unknown.

3) The essence of the letter is a declaration that the laws that the BATFE enforces supercede the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. I understand that the BATFE hopes that is so, but that’s far from proven yet. (We still recommend that nobody make these state-made guns until we can litigate and vet the principles involved.)

4) The letters, if they are official even though unsigned by the issuer, will help us establish standing to get this issue squarely before the federal courts. The feds have thrown down the gauntlet.

I like Montana’s approach to their action in the creation of their Firearms Freedom Act. They are proactively seeking to bring this issue to the courts for a ruling. They believe in their own state’s constitution and that they, according to their contract with the people and the United States Government, have the sovereignty and freedom under the U.S. Constitution, to make their own laws in matters such as this.

This will be a long and drawn out affair but one that is ripe for a good battle. Let’s hope this battle arrives before Obama can stack the Supreme Court with more anti-gun “empathetic” justices.

Tom Remington

Discussing The Hearing Process Of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Today at 6 p.m. I will be participating in a conference call sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. This conference call will include South Carolina Senator Jim Demint and former Attorney General Edwin Meese of the Reagan years. We will be discussing the nomination process and hearings taking place today for President Obama’s selection as a replacement for Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court – Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

I have yet to decide but I may attempt to live-blog that conference. If I don’t, I will update readers at the conclusion of the call. I am grateful to have been able to be a part of this call and I thank the Heritage Foundation, one of my all-time favorite organizations.

As most of you know, I have real concerns about Judge Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Among many reasons, her rulings have indicated to us that she sees very little relevance in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they pertain to states, cities and individuals. She recently ruled that the Second Amendment is a federal law that does not apply to the states, or cities such as Chicago, that, like Washington, D.C., has an outright ban on guns.

We know that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. This doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact on Judge Sotomayor who still favors cities like Chicago being able to strip that right away from you and I.

This should concern every citizen of this country. Whether you support the right to keep and bear arms, it is more than troubling that a potential life-time appointee to the United States Supreme Court would hold such disregard for the Constitution. The fundamental glue that holds this country together is that judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect the rights of all citizens, rule according to the laws of this land not make up their own. For a judge to have disregard for that rule of law, claiming that states and cities have the right to create their own laws contrary to those guaranteed us under our Constitution, leaves us to ask if Judge Sotomayor believes any right guaranteed us has any Constitutional value?

For anyone to truly believe this can only make us ask, why do we even have a Constitution?

Tom Remington

Second Amendment Incorporation Into Fourteenth Amendment – Open Discussion

I believe this topic will make for a good open discussion for readers. Please feel free to comment and offer supporting facts for your comments.

This issue is a bit complicated but I think if you take a second you should be able to understand what is going on. Recently the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in a California case that the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, applies to the state because of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The NRA filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago because it continues to ban guns after the decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Coming after the Ninth Circuit Court decision, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

In its lawsuit against Chicago, now about two-thirds of all the many states have signed amicus briefs in support of the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling to incorporate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

While this all sounds good for enforcing the Second Amendment as an individual right, isn’t this a two-edged sword? By agreeing to the incorporation, aren’t we saying that the federal government is the ultimate authority over the states? If not the Second Amendment being overruled by the Fourteenth, then what else will the federal government snatch away from the states?

Presently, there is a movement in this country to regain state sovereignty. Does signing on to this ruling now claim states are willing to fore go their sovereignty in order to enforce the Second Amendment?

Or better yet. Why is it that we need one Constitutional Amendment to force an existing one? The Second Amendment was one of the original. It was drafted knowing full well the importance of a God given right to self protection and protection from tyranny. Isn’t that good enough? Why do we need to incorporate with the Fourteenth in order to honor the Second?

Tom Remington

Chicago Will Continue Gun Ban Despite Heller Supreme Court Decision

It matters not what the U.S. Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment? Are we to disregard rulings from our highest court? Evidently. Despite the 5-4 decision of SCOTUS in District of Columbia vs. Heller, cities such as the District of Columbia, New York and Chicago, refuse to accept that the Heller ruling has any affect on cities and states that want to ban guns at will.

A U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Chicago gun ban.

