What Now?

April 20, 2009

Well, we all had a good time at our local Tea Parties, right? I saw some nifty signs, great costumes, and good t-shirts. We all listened to some speakers tell us what we already knew, got some new bumper stickers, and are feeling pretty darned good about ourselves because we “did something.”

The question we have to ask ourselves now is: “Now what?”

In case you haven’t noticed, nothing has changed since 4/14/09. The same unConstitutional laws are still on the books and being enforced. The same unConstitutional taxes are being extracted from us by force. We are still spending billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) on an unConstitutional war. Local SWAT teams are still armed and dressed like a crack SS unit, and they still breaking down doors (sometimes, even the right door) to enforce unConstitutional laws.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like our one-day party changed much.

Maybe it’s because all of the party organizers got all the right permits beforehand (got the King’s permission). Maybe those groups who got fined for “polluting” when they dumped tea in the rivers and lakes have all paid their fines. Maybe it’s because all of the party-goers were so thoughtful and kind that no traffic was obstructed and no hallways were clogged by protesters at statehouses around the country. In short, maybe we were too polite. Maybe, by getting our permits and paying our fines, we are showing the tyrants that we are willing to submit to whatever restrictions they place on us – even those limiting our free speech! What would be our situation if the protesters at the REAL tea party had asked King George for his permission first?

What do we expect to have changed from our one-day event? Now that it is over, the media hype has died down, the statist pundits have had their fun trying to marginalize anyone who dares to object to any government program. Those in government can relax, knowing that they will never again hear from 99% of the people who participated, and that if they offer a few sound bites before the next election, most of those people will still vote for them and they will be re-elected.

Those in government know that most of us will go back to watching Americans Idle, and most won’t lift a finger to put any pressure on government officials. Legislators know that they can pretty much do anything they want, and the vast majority of the American public won’t even KNOW, unless the government-sanctioned media shines a light on it, which is unlikely. They know from experience that there are few citizens who will take the time to read the bills introduced; fewer still will make the effort to watch the legislature, either in person, or on CSPAN (or the local equivalent). The few mass mailings of form letters they get from special interest groups can be easily ignored – unless of course, they happen to agree with the position of the legislator, in which case they will be heralded as “proof” that ‘something needs to be done.’ Individual handwritten letters will only be scanned for keywords, and a form letter reply will be mailed back to the citizen, and half the time the keyword scanner will get it completely wrong. Your letter will simply be marked into either the “for” or “against” column for a particular bill.

What if a certain number of people showed up at their state house nearly every day, without warning? What if they refused to leave until their “representative” listened to their grievance, AND reasons? On “Tea Party Day,” everyone knew exactly when citizens would be there, and so it was possible to simply be “out of the office” during those hours? What if every day, as they drove to their office (which is really OUR office), they wondered how many people would be in the waiting room, in the halls, on the sidewalks, and waiting on the phone? Do you think it would be harder for them to put us out of their mind on a daily basis?

As long as they continue to ignore us, they will just do as they please – which is to increase their power and keep their job. When they find out that people are watching what they do, and that people CARE, maybe they will think twice before succumbing to lobbyists and special interest groups.

Are we a “special interest group?” You bet! Our interests are the Constitution, rule of law, and the resulting liberty.

Don’t let them forget it.


10th Amendment Bills

February 26, 2009

Various states have introduced bills which re-affirm the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Oklahoma even passed theirs (HJR1003) by a huge margin, so there’s hope.

Indiana’s version (Senate Resolution 37) appears to be identical to others introduced around the country. It is nothing except a confirmation of the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which our country was founded. There is no controversial language. In other words, there is NO REASON that this bill should not pass with a unanimous vote.

Keep an eye out for your state’s version of this, and write to support it. Make sure that your “representatives” don’t tack a bunch of objectionable garbage onto it in order to kill it (a favorite tactic of the statists).

Here is an article about this, but the article is 20 days old, so it’s already outdated.

Get on the phone – write letters and emails.

Chicago Tea Party?

February 20, 2009

Have you seen this??

