Liberty Maven

Today the Senate is debating what has come to be known as the Thune Amendment (S.845), which would allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Watching the debate is rather interesting. Just about every Senator who rises to oppose the amendment argues that it “tramples states rights”. As an individual who supports states rights this caught my attention.

Does the Thune Amendment actually violate states rights?

It does not. It can be thought of as applying the laws of state driver’s licenses to concealed carry permits. The summary of the amendment makes it clear that it requires that the carrier follow the laws of the state in which he/she is carrying:

A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Yet every Senator opposed to the amendment is falsely arguing that it violates states rights?

Incidentally, I applaud my own Senator, Jim Webb, for supporting the amendment against the wishes of his Democratic colleagues.

The vote is supposed to occur about an hour from the time of this writing. I’ll write more following the vote.

This week I’m thinking about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. By now everyone has heard about the Heller Supreme Court victory last year that struck down DC’s gun ban. There is another “gun fight” brewing. The Heller case dealt with applying the 2nd Amendment to the federal government. The new case explores whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Perhaps most compelling about this new case is that it is an effort to strike down Chicago’s gun ban and we have a President who would love nothing more than to extend that ban to all the states.

Make no mistake that is what Barack Obama wants to do. Whether he actually can accomplish it is another story. For more details on the new case and its history see this excellent article from Reason. Let’s all hope that the Supreme Court takes the case and does the right thing.

Read More »

It’s Friday and that means it’s time for another installment of  “Quick Hits”.

Helen Thomas and Chip Reid berated White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the other day for pre-selecting questions for Obama’s “town hall” and “controlling” the press. It appears that the honeymoon (I call it the “Obamagasm”) is coming to an end. Gibbs seems to be out of his league as Obama’s Press Secretary. I’ll be surprised if he makes it through Obama’s first and hopefully only term.

There is one particular forbidden health care question for Obama. I would love to hear his answer to the following question:

“Mr. President, you are considered a Constitutional scholar. Could you educate the American people a bit and tell them what section, article, or amendment permits the federal government to provide health care?”

Sure, he would dodge the question, but it is one dodge that I long to hear.

On Monday, Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul held another money bomb campaign fund raiser. The goal was to break $100k. The goal was met. This is huge news and a great sign that the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party is not going anywhere. Rand Paul raised over $100,000 in about a month without an official fund raiser. Senator Rand Paul has a nice ring to it.

There was high drama last Friday afternoon on the House floor during the debate on the narrowly passed Cap and Trade bill. The Republicans kept pointing out that the legislation will lose more jobs and put a higher tax burden on the American people.

Read More »

John Stossel participated in a “must read” online chat last night via “The Agitator”, Radley Balko’s great site.

If you missed it the chat transcript is available for your reading pleasure.

Stossel is quick-witted and brutally honest. He’s a refreshing libertarian voice in the media wilderness.

Also, check out his new frequently updated blog for more raw Stossel.

Based on then-Senator Obama’s voting record regarding gun rights, our current president could arguably be considered the most anti-gun president in our nation’s history. That, along with an anti-gun Congress, the United States could be headed for more tyranny.

As Scott McPherson of The Future of Freedom Foundation pointed out, similar to the right expressed in our Second Amendment, the English have a right to bear arms as expressed in English Declaration of Rights (1688).  Nonetheless, in 1997, handgun ownership was completely banned.

Given the leftist atmosphere in U.S. politics currently, alongside the wiggle room that Justice Scalia left in the Heller decision (”Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”), we could be in trouble.  As McPherson puts it,

Don’t bet your life, or your children’s or grandchildren’s freedom, that 50 or a 100 years from now a sufficiently reconstituted and “progressive” Court won’t consider it a “reasonable restriction” of your “not unlimited” right to make firearms so difficult to obtain that armed self-defense becomes a thing of the past.

Government will become more arbitrary, restrained only by good sense and decency — virtues not commonly found in those holding great power. At that point, the American citizen becomes a subject — one step removed from a serf — then a slave. Whatever verbal calisthenics or contortions legislators or judges may employ to convince you otherwise, that was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers, and the very reason early American statesmen demanded that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — period, end of discussion.