Tom Remington

Is Obama Blatantly Manipulating The Courts With His Selection Of Sotomayor?

It would be naive to think that no president ever considered his appointments to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as a way to help protect or promote his ideals. How far is a president willing to go to intentionally attempt to manipulate the system in order to achieve personal agendas?

When Senator Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate for president of the United States, I spent a great deal of time writing about his history when it comes to Second Amendment issues. This also included multiple articles on the most prominent Second Amendment case the Supreme Court ruled on in recent history – District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Over seven months ago I brought you a story that got very little attention and few people know about even today. Perhaps it is time to revive that story a bit.

From 1994-2002 Obama was director of an organization called the Joyce Foundation. It’s aim was the destruction of the Second Amendment. This foundation, led by Barack Obama, tried to manipulated the courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court by stuffing the law review libraries in several prominent law schools.

At the Supreme Court level, we know there are very few prior cases that deal with the Second Amendment. After all, it took well over 200 years before the court would finally make a ruling on whether the Second Amendment actually did guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. (District of Columbia vs. Heller)

It is known that all stewards of the law have to rely on past cases in presenting an argument as do judges in rendering decisions. If there is no actual case history, often lawyers and judges will refer to articles written at law school review libraries. These articles carry some weight because they are accepted and approved before being published.

It was Obama’s contention and that of the Joyce Foundation that if they stuffed enough anti-Second Amendment law review articles into college libraries, this would help sway the courts to render decisions against the Second Amendment. Class act wouldn’t you say.

As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. We now wonder how Obama will achieve what many of us already know – his desire to rid the country of guns and destroy the Second Amendment.

We know since becoming president he has tried to reduce the availability of ammunition. He was unsuccessful in ordering all military spent brass, used by companies to reload and resell, destroyed and rendered useless.

We also know that when Obama traveled to Mexico recently, he told leaders he would encourage his Congress to ratify CIFTA – a global treaty former assault-weapons-banner-in-chief, Bill Clinton, tried to get passed. This treaty would submit U.S. citizens under the power of a U.N. entity that would take away our guns.

We can feel quite confident that Obama will find any means necessary to take our guns. (laugh if you want to). He is not afraid of slimy court manipulations and fraud to influence the courts nor is he shy about bringing in outside gangs to help him with his agenda.

So, with all this said, can we begin to think that just maybe Obama is using an anti-gun Sonia Sotomayor as another game piece to achieve his ends? For those who care enough to learn, we have come to realize that Sotomayer is about as anti-Second Amendment as they come. Consider this.

Six months after Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in upholding the belief that the Second Amendment was a guaranteed individual right, given to us by God and not allowed by the Constitution, Federal Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor completely disregarded District of Columbia vs Heller.

In Maloney vs. Cuomo, she ruled that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights nor did the federal government have any say in the matter. She claimed the states had the right to make any gun banning laws they wanted regardless of what the Second Amendment said (my words not hers).

Of course I have no idea where gun banning sits on Obama’s priority list. Does anyone? But we know it is there. He stated clearly that he wanted an “empathetic” justice who could rule by having a better understanding of the way things are in our country today, and it appears he found one of those. If gun banning is second, third or lower on Obama’s wish list of rights to take away in order to achieve his fascists regime, picking Sotomayor may have been just another bonus feather in his cap – kind of a two or more for the price of one.

Obama is a big enough narcissist that he believes, like back in the Joyce Foundation days, he can manipulate even the United States Supreme Court in order to fulfill his fascist agenda.

Tom Remington

Montana’s New Gun Law Going Viral

H/T to reader Greg Farber on the Global News Post article.

Montana’s HB246 is the talk of the states it seems these days. It didn’t take too long I suppose but with each passing day, more media, not the main stream though, and new Internet media are picking up on the brazen and testy new gun law bill that Montana signed into law last month. I first brought you that story right here on the Black Bear Blog.

I’ll dispense with all the proper speak and get to the nitty gritty of the bill. Montana’s HB246 says that any guns or gun parts manufactured in the state of Montana and sold exclusively in the state of Montana cannot be regulated by the federal government.

Back on April 20, 2009 I made this comment.