Maybe people ARE paying attention. Maybe people are even thinking, even though the government doesn’t want anyone engaging in independent thought. When the government wants us to have an opinion, it will have the media tell us what it should be.

But ultimately, there has to come a time when people decide that things have gone far enough. When a situation gets far enough out of hand that you just have to finally say “No. Not any more.” People pay lip service to the Constitution, yet worship the government which is willing to use that Constitution as a doormat. Maybe it is finally time to decide which more closely reflects values which guided our country for 200 years, and to reject an ideology which seeks to ignore the blueprint which laid the groundwork. For far too long, people tried to “pick and choose” which rights they thought were important, and tried to look the other way when the government trampled the others.

For some people, it may be 1st Amendment issues with post 9/11 laws. For others, it may be 2nd Amendment issues. For still others, it might be 4th Amendment issues. Several states are apparently becoming concerned and are raising 9th and 10th Amendment issues. And now, there is the acceleration of the Fascist ideology taking over our country that many are suddenly realizing and becoming concerned with. Those who are concerned over any or all of these issues, I applaud you.

There have been serious problems with our government for years. UnConstitutional laws resulting in the infringement of the rights of tens or hundreds of thousands of people’s lives, which has also resulted in a huge prison population, with an ever-increasing financial burden on society, not to mention the ruination of hundreds of thousands of families. The enforcement of these unConstitutional laws is carried out by a police force which resembles a “police force” in name only. Today’s law enforcement agency more closely resembles a military Special Operations unit, complete with assault rifles, armored personnel carriers, black masks, and night vision goggles.

For most of this time, however, there were groups who were only concerned with one or two of these areas at a time. The government (and its propaganda branch: and media) were able to marginalize whichever group was dissatisfied by portraying them as crackpots. A prime example is that anyone who spoke out about the violation of the 2nd Amendment by the government was labeled by that same government as a “right-wing gun nut.”

This situation has been going on for decades, but is now accelerating, and drawing attention to itself. People have realized that the recent push to socialize our country punishes the responsible and diligent among us in favor of the crooks, the greedy, and irresponsible. The end result will be that some will get to remain in their homes briefly, at the expense of taxpayers. Another result will be the inflation, which will act as a secondary “tax” by raising prices on everything. The only people who benefit are the bank executives, who took their multi-million dollar bonuses out of the first bank-handout package.

With increasing joblessness, and our reduced buying power due to inflation, crime is rising. When you are in bed at night, and hear someone crash down the front door, you will have to wonder if it’s just the militarized “police” on yet another warrentless no-knock raid on a wrong address, or if it’s one of the increasingly more popular home invasion robberies. Ultimately, there’s little difference, as both will result in death or bodily injury to you, damage to your home, your property stolen, and your family terrorized. The only real difference is that if it’s civilian criminals who steal your stuff, your home owner’s insurance will reimburse you for the loss. Not so if they turn out to be government criminals.  Officer Friendly is a concept of the past, and Barney Fife no longer keeps his bullet in his pocket – instead, he keeps his M-16 trained on your son or daughter while they cower in the corner screaming for their mommy, who is probably laying handcuffed naked in the yard, being groped at gunpoint by the local gestapo.

It’s no wonder the government wants to disarm us by institution ever more draconian gun control laws. It has NOTHING to guns, and EVERYTHING to do with control. The government wants to enforce their monopoly on force in their newly instituted police state. They wish to make the country safe for criminals, whether those criminals draw a government check, or are the civilian kind.

So, for the past 25 years or so, there has been one group upset about one particular government action or another, and another totally different group concerned about something else. Those groups as often as not didn’t agree with each other about much of anything. A good example would be 1st and 4th Amendment issues were a rallying cry for the ACLU, while 2nd Amendment issues were the concern of the NRA and GOA. The ACLU traditionally “doesn’t like guns,” and the NRA didn’t like the mostly “left-wing” leanings of the ACLU. If the ACLU would have been willing to defend ALL of the Bill of Rights, then they could have gotten along great and accomplished much more. The government WANTS us to remain divided among ourselves. We are much less efficient if we constantly squabble among ourselves, and we are less of a threat to the government.