McPherson also explains our natural right to gun ownership in a way I’d not heard it before: we don’t need the 2nd Amendment to deem all federal gun restrictions illegal.

Freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to peacefully assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, to trial by jury, and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and even a statement protecting rights not listed — all are found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Even if there were no Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would fall under the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights, but gun ownership was considered so important that it too was mentioned specifically.

Read all of Scott McPherson’s article here.

If you have not read John Lott’s latest article, you need to.

Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and author of well-known works such as More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics, to name a few, meticulously dissects the obviously-rigged “experiement” staged by ABC’s 20/20 program.

First, in planning the experiment, it was clear the whole thing was set up to make the student fail.  They put an armed student in a classroom, and had an armed attacked barge into the classroom to gauge how effective the armed student would be:

…It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.

Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.

But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by “20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of  relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.

Lott, who has made it a major part of his career to study such things and can rattle off statistics from the tip of his tongue, makes plenty of other good points that completely invalidate the so-called experiment.  He points out numerous cases (which ABC failed to mention) in which armed citizens were able to thwart attackers.  Conversely, he points out that “all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective.”

Indeed, as Lott concludes, the keen advice offered by the experts at ABC make things safe for attackers, not victims.

Read Lott’s excellent article here.

Wow, this one is a doozy!  A ton of new bills were introduced in Congress on Friday: 188 in total.  For those who haven’t read this series of articles from the beginning, there are a few things to keep in mind…

When taking a look at the list below, keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution, which created our Federal Government, clearly enumerated 18 specific functions that it is given.  For all other things, the 9th and 10th amendment make it clear that the individual states have the power.  Note that it states in the Constitution that it is the Supreme Law of the Land, which can be usurped by no other.  This means that all opinions to the contrary made by the Supreme Court are technically invalid.  Throughout the past couple of hundred hears the Supreme Court has rule one way or another on some “interpretation” of the Constitution, but in fact no interpretation is necessary, as the intention of the founding fathers are quite clear.  For example, if the “general welfare” clause or the “interstate commerce” clause was intended to be used as a catch-all for any arbitrary piece of legislation, then the 10th amendments which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

would be completely meaningless.  So simple logic, in addition to the writings of Madison and other founding fathers, dictates the notion that the Federal Government was set up to have very little power, and that these United States are intended to be a loose federation of sovereign states.

Only due to politician’s greed and overwhelming desire for power does the Constitution get relegated to the trash heap.

So, despite the  noble intentions of many of these bills, it doesn’t mean they are legal.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Of the bills introduced yesterday, these are ones that are clearly not legitimate functions of the Federal Government  [as always, my commentary will appear in red]:

• HR1892 – To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 102 North Main Street in Cedarville, Ohio, as the “William ‘Brent” Turner Post Office’.
• HR1929 – To establish the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Investigative Commission to investigate the policies and practices engaged in by officers and directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for making the decisions that led to the enterprises’ financial instability and the subsequent Federal conservatorship of such enterprises.  [Keep in mind that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been basically nationalized, which is, of course, unconstitutional.]
• HR1925 – To designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin Deserts in Utah for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
• HR1924 – To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes.
• HR1922 – To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least 1 public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a locality.
• HR1921 – To establish an Office of Public Advocate within the Department of Justice to provide services and guidance to citizens in dealing with concerns involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes. [Fantastic!  Create another layer of bureaucracy to help people deal with bureaucracy...]
• HR1978 – To authorize the Attorney General to make grants to improve the ability of State and local governments to prevent the abduction of children by family members, and for other purposes.
• HR1977 – To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study drywall imported from China in 2004 through 2007, and for other purposes.
• HR332 – Providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to a prosperous economy and therefore renew the dream.  [Reading the full text of the bill it all sounds nice, but it's really nothing more than platitudes.  Nothing will come of this.  It's not recommending anything concrete.]
• HR1971 – To provide for the elimination of duties on certain comforter shells
• HR1970 – To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt unsanctioned State-licensed retail pharmacies from the surety bond requirement under the Medicare Program for suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).
• HR1969 – To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam.  [Oh god. Oh god, no! Haven't we gotten ourselves into enough jams with this interventionist crap?]

