Gun “Restrictions” And Limiting Magazine Capacity
January 24, 2011
It seems that every time another deranged so and so enters a “gun free zone” and massacres one or more people, irrational subjects begin to wail once again demanding more gun control. I am told that gun control is now considered a bad word and the catch term today is gun restrictions. Because, don’t you know, some idiot decided to coin a ridiculous phrase that says, “all rights come with restrictions”.
I answered someone just the other day when they demanded smaller gun magazines, that the continued creation of gun free zones and gun control measures was doing what in limiting gun violence? Even a close, lifelong friend suggested to me that perhaps it was time to limit magazine capacity. Former V.P. Dick Cheney suggested it and hoards of gun haters, and not so much gun haters, are “compromising” to say it’s reasonable to restrict gun rights in this fashion because………well, why is it? Read more
Montana Firearms Freedom Act Suit Moves To Ninth Circuit Appeals
September 30, 2010
MISSOULA, MONT. – In MSSA v. Holder, the lawsuit to validate the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), plaintiff Montana Shooting Sports Association announced today that it is now free to take this lawsuit to the next judicial level, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, “We’ve believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process.” Read more
Chicago Enacts Restrictive Gun Ordinance In Wake Of McDonald v. Chicago
July 14, 2010
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. Read more
Why Isn’t NRA Officially Opposing Elena Kagan Nomination?
June 29, 2010
Perhaps what we are witness to is the trouble groups such as the NRA get into when they place politics above principle, carving out exemptions for themselves in restrictive Legislative laws in what appears to be an exchange for backing off on opposition to Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. This of course is mere speculation on my part but the path the NRA has chosen to take leaves unanswered questions.
Michelle Malkin declares the McDonald ruling “good news, bad news”. The good news of course being the Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago gun ban. Malkin states that with the NRA withholding a position of opposition against anti-gun Kagan, the bad news and surely it is. Why the hesitation? Kagan clearly is not a supporter of gun rights. Isn’t the NRA’s mission to promote and protect Second Amendment rights? Read more
More Elena Kagan Anti Gun Evidence
May 14, 2010
Ken Klukowski, Townhall, reports that Elena Kagan has shown more signs in the past as being anti-gun and more closely mirrors the same gun philosophies as the President who nominated her.
We learned yesterday that Kagan was “not sympathetic” to one man fighting for his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. According to Klukowski, as Solicitor General, Kagan did not seek oral argument time or even file a brief in the recent case of McDonald v. Chicago. Read more
Elena Kagan: “Not Sympathetic” About Second Amendment
May 13, 2010
Hard core? Elena Kagan, Obama’s pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in a memo to former Justice Thurgood Marshall, wrote: “[The man’s] sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’. I’m not sympathetic.” This in reference to an appeal from a D.C. man convicted of carrying an unregistered pistol. His appeal has to be based on whether there is legal standing not on whether a court clerk doesn’t care about another person’s rights.
However, according to Bloomberg, her comments on District of Columbia v. Heller, were: Read more
International Effort To Grab Your Guns
March 17, 2010
Tenth Amendment Push Backs Spreading Across America
March 17, 2010
Is this all a case of too little too late or are there any legal teeth in the growing actions of states all across the Union in passing legislation that in effect tells the federal government to take a hike?
On this very blog, I have been vigilant in posting information about states proposing, passing and signing legislation in attempts to nullify federal authority of gun control laws forced onto them. But this push back we are witness to is now reaching beyond the Second Amendment. States are passing bills declaring the federal government can’t force them to “buy into” federal run health care. Utah has effectively told the federal government it’s taking back some of it’s lands. Other states don’t want anything to do with federal ID cards, they’re ignoring federal marijuana laws, have put the feds on notice that their local police departments have more authority than they do and that National Guard troops can be recalled by states. Read more
Twenty-Five States Seek “Nullification” Of Federal Gun Control Laws
March 4, 2010
As of this writing, five states, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, have passed laws through their legislature effectively nullifying the Federal Government’s authority to regulated guns and gun accessories. Two states, Montana and Tennessee, their laws most commonly called Firearms Freedom Acts, have been signed by their governors. The other three are expected to follow suit. In addition to those five states, at least twenty more have introduced similar legislation and another half dozen intend to introduce it. By years end, there could feasibly be well over 30 states making an attempt to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their intrastate gun and gun accessory manufacturing. Read more
McDonald v. City of Chicago: How Limited Will The Right Be?
March 3, 2010
MT. To Celebrate “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” Week Beginning March 1st.
February 17, 2010
*Editor’s Note* Below is an email message I received from Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. It is a reminder to members of MSSA that beginning on March 1, 2010 will be the start of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Week. As a bonus, Marbut included a short recap of how the RKBA Week evolved.
Celebrate!!
In 1991 MSSA got a bill passed setting aside the first week of March as the official week in Montana to celebrate our cherished Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Here’s what the Montana law actually says: Read more
The “New Fascism” At Work In North Carolina
February 8, 2010
Snow storms dumped ample amounts of the white stuff on parts of the mid-Atlantic states over the weekend. Unfortunately, some town’s leaders either have never heard of a U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights or somehow they think, like what happened in New Orleans, that just because the town declared an emergency, all of a sudden people give up their God-given and constitutional rights.
Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person’s own premises.
I guess they thought they were doing everyone a favor ALLOWING them to possess a gun on their own property. Uh, uh, uh! This cannot be allowed.