We have come to a unique period – one in which EVERYONE is becoming concerned at the same time. Even if it’s about different issues, we much recognize AND SUPPORT those who speak out. When there is open talk of a “Chicago Tea Party” on CNBC, and nobody calls them a “right-wing crackpot,” you can tell that something is in the air.

Consent of the Governed?

January 26, 2009

One of the basic premises of our system of government is that the citizens give their consent to be governed.

What does that mean? At what point does “governed” become “ruled?” If The People agree to be governed, does that mean they give their blanket consent to being “ruled,” no matter how oppressive or intrusive that “rule” is? Does “consenting to be governed” mean consenting to a government that operates under the restrictions placed on it by The Constitution (as the framers of the Constitution intended), or does it mean that consent is granted to the government for all actions and laws, whether or not they infringe the rights of the citizenry? Remember that all powers granted to the government must be EXPLICITLY granted in the Constitution. If a power is not explicitly granted, then that power remains with The People, or the individual States (see the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution).

The government takes for granted that our consent is at least implied, and they assume that our consent extends to every action they may take, no matter how outrageous or intrusive that action is.

Does, for example, the citizens’ implied consent for the government to engage in treaties, as allowed in the Constitution, thereby grant blanket consent for the government to invade foreign countries when there is no imminent danger to our own, which can hardly come under the term “common defense?”

One of the very few powers granted to the government by the Constitution is that of regulating interstate commerce. Since it is implied that The People consent to have the government perform this function, does it necessarily follow that we also consent to the government giving handouts to huge, multi-billion dollar corporations? Does “regulating” interstate commerce extend to funding companies so that they can engage in commerce. Such an action by the government puts the citizens in debt for generations to come, and effectively enslaves the entire population to the advantage of “private corporations.” Nowhere in the Constitution is this authority explicitly granted to the government. The government will always read the Constitution with a view most generous to themselves.

Likewise, the government has twisted the meaning of the interstate commerce clause so that it allows them to regulate ANYTHING that has EVER been in interstate commerce. Since there are few things that people buy that were actually made in their home state, that means that the federal government feels that it has the authority to regulate those items. It gets even worse, because if any of the raw materials used in the manufacture of that product came from another state, then the government has taken it upon itself to regulate the sale of the end product to the end user, because at some point, some component or material used in that product was transported or sold across state lines.

One thing upon which we can always count is that NO government ever voluntarily works to reduce its power. Likewise, no individual politician ever willingly gives up any of his power. Quite the opposite: both relentlessly and tirelessly work to expand the depth and reach of their power, ignoring the limits placed on them by the Constitution, rather, using those items explicitly listed in the Constitution, not as the limits they were intended to be, but rather as the starting point of their power grab.

Since the government can not be depended on to put constitutional limits upon itself, what limits can be depended on to restrict the government’s encroachments on the liberty and freedom of the citizens? Since there is no “Constitutional test” applied to bills introduced in congress, the only functioning limit on the power of congress lies with the Supreme Court. But what kind of limit is that, really? For a law to get tested at the Supreme Court, someone (a citizen) must have been arrested for ‘violating’ a law, gone to court and lost. Then, he must have had the money to appeal to the State Court of Appeals, and lost. And then, he must have had the money to appeal to the US Court of Appeals, and lost. And have still more money to keep going. The vast majority of people have no financial means to withstand this lengthy and costly onslaught. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get to the Supreme Court that must be paid out of packet by someone. If the victim of this oppression doesn’t have the financial ability to continue the appeals process, then he simply must give up and submit to the guilty verdict, no matter how unconstitutional and oppressive the law under which he was sentenced might be. Furthermore, if he appeals one or two levels up and repeatedly loses those appeals and runs out of money so that he cannot continue his appeals further up the chain, then the law is effectively strengthened, further entrenching oppression. (This is why sawed-off shotguns are an NFA item today! See US v. Miller) Or, it’s always possible that the Supreme Court will simply refuse to hear the case. The rules were changed early last century. The new rules allow the Supreme Court to pick and choose which cases they want to hear.

