Tag: gun rights

  • Otis McDonald & the Second Amendment in Chicago

    The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may have decided the most important Second Amendment case in history on June 28, 2010. A previous landmark 2008 gun case, DC vs. HELLER, held that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right of self-defense. Yes, the U.S. Constitution actually means what the Founding Fathers thought they meant when they drafted it! The Bill of Rights only began to be applied to the states by means of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect newly freed citizens from the tyranny of Southern regimes that deployed de jure force of law and de facto intimidation to perpetuate slavery.

    In MCDONALD VS. CHICAGO, the Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment aims at prohibiting firearms restrictions enacted against Blacks and enforced by armed white mobs often via the noose-end of a rope! Otis McDonald, the 76 year-old African-American Plaintiff in the case, is a neighborhood activist targeted who boldly he stood up to thugs that lay claim to the streets of Chicago. (more…)

  • DC vs. Heller

    The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed DC v Heller in a five to four landmark decision last year. Justice Scalia firmly placed the Court’s decision, which knocks down Washington DC’s ban on firearms within the bedrock of the Founding Fathers’ original intentions; i.e., the decision sets forth a principle scorned by tyrants over the centuries. It is in the people that the power of governmental force resides. The government’s use of deadly force ultimately derives from an individual’s duty to protect herself or himself, one’s family and neighbors.

    The fact that the discussion of self-defense is usually framed in terms of rights is, perhaps, unfortunate in that Americans can easily become exhausted by the perpetual yapping about “rights“. We have welfare rights, immigration rights, First Amendment right to purvey obscenity. The “right” to keep and bear arms is first of all a duty. Many states, especially in the Eastern U.S., still have laws on the books requiring men of certain ages to have a military weapon and suitable ammunition in specific quantities in order to be ready to perform militia service: (more…)

  • The Assault on Guns in Washington State: Sen. Kline’s Weapon Ban Hearings

    Linda Pillo, Bellevue Washington’s police chief, was named chief in January, 2008. She bested five other candidates from around the nation. Pillo, 53, is the first woman chief in Bellevue. She told the local Seattle news media that running a police department was “something she never expected to do when she started police work on Mercer Island after graduating from Washington State University in 1978”. She aspired to be a supervisor, however.

    At the Senate hearings on January 26, 2010, she showed the world how she rose so quickly through the ranks after joining the Bellevue department in 1986 and rising from lieutenant to captain, major, deputy chief, chief and now as a chief that chops wood and hauls water for left-wing trial lawyers like Adam Kline. Pillo sat in front of Washington State Senator Adam Kline’s judiciary committee and called everyone’s attention to studies conducted by the International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP) and the anti-gun, Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. The two groups jointly sponsored “THE GREAT LAKES SUMMIT ON GUN VIOLENCE”. (more…)

  • Did Clinton Gun Ban Make Fort Hood Vulnerable to Jihad Attack?

    The Washington Times recently ran the following editorial:

    Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different – except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

    Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

    After talking to a veteran and reviewing some forums on such matters, it seemed that the assertions in the article may not bear up under scrutiny. For example: (more…)

  • Emergency Preparedness: King County Violating Washington State Gun Rights

    How many years have we listened to the talking class bemoan the fact that most of us know more about what happens in the Middle East than we know about our own local governments? Suddenly the internet and cable TV have created an explosion of engaged citizens and the political class is worried! In between Tea Parties and disrupting Town Meetings, citizen activists all over the State of Washington are investigating county and local governments that have enacted emergency power provisions that violate RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute.

    For example, the City of Yakima just amended certain local laws that were in violation of the state preemption law. Then we discovered to our dismay that the Council had retained the following: (more…)

  • Seattle Fights Back Against Chicago-Style Gun Control

    Nickels Missing; Seattle Finds Smoking Gun Dec 17, ’08 1:14 AM

    by Mark S. Knapp, Federal Way

    Subsequent to publishing the following article, Nickels issued his edict. He is now out of office and his successor and the City of Seattle are battling at least two legal actions that the City cannot expect to win:

    Mayor Nickels wrote to the Speaker of our State House of Representatives, Hon. Frank Chopp, on May 4, 2006. Greg Nickels stated:

    “State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”

    -Mayor Greg Nickels, May 4, 2006.

    For several months after the Mayor Nickel held public hearings on his plans to ban guns on City property, he seemed to know that the legal action ready to be filed by the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington can seriously hurt the City. Then in March, 2009, the Mayor’s office indicated that the edict will go into effect on a yet to be announced date. See Workman. (more…)

  • Is Your Mayor Lobbying Against Your Guns?