While several states are calling for legislation that reaffirms their state sovereignty in opposition to a federal government that is out of control, Montana, it appears, has taken this step a little bit further. No one knows how this will play out in the courts as it is sure to be challenged.

We know that many states now have taken some degree of assertiveness, if only to make a statement in protest of too much governmental control. Montana seems to be the first to draw a big and bold line in the sand, while at the same time dropping a grenade into the court (figuratively speaking) of the U.S. Government.

The Global News Post describes Montana’s bold move this way.

Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch.

Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama’s face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.

Speaking of secession, if you will recall back during the U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the state of Montana was hinting that should the Supreme Court rule against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms as an interpretation of the Second Amendment, then the U.S. Government would be in breech of the contract Montana had with the U.S. Government when it agreed to join the union. Some legal authorities believe that Montana has that “ace up the sleeve” while other states don’t.

Which brings me to an additional point in this discussion. Since Gov. Schweitzer signed Montana’s bill, at least two other states, Alaska and Texas, have drafted similar bills.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, says he’s not really sure how all this would play out in court. As a matter of fact, Marbut says the MSSA is looking into the possibility of taking a proactive approach and filing a suit in court in order to prove the legal principles within HB246.

Tom Remington

Update: 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause Incorporated Into 2nd Amendment

Yesterday I introduced you to a brand new story of the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision that seems to essentially take the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the “due process” clause and incorporate it into the 2nd Amendment when making decisions on gun rights cases.

I have yet to complete reading the entire ruling and far be it from me to begin to fully understand this case, the ruling and what we can expect from it in the future. There is someone, far more educated in these things than I and considerably more able to explain this.

Clayton Cramer, someone who assisted in the briefing process of the Supreme Court’s hearing of District of Columbia vs. Heller, begins to explain to his readers about Nordyke v. King.

Tom Remington

14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause Incorporated Into 2nd Amendment

I am just now beginning to read the ruling in this case, Nordyke vs. King, in which the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does incorporate the Second Amendment against the states.

While much of this case was influenced by District of Columbia vs. Heller and doesn’t actually strike down the state restriction on gun regulation, it probably sets the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More as I have it and understand it.

Tom Remington

Black Bear Blog’s Top 10 Stories Of 2008 – Author’s Choice

At the end of each blogging season, I like to go back and revisit all the stories and articles I wrote. Many of them are still etched deeply into my brain, while others have been mostly forgotten. While some of my picks may not be the most popular story of the year, I believe them to be relevant to me, the Black Bear Blog and my readers as they might impact us as American citizens.

Before I actually begin recapping the top 10 stories of 2008, I want to take a moment to remember a dear friend we all lost this past year. Sayward Lamb was a character, a character in the good sense of course. Always with a grin, a hearty laugh and never short of a story to tell, he lived a full and complete life and impacted everyone who ever had the pleasure of meeting him. We all miss you, Sayward.

I’ll begin with the number 10 story and progress to the top story of 2008. Before I do, I couldn’t help but mention the “Listerine” story. A story that, to me, has little if any significance to human life, the afterthought story I put up about using Listerine as an insect repellent garnered an unbelievable number of comments from readers.

Story #10 – North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase’s attempt to outlaw elk ranches and fenced hunting.

A group calling themselves hunters felt compelled to force their ideals down the throats of others by proposing a citizen’s initiative that would for all intent and purposes outlaw farming of animals such as elk and deer. For some odd reason of which nobody would offer an explanation, the group steered clear of bison ranching. The initiative, if passed would also have outlawed “high fence” hunting. High fence hunting has always carried some degree of controversy but most feel a person’s choice to hunt (or whatever you choose to call it) on a hunting preserve should be an individual choice and not something that needs legislating.

NDHFC began a campaign that was lacking in support and controversial, calling on the Humane Society of the United States for help, both financially and in collecting signatures. Everyone knows the HSUS is the largest anti-hunting organization in America of which no bona fide hunting organization would ask for help.

When the dust had settled and signatures on the petition were counted, NDHFC fell short on the minimum number of required signatures to force a vote in the general election. Hopefully they will become nothing but a little dust in the wind.