Read More »

With forty-nine new bills introduced in Congress yesterday, one must wonder how many are really necessary, and more importantly, how many are Constitutional.  Answer: very few.  In fact, the vast majority are unconstitutional intrusions into private industry, adding layer upon layer of regulation and bureaucracy.  Here are a few of the more obvious examples:

• HR1690 – To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to coastal states to support voluntary State efforts to initiate and complete surveys of coastal waters to identify potential areas suitable for the exploration, development, and production of renewable energy, and for other purposes.
• HR1691 – To require that health plans provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary consultations.
• HR1684 – To preserve the rights granted under second amendment to the Constitution in national parks and national wildlife refuge areas.  [Why do we need a bill to repeat what the second amendment already says?  Simply hang (for treason) all those who violate their oaths to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution.]
• HR1692 – To amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to exempt ordinary books from the lead limit in such Act.
• HR1693 – To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the coverage of marriage and family therapist services and mental health counselor services under part B of the Medicare Program, and for other purposes.
• S-672 – A bill to amend the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, and the Federal Power Act to modify provisions relating to enforcement and judicial review and to modify the procedures for proposing changes in natural gas rates.
• S-674 - A bill to amend chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment and authorization of funding for certain training programs for supervisors of Federal employees.
• S-675 – A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit the sale of dishwashing detergent in the United States if the detergent contains a high level of phosphorus, and for other purposes.
• S-677 – A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require wealthy beneficiaries to pay a greater share of their premiums under the Medicare prescription drug program.
• HR1677 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and expand the benefits for businesses operating in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, or renewal communities, and for other purposes.
• HR1678 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a bad debt deduction to doctors to partially offset the cost of providing uncompensated care required to be provided under amendments made by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
• HR1680 – To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to promote professional retrofit installation of fire alarm detection systems and other fire detection and prevention technologies in nursing homes, hospice facilities, and other appropriate facilities.
• S-678 – A bill to reauthorize and improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and for other purposes.
• S-679 – A bill to establish a research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program to promote research of appropriate technologies for heavy duty plug-in hybrid vehicles, and for other purposes.
• S-680 – A bill to limit Federal emergency economic assistance payments to certain recipients.  [Such a Bill should not be necessary.  No person or entity should receive emergency economic assistance.  Read Davy Crockett vs. Welfare.]
• S-681 – A bill to provide for special rules relating to assistance concerning the Greensburg, Kansas tornado.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

There’s a civil war going on in Mexico. It’s the drug cartels, funded by obscene black market profits, versus the government, funded by obscene taxes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico this week. She’s from the U.S. Federal Government and she was there to help. She promised . . .

* More taxpayer money to fight Mexico’s war on drugs
* Gun control laws here in the U.S.A. . . .

. . .to stop the flow of guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

Ms. Clinton seems to think that gun prohibition is the way to enforce drug prohibition. She’s right about one thing. Drug prohibition and gun prohibition are the same issue.

Now, you might think drugs are bad. You might believe them to be so harmful you’d never use them. But you probably expect the politicians to keep their hands off your firearms.

On the other hand, you may think guns are evil. You might believe they’re so dangerous, you’d never own one. But you think you have every right to choose what substances you take into to your own body.

Read More »

Your Senators and Representatives have continued to be busy little bees, always grinding the sausage.  Forty-four new bills introduced yesterday:

• HR230 – Recognizing the historical significance of the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.  [You've got to be kidding me.  If this weren't displayed on official government sites, I would swear this was a joke.]
• HR1388 – Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act: To reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
• HR1415 – To provide for a demonstration project regarding Medicaid reimbursements for stabilization of emergency medical conditions by non-publicly owned or operated institutions for mental diseases.
• HR1413 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain public employees a deduction for distributions from governmental plans for health and long-term care insurance, and for other purposes.
• HR1412 – To increase public confidence in the justice system and address any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal process.  [Looking at the full text of this bill, it's clear that the authors have the idea that justice is being served out "unfairly" with respect to race and ethnicity, and are under the mistaken impression that "unconscious bias" can be legislated away.]

Read More »