So, in many cases, there are laws that are actually unConstitutional and unjust, but which stand simply because nobody has managed to successfully get them to the Supreme Court. So, are the citizens expected to consent to unjust laws passed by power hungry politicians? If the courts are no safety valve, what is?

What of the 1st Amendment? Well, it still functions wonderfully, at least as far as the government allows it to. Just try to get a political article printed in your local paper’s editorial pages. Count how many local news shows have news stories critical of any major government policy or activity. Since more and more news outlets are owned by only a few media conglomerates, and each radio and TV station is licensed by the government, all the government has to do is make a few phone calls and threaten to revoke a license or two, and the media falls right back in line.

What if the citizens were allowed actual unlimited discourse in the media? People might begin to realize that we all have much more in common than the government wants us to believe. The government spends a lot of time and effort trying to tell us that we are all so different from each other that we need the government to mediate those differences to prevent injustice to any group. In reality, we all have quite a bit in common, mainly that we all are suffering injustice at the hands of the very government that claims to protect us. The government doesn’t want this to become known. They go to great lengths to point out all of the differences between groups of people, even when those differences are imaginary. The government gets all sorts of articles in the newspapers insinuating that certain groups aren’t worthy of respect, dignity, or deserving of any rights. All the government has to do when it wants to ‘regulate’ a certain group is put out press releases about how odd or strange a particular group is, and how it therefore presents a danger to themselves and society at large.

There are a few prime examples: There was a small family that lived in the woods of Idaho. Their religious beliefs were not quite mainstream. They owned guns, and hunted often for food, since they were not well off financially. They also wanted nothing more than to be left alone. Therefore, the federal government, in the form of an undercover BATF agent, baited the father of the family by offering to pay him to cut the barrel off of a shotgun. The BATF agent even provided the shotgun AND the saw!! For this, his hillside home was raided, but the family refused to come out. So, the FBI, feeling that it just HAD to make a statement, did what the federal government does best: it killed the mother. An FBI sniper (Lon Horiuchi) shot the mother while she was standing in a window holding her baby. The father’s name was Randy Weaver.

The FBI repeatedly made a big issue of the Weaver family’s religious beliefs, as if that was justification for anything the government did. The government also constantly repeated the factoid that the Weavers owned guns, as if THAT justified anything. What possible purpose could be served by having the FBI constantly tell us what the Weaver’s religious beliefs were? And THAT assumes that the FBI was even telling the truth – and anyone who believes anything the FBI says without double and triple checking their statements is incredibly gullible.

Several years later, there was a group of over 100 men, women, and children that lived in Texas. Their religious beliefs were not quite mainstream. Many of them worked in the nearby town. They owned guns. Most of all, they wanted to be left alone. The obvious and predictable result was that the BATF performed a military assault with over 100 agents in full battle dress carrying submachine guns. A prolonged standoff resulted, along with an equally prolonged propaganda campaign by the federal government about how strange those religious beliefs were, and how they had guns. The US Attorney General at the time, Janet Reno, got on TV and claimed that the FBI was broadcasting pleas for the people inside to come out. In the government’s report on this, the FBI says that anytime someone tried to come out, the FBI launched a grenade at them. The National Guard from TWO states was involved, as was the 10th Mountain Div. During the initial raid, the FBI claimed that they let anyone leave who wanted. However, one person who lived at the house, Mike Schroeder, was shot in the back as he was coming home from work by a government sniper. The government report on the initial raid says that during the first few minutes of the assault, the residents “FIRED BACK.” Not “fired first.” The government said that they initiated this assault “to protect the children” because there were guns in the house, and non-mainstream religious beliefs being taught. Oddly enough, a good percentage of the children were killed by the government.

Both instances are prime examples of the “divide and conquer” tactics employed by the government. A government spokesman gets on TV, looks every citizen in the eye, and tells them “They were not like you. They were different. They were strange.” At that point, every citizen was supposed to bow down and say “yes massa. You know best.” We weren’t supposed to care about those people because the government tried to make us believe that they weren’t like us! The government simply wanted our consent!