Story #9 – World’s Tallest Snowwoman. My tiny hometown of Bethel, Maine was once again put on the map, if only the map of Guinness Book of World Records. From out of a pile of natural and man-made snow, volunteers contributed hours of hard work to create Olympia (named after Maine’s senior U.S. Senator, Olympia Snowe). Bethel was first added to the Guinness Book of World Records, when Angus, King of the Mountain was born. Olympia towered over the village having officially been recorded at 122′ 1″ tall.

I gave the story a fair amount of coverage and with the help of a live webcam located in a building across the street, people from all over the world could log in and check the progress as often as they wanted.

Here in Florida, my granddaughter in her third grade class, participated in a program called Flat Stanley. Flat Stanley is a paper-faced character the students are encouraged to send to different places around the world. Flat Stanley collects pictures, stories and information and returns to the school with the report. My granddaughter’s Flat Stanley traveled to Bethel, Maine and returned with exclusive photos and information few others were privy to, thanks to Great Grammie.

Story #8 – Lyme Disease – While most people don’t sit around talking about Lyme disease, it’s growing rapidly. The disease itself comes from the tick but that tick is transported by deer. Deer are overly abundant in some locals, Connecticut being one of them. With the close proximity of deer, carrying infected ticks, and humans, the risk of humans being bitten by an infected tick increases drastically. Lyme disease has no cure and can be debilitating.

The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease, dared to do what others didn’t. They suggested a drastic reduction of deer numbers, actually supporting the use of hunters and hunting to accomplish the task. This group dared show evidence that reducing deer numbers down to “normal” densities would not only reduce incidents of disease but could rid areas completely. Of course offering a sensible solution met with resistance from the preservationists.

Story #7 – Maine Moose Lottery Televised Coverage

Some would not consider this a top ten story but from my perspective it was simply because of the logistics to pull this off for a very first time going mobile with streaming video and audio for the Black Bear Blog. With the help of Bob Adams and Julie-Lynn Belon of the Kittery Trading Post, this event was huge for us.

I timed our arrival believing I had ample time to set up, test things out and then schedule interviews etc. but that didn’t work out as hoped. With Milt Inman, Chief Photographer for Skinny Moose Media and a trusty assistant, Gregg Inman, we got set up and managed to get in a couple of brief interviews before the actual show of the selection process.

The broadcast lasted nearly 6 hours with well over 6,000 viewers who logged on and at least viewed some portion of the show. We left with a wealth of knowledge, eager to try this again.

Story #6 – Winter of 2008

In parts of this United States, namely portions of the Rockies, Michigan and Northern New England, a winter like no other took its toll on some wildlife. In Maine it was estimated that the severe snow depths, reaching in excess of 250 inches in places, killed at least 50% of the whitetail deer herd.

Story #5 – New Jersey Bears

It seemed there was no end to the foolishness of managing, or lack thereof, of New Jersey’s black bears. First there was a bear hunt, then there wasn’t, then there was, then there wasn’t and now there’s not and bears are showing up everywhere. This year alone bear/human encounters/complaints skyrocketed, yet Governor Jon Corzine insisted his state did not have a bear problem. The problem, in his eyes, is people don’t know how to get along with bears.

New Jersey went several years without a bear hunting season. Eventually bear populations grew and the state, pre Corzine and the anti-hunting administration, had a bear hunt to thin the numbers. Animal rights and anti-hunting groups lined up to sue and hide behind lies of saving the bears. The bear hunt was canceled. A year went by and a bear hunt was held after the courts ruled the state had a legal bear management plan that included hunting as a viable part of that plan. That was 2005. No hunt for bear has happened since.

Gov. Corzine, crafted his own little anti-hunting puppet, Lisa Jackson to do his bidding and was put in charge of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The fish and game is a division of DEP. As a side note: President-elect Barack Obama has selected Lisa Jackson to be the head of his administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (doesn’t bode well for hunters).

When Jackson took office the first thing she did was toss the court-approved Bear Management Plan in the garbage and declared the days of hunting bears in New Jersey are over. Since that time, private property has been destroyed, people’s homes have been invaded and people put at risk from an overabundance of bears. All the while the governor and his regime insist there’s no problem.