    Yakima Mayor Edler recently announced that he joined Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Yakima is dealing with a string of gang-related shootings that have rocked the City of Yakima. MAIG’s Mission Statement declares:

    “We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns.”

    The anti-gun mayors’ group does not support the right to bear arms, however. MAIG has stated that “a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”

    Many of the positions taken by MAIG around the U.S. violate our Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.290 which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” within Washington State. Thus, our state firearms preemption law prohibits local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law.

    Yakima’s City Council recently decided to repeal two illegal firearms restrictions that violate state preemption law.

    A nineteen year old man was shot dead during an argument yesterday (September 17, 2009) at the Federal Way Transit Center. There have been previous shootings there, including the death of an innocent bystander.

    Federal Way’s neighboring mayor, Pete Lewis of Auburn, and other Washington mayors presumably join Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to combat violent crime and make cities like Auburn safer.

    According to MAIG, more than 450 mayors from big cities and small towns across the country have joined the coalition. MAIG claims that it just seeks common sense solutions that may vary for different localities but MAIG’s real agenda (possibly unknown to well-intentioned mayors like Mr. Lewis- but unlikely at this point in time) is to restrict folks from exercising many of our gun rights, gradually removing the ability of citizens to stop violent crimes immediately by armed self-defense.

    Legislation supported by MAIG includes repealing the Tiahrt Amendment which provides for trace data to be provided to law enforcement and prosecutors but prohibits providing firearms information for lawsuits aimed at closing down gun manufacturers and gun shops. The NRA and The Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing such data as releasing some of the data could jeopardize officer’s lives.

    Mayor Bloomberg would restrict people on the terror watch list from buying or owning guns. Earlier this year, Homeland Security warned that some of our troops returning from combat zones pose a potential terrorist threat.

    Do we want our returning servicemen and women placed on a watch list and losing their right to keep and bear arms? Once on the list, many Americans have found that there is no way to get off of it- even where the government admits a mistake has been made.

    Mayor Nickels of Seattle, a founding member of MAIG, announced again that he is prepared to proceed with an illegal gun ban on city premises despite the certainty that he will soon be leaving office (he did not make it past the primary due to the unpopular style of his governance in the Emerald City). Despite Washington’s firearms preemption law and an imminent legal challenge that Seattle cannot win, Seattle’s lame-duck mayor is foisting huge legal expenses on Seattle’s taxpayers. Isn’t it less expensive to simply punish violent predators to the maximum extent of the law? But Nickels, like a few of Seattle’s other anti-gun politicians now in Washington, DC, is feathering his own nest in hopes of a salaried position with MAIG or even a position in the Obama Administration.

    MAIG is against HR 2296 and S. 941 which would clarify the standards and improve the process for imposing penalties related to intentional violations of federal gun laws. MAIG’s opposition is apparently because the proposals are not hard enough on simple paperwork mistakes that can presently result in the BATF harassing and even closing down legitimate gun dealers!

    MAIG’s present goal in Washington State is apparently to remove the so-called “gun show loophole”. The argument (shown to be false by Department of Justice statistics) is that, since people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check, many criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows. The Washington Arms Collectors, the organization that hosts many gun shows in Washington, requires that only WAC members (all of whom have passed background checks) can purchase weapons at gun shows. Dealers still have to perform NICS checks at gun shows just like they do in their regular place of business.

    Under present Washington law, private parties can presently buy or sell weapons away from gun shows without any background check. Will MAIG want legislation closing the private party loophole next?

    Efforts to prevent the existence of any loopholes work better in totalitarian societies. Laws already enacted need to be enforced more strictly before we give up our freedom. Let’s make society safer by making things harder for the predators, not for law abiding gun owners.

    You can find out whether your mayor is a member of MAIG with the handy NRA list from the NRA-ILA. The following Washington mayors (as of August 20th, 2009) are involved in this anti-civil rights organization:

    Mayor Peter B. Lewis
    Auburn, WA

    Mayor Cary Bozeman
    Bremerton, WA

    Mayor Greg Nickels
    Seattle, WA

    Mayor Bill Baarsma
    Tacoma, WA

    Mayor Royce Pollard
    Vancouver, WA

    Mayor David Edler
    Yakima, WA

  • Can the UN Repeal Your Washington State Gun Rights?

    Medellín v Texas is a landmark that stands for freedom in the United States.

    See United States

    In recent years, some members of the U.S. Supreme Court have made attempts to meld U.S. law with foreign law. International norms are apparently a new prism through which U.S. Constitutional law should be interpreted, according to some justices.

    For example, in criticizing the Court’s own previous decision upholding state laws against consensual sodomy, the Court stated: (more…)