The government tells us that we are all members of different groups, and that the other groups are ‘different,’ and we therefore shouldn’t care about them, be willing to stand up for them, or even like them. They will find some miserable example of a human who happens to belong to one of the groups, and parade them on all of the media outlets. Show everyone that they shouldn’t like anyone in that group.

The truth is, we don’t HAVE to like anyone in a particular group. We don’t have to agree with what they believe or what they say. But, as long as they are doing no actual harm to anyone else, it is nobody else’s business what they do or say. You don’t have to agree with their politics. You don’t have to believe their religion is true. You don’t have to like their music, or the way they dress. But, as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on you, or do you any other harm, you have to respect their right to be who they are. On top of that, you have to be willing to defend their right to be who they are. If you claim to enjoy liberty and defend people’s rights, you have to be willing to defend the rights of people you may not like.

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemoller

(maybe the reason ‘they’ came for anyone at all is because there were no gun owners around willing to put their foot down)

Did Randy Weaver consent to be governed? Did those families in Texas consent to be governed? Does the rest of the population consent to these actions, performed in their name, by the federal government? That was the whole purpose of the propaganda campaign: to gain the public’s consent.

What IS government? It is a body that the people grant some limited authorities to. The powers granted to them are powers that would have been done by the citizens, but the people found it expedient to have a proxy act for them in some cases (mostly foreign affairs, mediating conflicts between states, a post office, and a few (very few) other areas). Since those powers are granted to the government by and from the people, those powers can not be greater than those powers would have been had they been retained by the people.

We, as citizens have the right to self defense. If someone attacks us, we can use any force necessary to defend ourselves and our families. We do not, however, have the right to break in someone else’s door and attack them because we fear that they MIGHT someday attack us. We also do not have the right to hire a sniper to shoot the wife of someone we don’t like. We also would not have the right to invade a private house under the pretense that the children were being taught a “different” religion than that which we approved.

The propaganda was intended to get us to say “yeah, I would have done the same thing as the government.” Since the government does not have the legal authority to do anything which we could not do individually or collectively, that is the ONLY way they can justify their actions. That would have been giving our “consent.”

We, as a people, can refuse to ignore assaults on people’s liberty; we can stand together and withhold consent; THAT is what the government is scared of. If we withdraw our consent for illegal actions by the government, and refuse to obey unConstitutional laws, the only recourse left to the government is for them to make use of the ever-more militarized police.

When it comes down to a sheer matter of numbers, they know they are VASTLY outnumbered.

THAT is why they want our consent. It is the only thing that allows their continued hold on the power they have consolidated in the government. And governments NEVER willingly give up power.


January 15, 2009

“Compromise.” What is it? How does it affect our daily lives?

Put simply, ‘compromise’ is a situation where neither party gets what it wants. In a lot of situations, the outcome is something that both parties can live with, but is usually “gamed” by both parties. Take, for example, a situation where someone wants to buy a car. The dealer names a price he would love to get, but knows is unrealistically high. The potential buyer counters with a price which he knows is unrealistically low. Both parties know that their starting position won’t get far, but they use it as a “starting point.” From these starting points, both parties gradually approach something in the middle, which is a little less than the seller wanted, and a little more than the buyer wanted to pay, but both know that this is how the game is played, and they therefore started with their most outlandish figure as their “starting point” to “open negotiations.”

In other situations though, the outcome is more favorable to one side or the other, and if those two parties interact regularly, is often compounded over time by repeated compromises which always favor one side.

Take, for example, the case where there are two “parties” or groups. One group wants to retain their rights, while the other group wants to infringe those rights. Let’s call the group who wants to retain their rights “citizens,” and we’ll call those who want to infringe those rights “government.” What will be their “starting points?” Obviously, the citizens’ starting point will be that they retain 100% of their rights. However, as we’ve considered above, a “starting point” is rarely maintained once you agree to compromise or “negotiate.”

If the citizens agree to this negotiation process (compromise), and their starting point is maintaining 100% of their rights, the government can have a “starting point” that only infringes 20% of the citizens’ rights (and look very reasonable when they put their ‘spin’ on it). The eventual compromise might end up with the citizens losing somewhere around 10% of their rights.