Some within the New Jersey legislature are demanding that Corzine do something about this time bomb that will eventually explode when a bear decides to seriously harm or kill a human. And whose fault will that be.

The New Jersey bear situation is a problem and is ongoing with little hope that Corzine will change his mind. The question I suppose now becomes who will be the governor’s next puppet to head the DEP?

Story #4 – Global Warming

Have we turned a bit of a corner on this absurdity of man-made global warming?

While I didn’t write about man-made global warming as much as I talked about it on the radio and video broadcasts, it still got plenty of attention. It seemed that our media worldwide fell in love with Al Gore and his scam and con job of man-made climate change. And while polar bear loving Al Gore was sealing financial deals to line his bank accounts, going green took on multiple meaning.

It appears now with more and more real scientists speaking out against man-made global warming, some in the scientific community are insisting this nonsense cease immediately. But not our politicians. They, like most of what they do, haven’t a clue nor do they care but if enough of us can keep rattling cages, we can successfully get the process of scientific research into climate change back on track.

Story #3 – The Election: Obama’s Stance on Second Amendment and “The Bitter People”.

As we have wound down from one of the strangest elections in my lifetime, many can’t wait until January 20, 2009 to arrive to they can officially begin their worship of a man they know nothing about and don’t want to. They say love is blind and it must be true love for the millions of voters who turned out to vote. They voted because they wanted change.

One aspect of Barack Obama that I hammered on during the campaign was his history, stance and lies on the right to keep and bear arms. Every politician since Adam and Eve has lied during their campaigns and this campaign was no different. It mattered not what Obama said. It mattered not what he had done, what his voting history told us. It mattered not about his past and those he chose to associate with. The voters wanted change.

But what almost, not quite and actually now that I think about it, it didn’t amount to a hill of beans, was Obama’s elitist comments made behind what he thought were closed doors about people being bitter, clinging to their guns and religion. In case you missed my story on the bitter people, click here.

And we can never forget that for the first time that I can remember, we had a vice presidential candidate that actually did believe in the Second Amendment. She was far from being a bitter person. None of this mattered again because people wanted change. They haven’t any idea what kind of change so long as it’s change.

Story #2 – Wolves/Endangered Species Act/Polar Bears

I decided to lump these all together as one story because they belong all together as one story. First let’s recap the continuing saga of gray wolf reintroduction and the up and down court ride of listing and delisting.

It is my belief that wolves were illegally dumped on the doorsteps of citizens in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and used deliberated practices of deception to achieve this goal. Promises were made and probably during that time a bridge or two in New York City changed hands once of twice.

Those intent on bringing wolves back promised that once a prescribed number of wolves were recorded, protections would be ended and the states could manage the wolf and have the ability to stop wolves from destroying private property.

Once official wolf numbers exceeded the promised numbers by at least five-fold, the wolf is still protected by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act. Earlier in the year, the Department of the Interior announced it was removing the ESA listing of wolves. They had accepted the three states’ – Idaho, Wyoming and Montana – Wolf Management Plans. That lasted only a short amount of time as once again the preservationists/animal rights/anti-hunting groups lined up like sheeple to an Obama rally, suing the federal government to stop the needless slaughter of wolves.

Coming as no shock to anyone, an activist judge who knows as much about wolves as I do about thermonuclear energy, granted a temporary injunction that placed the wolf back under protection. This was soon followed by the USFWS asking Judge Donald Molloy to withdraw the original proposal to delist.

As you can imagine, this story has no ending. The USFWS is poised to make another announcement, perhaps only hours before George Bush leaves office and Barack Obama takes over, removing the wolf from protection again. We can only speculate (it’s a sure thing) that once this happens the gaggle of groupies will descend on Judge Molloy’s office crying for help for the poor soon to be slaughtered wolf.

In the meantime, properties are being destroyed and documentation is now pouring in of the decimation of elk herds in parts of Idaho, Montana and within Yellowstone National Park.

