"SC Attorney General: Come Get the Guns!"
In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. Sighting (sic) many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed. The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.
With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.
The face of the banality of evil. Quintan Wiktorowicz, the White House Senior Director for Community Partnerships on the National Security Staff
“Violent extremist groups ─ like Al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division,” stated Wiktorowicz.
What they are doing, of course, is conflating folks like us with Al Qaeda, the final culmination of Professor Churchill's "Narrative of 1995" -- all the better to justify the use of drones and "decapitation" strategies domestically. This is about shaping the battlefield of the coming civil war. They understand that a civil war is coming, for they are the ones eager to start it -- the fools.
Bob Wright at Fort Hunt Park, 19 April 2010.
Here's the bad news for New Mexicans: "New Mexico House votes to close gun show loophole."
New Mexico's House of Representatives approved tighter background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows, joining other states in considering more restrictions on weapons following the Connecticut school massacre.
Representatives voted 43-26 on Wednesday to advance the measure, which was expected to be approved by the Democratic-controlled state Senate and Republican Governor Susana Martinez, a gun rights advocate who has said she would sign the bill if it reaches her desk.
Not surprisingly, this does not make my old friend Bob Wright of the 1st Brigade, New Mexico Militia, very happy:
An Open Letter to Senator Carroll Levell, and all Senators in the New Mexico Legislature
Soon you will be asked to vote on HB 77 or its equivalent in the Senate.
I ask that you vote 'NO' on this odious attempt to infringe upon the God Given
Rights of free New Mexicans.
As you know, Senator, the only mechanism the Federal Government could use
to regulate firearms in America was a highly controversial and very cynical reading
of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The reason there is no federal requirement for
the individual to do background checks is because once purchased from the Federally Licenced Firearms dealer, the weapon is no longer in Interstate commerce. It is now the Private Property of the purchaser.
HB 77, would undue that protection and require the citizens of this state to pay a financial fee to a Federally Licenced Dealer. That fee would process a request to a Federal Bureaucrat in order to sell their own property.
There are no reliable studies that suggest criminals get their guns through private sales and, therefore, there is NO compelling reason to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment protections or the private property rights of the Citizens of this great state.
In addition, this misguided and deceptive law would, defacto, create a gun owners database with its requirement to maintain records.
Finally Senator, the right to keep and bear arms uninfringed is enshrined in our Bill of Rights and CANNOT legitimately be encroached upon. This is by any definition an encroachment.
Passage of this bill will disregard the intent of both the Federal and State Constitutions, dishonor the blood sacrifices of our forebears who fought to defend these very rights, and it will betray the peaceful and law-abiding citizens of this great State and bring shame upon the Senate in which you serve. I know you share a love of our beloved Constitution and trust that it is that which will guide your vote in this matter. Thank you for your time senator.
Bob Wright
Looks like Bob may have to organize a Fed-free AND a state police-free gun show. Now that's something I'd go back out to Fort Stinking Desert to help with.
From a reader with a link to video.
He writes: "Jump right to the 1:35 - 2:10 footage for the money quotes. Your jaw will hit the deck.
"Emeryville, CA Police Chief Ken James claims it is a myth that guns have a defensive purpose. He says that "Police Officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon" and, further, explicitly states that they are carried by officers for offensive use only -- that they use them "to intimidate and to show power."
I gotta confess, this one almost had me: Police Shoot Jazz Band Members In Dorner Manhunt. Until, that is, I saw that it was from the Daily Currant. Of course if you are a newspaper delivery lady in LA, maybe not so funny.
Glenn Thrush writes: "Obama swings left in retro State of the Union."
Even before he spoke, Obama has already signaled a bolder, more assertive approach on core Democratic issues, unveiling a series of specific new gun control and immigration reform efforts, no-expiration-date items on his party’s perpetual to-do list that have been thrust to prominence by recent events.
Congress is more likely than not to take action on those items than Obama’s new policy proposals, with bipartisan groups currently working on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Senate is also likely to take up limited gun regulations. most likely a measure requiring universal national background checks on all firearm purchases.
Yet even here Obama threw down a gauntlet, demanding an up-or-down vote on more stringent measures like a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
“Gabby Giffords deserves a vote,” he said. “The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence — they deserve a simple vote.”
By laying down all these markers, Obama hopes to coerce Congress into bipartisan deals that bipartisan backroom negotiations haven’t yet yielded.
Carrie Budoff Brown adds: "Aggressive speech, even more aggressive message."
The speech President Barack Obama delivered in his State of the Union address Tuesday night was aggressive — but not nearly as aggressive as the message he was sending to Congress between the lines of what he said. . .
Here’s POLITICO’s guide to translating what the president said at the podium, and what he really meant. . .
What he said: Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence — they deserve a simple vote.
What he meant: I plan to embarrass Congress into taking this whole gun control effort seriously.
Translation: It’s not just Republicans whom Obama needs to convince.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), one of the president’s most loyal allies, hasn’t appeared eager to throw his full weight behind passing a package of gun control proposals. A solid bloc of moderate Senate Democrats, including some up for reelection in 2014, are skittish, too.
Obama signaled during this passage of his speech that he would shame lawmakers into at least considering legislation, using his bully pulpit to force action.
His recitation of the phrase, “they deserve a vote,” brought the chamber to its feet. Even Boehner stood up when Obama invoked Giffords.
