August 3, 2015
In another excellent victory for civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the federal interstate handgun sales ban earlier today
August 3, 2015
On Tuesday, a Texas woman home alone shot and killed a sex offender allegedly breaking into her house. She then dialed 911.
August 3, 2015
House Republicans held a press conference ahead of the Senate vote on the continuing to fund the Department of Homeland Security and block President Obama’s executive order on immigration.
August 3, 2015
August 3, 2015
On Tuesday evening, the United States ordered the evacuation of all remaining staff at its embassy in Yemen. The evacuation comes on the heels of threats that the Yemeni rebels would kidnap foreigners.
August 3, 2015
The United States has accepted two new immigrants for each additional job created since 2000, according to federal data.
Obama and Eric Holder are probably stewing in their own juices and frothing at the mouth over the interstate ban on the sale of handguns being struck down yesterday by Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas. This never stopped them from breaking this law anyway in Operation Gangwalker where they were providing guns to the Chicago drug trade from firearms retailers in Indiana. Judge O’Connor stated it was unconstitutional, and a violation of our second Amendment and our Fifth Amendment right to Due Process to bar a citizen from purchasing handguns in another State. From a story on Firearms Policy Organization:
As the Court explained, “[t]o prevail on a facial challenge, Plaintiffs must show that either no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid or that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep.” That high bar was met by the Plaintiffs’ legal team. The decision explained that “Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and BATFE director B. Todd Jones] fail[ed] to provide reasonably current figures to show the federal interstate handgun sale ban is narrowly tailored.”
Even though the Court found that strict scrutiny was the proper standard of review for the type of burden on Constitutionally-
The United States, the Court held, has been enforcing “a regime that is not substantially related to the Government’s stated goal” [of public safety]. Even under intermediate scrutiny, “there must be an indication that the regulation will alleviate the asserted harm to a material degree.” But “Defendants  failed to carry their burden to show how the federal interstate handgun transfer ban alleviates, in a material way, the problem of prohibited persons obtaining handguns simply by crossing state lines and depriving states of notice that they have under the amended version of the 1968 Gun Control Act.” Accordingly, the laws were declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement.
The lawsuit, captioned Fredric Russell Mance, Jr. et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. and B. Todd Jones, was backed by Citizens’ Commitee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, one of the Bellevue, WA-
We applaud the decision in this case as we believe and affirm our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, which needs to be repeated here for our understanding of this matter:
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.
The 2nd Amendment has been one of the most maligned and mangled right in the Constitution that the progressive left has attempted to redefine for the last fifty years. So that they can disarm the American people and destroy our right to self-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
In Colonial times the militia was charged with the law enforcement and military duties of the area in which our forefathers lived, it was the preferred military unit. After the war of independence a debate sprang up about a standing army with our young nation evenly split between having a standing army and relying on the militia for the keeping of order and the rule of law. As our citizens had lived under the cruel oppression of British Army and so the 2nd Amendment was written with this debate in mind. The militia in those days was composed of all the citizens that were capable or bearing arms and were mustered out in time of need, without the right to keep and bear arms they simply would be unable to defend themselves or anyone for that matter.
The second part of the 2nd Amendment is the most important and is a directive to our age and all citizens and goes back over 600 years at the time of the drafting of our Constitution. We were British citizens that were in revolt against the Crown of England, who in 1215 had guaranteed the citizens of Britain the right to bear arms when King John signed the Magna Carta, which led to the second part of the 2nd Amendment in recognition of these inherited, rights:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
One important distinction must be made between these inherited rights of the Magna Carta and other English grant of rights to her citizens and our 2nd Amendment, is where these rights in our Constitution originally come from. We must examine our Declaration of Independence for this important distinction. We will excerpt the appropriate clause of the Declaration as the Magna Carta's right bear arms was granted by a King, and what the king can grant the king can take away, this is why our rights are unalienable and granted by the very fact of our existence by our Creator:
We hold these truths to be self-
This is why the 2nd Amendment is written the way it was to establish that no government established by men and having the powers of the consent of the governed (this would be the citizens) has the power (this is what government is at the end of the day) to disarm us and leave us at the mercy of our government or anyone that would mean to do us harm.
Our rights are unalienable meaning they cannot be taken by man and are granted by divine providence, so it is from the power in the heaven and only our God has the right to take our rights away, and that government simply lacks the authority to do so. This is why they used the explicit language of:
shall not be infringed
Meaning they are unalienable, resolute and is only a recognition of their divine origin and not subject to a monarch, government or the powers of a government to be taken from us. We are pleased that the federal courts are acting in the manner they have been with many decisions affirming our right to bear arms. The courts have been resolute in this task peeling back many of the unconstitutional actions by Congress since the 1968 Gun Control Act which started the process of eroding our unalienable right to bear arms.
We cannot help also thinking that the courts are reacting to the erosion of our civil rights under the tyranny of the left and their march towards totalitarian and dictatorial actions that are expressed by a desire to disarm our citizens. That is when Obama and and his retched Democrat Party are not changing the very definition of citizen with the open borders policy of our feckless tyrant that is purposely balkanizing the nation with illegal aliens, to corrupt the nature and definition of citizen.
The desire to disarm citizens has been done in every left leaning socialist government starting in the 20th Century, the Democrats are no different in their quest to make us serfs and chattels to an all powerful government. This decision by the Federal Courts are pushing back against our unalienable right to bear arms and ultimately our right to secure our freedom, livelihoods and our safety from the raw abuse of power that our federal government is usurping from the people. The 2nd Amendment is our guarantee of our right to revolt and effect the means to protect our rights, freedom and safety, and yes even from our own government, especially from our federal government. From Firearms Policy Organization.
Federal Court Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Ban
|Meeting Info & Minutes|