The second part of this broad story is the Endangered Species Act itself. Written in 1973 and amended in 1978, the Act’s intention was to prevent the “needless” extinction of species because of the actions of man. The Act has been twisted and turned and manipulated into a giant legal and political leverage tool used by special interest groups to promote their agendas at the expense of the animals we intend to protect.

Even though the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals unanimously voted to notify the courts that science will be used in passing judgment on endangered species cases, it surely had no affect on two judges who have managed to totally screw up the ESA.

When Judge Donald Molloy ruled to put the wolf back under federal protection, he created his own science in many ways. The Environmental Impact Statement that was written and approved before wolf reintroduction began, essentially said nothing about the need for wolves from the three areas where wolves were dropped, had to interbreed before a sustainable wolf population could happen. He called it genetic connectivity. This was at least one half of his basis for placing the wolf back under protection.

Shortly after this happened, in a lawsuit taking place in the District of Columbia, judge Paul Friedman decided to put the wolves in the Western Great Lakes back on federal protection as well. His reasons were very odd, to say the least.

He said in his own ruling that he didn’t have to put the wolf back on the Endangered list but he was going to because he thought it would be “easier”. Now that’s scientific. Worse yet, he created the biggest quagmire about Distinct Population Segments.

It has been the practice for some time for the USFWS to create segments where certain species live and areas where efforts are needed to recover or protect species. The feds have routinely created boarders to define these areas and as such call them Distinct Population Segments. This is what happened in the Western Great Lakes. The feds created a DPS, with boundaries, in order to remove gray wolves from protection in that area because they deemed, according to the policies specified in the ESA, the wolf “recovered”.

But Judge Friedman ruled that the ESA does not provide a definition of a DPS, therefore the USFWS had no legal authority to create a DPS. Little did he know with his own ruling that he just rendered all previous Distinct Population Segments of all species that are created, null and void. Essentially this makes the ESA and all that it controls a useless document. Isn’t science wonderful?

The Act needs serious amending if not a complete overhaul. It needs definitions, restrictions and allowances so that our scientists can actually work at recovering and protecting species. But each and every time there is any effort at all to change the ESA, it meets with great resistance from the lobbyists of the special interest groups who don’t want their sugar daddy taken away.

And finally the third part of this story is about the polar bear. This year the polar bear was listed as threatened by the Department of Interior because of melting sea ice. This became a no-win situation for everyone, including the polar bear.

The Bush administration got suckered into believing that climate change was permanently destroying polar bear habitat – ice. Not wanting to anger too many people, they thought listing the bear as threatened would pacify the environmentalists and not anger those of us who really wanted to protect the bear. Lawsuits have followed.

Then, like they had some kind of magic wand, the DOI, led by Dirk Kempthorne, declared that nobody was going to use the threatened status of polar bears as a political manipulation tool to regulate global warming.

Now that real science is coming around to shoot down the scare mongers of global warming, the way the ESA has been interpreted, the bear will never be removed from the ESA list, even though the ice is growing again and the population of polar bears is the highest its been in decades.

Story #1 – District of Columbia vs. Heller

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims: “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.” People have argued for decades about the meaning of this Amendment, even to the point of how capitalized words are used.

What began as a lawsuit against the District of Columbia by a security guard, Richard Heller, to restore his constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”, ended up in the United States Supreme Court in what is perhaps the greatest ruling since Roe vs. Wade or Brown vs. Board of Education.

The Second Amendment has taken more abuse than perhaps any other Amendment we have, often energized out of fear and emotion because this right involved guns.

One of the arguments involving the Second Amendment is whether a “militia” means that only state sanctioned militias or guards have a legal right to possess a gun. Some argue that only the states have a right to regulate firearms. As a result of the many years of unsettled legal discussions, it was now going to be left up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Going into the oral arguments of the case, broad agreement seemed to be that SCOTUS would rule one way or the other as to whether the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right or a collective right as such the militias. Most thought the Court would vote in favor of an individual right and we were not disappointed.

What we all mostly wondered was whether or not the Court would take it upon themselves to define, “reasonable gun regulations”. We may never have a definition of that and case upon case will be heard in the lower courts within many states of the Union.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion of a 5-4 vote. Justice Scalia, in presenting years of historic evidence as to the “intentions” of the framers of the Constitution, declared the Second Amendment as a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. What was left quite foggy was what kind of arms can individuals possess and what are “reasonable” gun control laws.