Who wins? Well, I would say that the government does, since they get the citizens to agree to WILLINGLY give up 10% of their rights. However, there are certain lobbying groups who will claim that they “won a victory for the citizens’ rights,” because they got the government to back down by one half of their ‘demands.’

But, it gets even better (for the government). A year or two later, they will get the citizens to agree to compromise a few more of their rights away. The government will once again start out trying for 20%, and the citizens, in their usual generous mood, will gladly agree to give away ‘only’ 10% of their rights. Add this latest rights give-away to the previous one, and you can easily see that the government is winning this compromise game, one small infringement at a time.

And the slickest part (for the government), is that they can, with some small amount of truth, claim that they didn’t infringe those rights! They can truthfully say that the citizens agreed to give them up!!

So, when you look around for a group that you think stands up for your rights, look at their lobbying history, and see if they regularly agree to support the government in taking only a few of our rights in exchange for leaving some “intact.” That, my friends, is the road of compromise, and if you send money to an organization like that, you are paying them to give away our rights.

Say “NO!” to compromise. Once we give our rights away, we will never get them back. Instead of “demanding” that the government only take “a few” rights, we should be demanding that they give back ones that they have stolen from us in the past. When the government states their “starting position” of ‘we want you to give up 20% of your rights,’ OUR starting position should be “we want you to give back 100% of what you have taken.” If we insist on letting ourselves be drawn into the compromise game, let’s at least use a starting position that gives us a reasonable chance of winning (or at least not constantly losing).

There will be some who will argue that this is not realistic on our part, and that we need to ‘compromise.’ If you hear someone say this, that person is someone who wants to GIVE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. Recognize it for what it is. “Compromising” with your rights is giving your rights away. No matter what you call it, you will end up with fewer rights, and that, my friends, is a win for the government. Whoever advocates this, wants the government to win in their attack on our rights.

A Common Sense Bill from The House?

January 11, 2009

It will never pass. There is no way that there are enough politicians who believe that citizens have the right to defend themselves. This will never get a majority vote. What do you think?

(copied from:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.17:: )

HR 17 IH

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 17

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.


January 6, 2009

Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the `Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009′.


    The Congress finds the following:
    • (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
      • (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
      • (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
      • (C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
    • (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
      • (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
      • (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
      • (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
    • (3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
      • (A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
      • (B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon–a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
      • (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.
    • (4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.


    (a) Reaffirmation of Right- A person not prohibited from receiving a firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms–
    • (1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;
    • (2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission by another person of a violent felony against the person or a member of the person’s family; and
    • (3) in defense of the person’s home in the course of the commission of a felony by another person.
    (b) Firearm Defined- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm’ means–
    • (1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code);
    • (2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code); or
    • (3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).
    (c) Enforcement of Right-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States district court against the United States, any State, or any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
    • (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
    • (3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.


Have You Read H.R.45 Yet?

January 10, 2009

Here’s part of it, from the “definitions” section. Introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, from (where else) Illinois.

Copied from:



    (a) In General- In this Act:
    • (1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms `firearm’, `licensed dealer’, `licensed manufacturer’, and `State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
    • (2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term `qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.
    (b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    • `(36) The term `qualifying firearm’–
      • `(A) means–
        • `(i) any handgun; or
        • `(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
      • `(B) does not include any antique.’.


    Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    `(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license–
      • `(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
      • `(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.
    • `(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date’ means–
      • `(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and
      • `(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.’.

There you have it. There is more disturbing stuff in this bill, and this is but one of several bills introduced in the past couple of days, but this should stir your interest enough to to look at some of what the new batch of employees have been up to. I guess they intend to “serve” The People by eliminating as many rights as possible. It’s what defines ‘tyranny.’

H.R. 45 is a national firearm licensing law, all bundled and delivered from (surprise!) Illinois. And what does it cover? ANY handgun, and any rifle that accepts removable magazines. So, I guess AK-47s are out, but an SKS is alright. And an M1A is restricted, but an M1 Garand is exempt. Well, nobody ever claimed that the anti-rights people used anything resembling “logic.”