In the District of Columbia, a person virtually was barred by D.C. laws from owning a gun of any kind and in particular a handgun. D.C. law also provided that for those who were properly licensed to own a “hunting” gun, that gun had to be inoperable in the residence of the owner. The Supreme Court also ruled that law was unconstitutional because it robbed a person of their God-given right to self protection.

It has been nearly seven months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for an individual right and that a ban on owning a gun and having it in your home was unconstitutional, and still the District of Columbia has yet to comply with the court ruling as they stall laying claim they are trying to work out an agreeable gun control bill. That in itself tells us that the District of Columbia has no intention of adhering to the law and will come up with their version of what the Second Amendment should be and let it be fought in the courts again as to what “reasonable” gun laws are.

Although District of Columbia vs. Heller was not a ruling that restored 100% our right to keep and bear arms, it was a major victory that gave us a starting point and a legal platform to work from. Let’s hope this new administration, along with a strong democratic hold on both Houses, will not head us in the opposite direction.

Tom Remington

Political Grandstanding And Fear Mongering By Anti-Gun Zealots

If it wasn’t in print, nobody could believe that anyone could be ignorant enough to believe that because of a new ruling about being able to carry a concealed weapon into a National Park under the gun regulations of the state the park is in, there will be trouble at the inauguration of President-Elect Barack Obama.

From The Hill.com:

Washington D.C. does not allow concealed weapons, but Norton [Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.)] and other think confusion over the rule could lead visitors to bring guns to Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration, which will be held on two miles of National Park land – the National Mall.

“It is truly frightening to think of what this could mean coming just a couple of weeks before the inauguration,” said Norton, who has long supported strict gun laws in D.C.

Which reminds me. When will the District of Columbia respect the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller and comply?

More fear mongering and portraying guns owners as stupid:

Brady Center President Paul Helmke, however, sees a danger.

“My concern is that there has been some publicity about this whole guns in the parks thing and some of the 4 million people coming in from all over the country (may) think that just because they have a concealed carry permit in their home state, that it gives them the right to come to the nation’s capital and carry (a gun),” Helmke said.

Unfortunately, because of efforts from people just like Paul Helmke, U.S. citizens have been stripped of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so they won’t be protected among 4 million people. I wouldn’t be so concerned if I were him. I look at it this way. If there are going to be 4 million people descending upon the National Mall for Obama’s inauguration, then that’s 4 million liberals who disrespect the U.S. Constitution, don’t believe in guns or that others should have the right to choose to carry, so they won’t be armed anyway.

I wonder what 4 million people will sound like singing, Kumbaya?

Tom Remington

“Dangerous And Unusual” Weapons?

Gary Marbut is president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. For those who may not know, I now post Gary’s press releases and member information updates at Montana Hunting Today.

Yesterday Gary sent me an update that included a link to some research and information he has put together on the use of the terms, “dangerous and unusual” as they pertain to language in two U.S. Supreme Court cases – District of Columbia vs. Heller and U.S. vs. Fincher.

Last night I began reading it and found it interesting enough that I thought I would share the link for those who might be interested.

Dangerous and Unusual Weapons? by Gary Marbut.

Tom Remington

Attempting To Discredit Justice Scalia

The Associated Press is doing what it does best in presenting stories that are not representative of the claims they make. In an attempt to smear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the AP claims that conservative judges disagree with Scalia on his opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. They found two, one with sour grapes over not getting nominated by Bush to fill a vacancy in 2005.

The AP claims that these two conservatives accuse Scalia’s ruling as being “activism” and that the court should have taken the same position as Roe v Wade and let the states decide what is best. I do see one big difference. In Roe v Wade the decision is whether or not to allow a woman the right to decide whether to kill her unborn baby and in District of Columbia v Heller, it’s about interpreting the Second Amendment. No conservative judge would consider allowing states to disregard the U.S. Constitution.

Tom Remington

District Of Columbia Refuses To Abide By Supreme Court Ruling

In another feeble attempt at appeasing Washington, D.C. residents, the city council is proposing Bill 17-843, an amendment to the gun ban of 1975. In a recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia stated in the majority opinion, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to keep and bear arms and that the District of Columbia’s requirement that guns in homes be rendered virtually inoperable, was unconstitutional. Since that time, the District has done little in its attempts to abide by the Supreme Court.

The D.C. Council has instead offered an amendment to Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, most affectionately known as the D.C. gun ban. The amendment should be considered an act to scoff at the Supreme Court while defying the authority of that court.

I said from the very beginning that if the Court should rule in favor of an individual right and that gun laws should be “reasonable”, that we would spend the next several decades in the courts trying to decide what is “reasonable” gun control. Little did I know that places like the District of Columbia would be so ridiculously defiant of the court’s ruling.

The amendment of the existing bill does very little to insure that every lawful citizen has the right to own and gun and virtually nothing to allow that person to have it easily accessible and operable while in the home.

Each applicant must have an accurate ballistics print, register the gun and undergo and waiting period in hopes of getting a permit. If an applicant is successful, we have to ask what is the real purpose of obtaining a permit to begin with? Of course I’m sure it is the exact intent of the D.C. City Council. Check this out.

Sec. 702. Except for law enforcement personnel described in section 18 201(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his or her place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia, or for the purpose of immediate self-defense in his or her home.”.

Not only is this amendment discriminatory, it also defies the ruling of the Supreme Court that declared that rendering a firearm inoperable in the home was unconstitutional. This is precisely what Justice Scalia said in his majority opinion.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Bill 17-843, now being called the “Firearms Control Amendment Act of 2008″ will undergo scrutiny from the citizens of the D.C. A public hearing is scheduled:

Thursday, September 18, 2008
11:00 a.m., 5th Floor Council Chamber
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Please attend. If you would like to speak, contact Victor Bonett by phone at 724-4865 or e-mail at VBonett@dccouncil.us

Americans, we cannot continue to allow government to defy the rulings of our courts and stand in total disregard of the rights of the people. All should speak out against such a defiant bill proposal.

Read more about District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Tom Remington

More On Obama And Gun Rights

I have spent a sizable amount of time trying to dig up information on Barack Obama so that readers can decided for themselves, based on his past voting record and not his campaign rhetoric, where he stands on Second Amendment issues.

As the campaign prepares to gear up to full swing mode, more and more bloggers and journalists are digging as well. Today, “see-dubya” at Michelle Malkin’s website digs into Obama’s past voting record on gun rights and Second Amendment.

Here’s a quick trip back to some of the past posts I’ve had about Obama’s past gun rights voting records and comments made that date back to last February.

Back in February, I ran a story that contained information that was uncovered by David Bernstein.

Back in April I reported that Obama made a public announcement that he was against concealed carry. (That story got picked up by the Chicago Sun Times.)

Of course, the free world knows about Obama’s poor perception of Pennsylvania citizens in calling them bitter, full of antipathy and clinging to their guns and bibles. I reported that story back in April as well.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association, disguised as a gun rights group, backs Obama, which should tell us a lot of things.

By mid April, Obama was attempting to become a chameleon and deceive the people about his true stance on guns. In a report I filed, Obama was trying to tell people he believed in an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time saying the government had a right to limit and control them all they wanted.

Once again, in the end of April, Obama, in an interview with the Chicago Sun Times, clarifies for us that he believes the Constitution gives us an individual right but communities and state and federal government has the right to deny us that right. He’s waffling a lot and trying to convince voters he’s “trying to figure out what works”.

In July, just prior to the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller, Obama was caught flip-flopping on his supposed stance on Second Amendment, hoping he would be “right” when the ruling came down. I think he was trying to cover all his bases by muddying the water.

And just this week I reported on how the media and all of Obama’s supporters are saying that we should stop worrying about Obama’s position on the Second Amendment, attempting to reassure voters that the “Anointed One” believes in your right to keep and bear arms.

Do your homework. Forget the campaign rhetoric. Look at his past, as short and inexperienced as it is and you will discover this is a Marxist bent on controlling you by snatching from you your Constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms.

Tom Remington

Next Page »