|
Report on Sen. Frist: Stupid Republicans-- From Bad to Worse
By David Codrea codrea4@adelphia.net
from the Citizens
of America, A National Pro-Gun Rights Advertising Campaign
A Washington Post report (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14370-2002Dec19.html)
claims "Sen. [Bill] Frist Emerges as Potential Lott Successor...
the second-term Tennessean issued a statement saying he would 'likely
step forward' if Republicans decided they want Trent Lott of Mississippi
to step down..."
What does that mean for gun owners?
Simply that they will be replacing one oathbreaker
with another- and one with a worse record on guns. According to Gun Owners
of America's Senate ratings,( http://gunowners.org/107srat.htm ) Lott
came in with a shameful "C-". Frist merits an abominable D",
despite an "Archives of Surgery" report: http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/issues/v133n10/ffull/slt1098-1.html
claiming he "has accepted substantial campaign contributions from
the National Rifle Association." (According to Common Cause, the
NRA gave Frist over $177,000 in 1998-1999.) ( http://commoncause.org/publications/nov99/110599.htm
)
Among Frist's actions that resulted in his abysmal GOA score?
- Helping kill the filibuster on the Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection
bill, a sham "campaign finance reform" measure "which
squelches the voice of pro-gun organizations." http://gunowners.org/a032102.htm
- Voting "AGAINST the Smith filibuster and in favor of sending
the [Gore-Lautenberg] anti-gun crime bill to a House-Senate conference
committee." http://gunowners.org/a072999.htm
- Being one of "the Republicans who betrayed gun owners and voted
for the anti-gun crime bill (S. 254)..." http://gunowners.org/a052199.htm
- Joining other stupid Republicans who "retreated and gave up
significant 2nd Amendment ground. On two separate occasions, scores
of Republicans crossed party lines to support gun control proposals."
http://gunowners.org/a051499.htm
- Voting "to confirm anti-gun Dr. David Satcher as the next Surgeon
General...[and] liberal, judicial activist (Ms. Margaret Morrow) a seat
on the federal bench..." http://gunowners.org/a022198.htm
- Voting against the interests of gun owners on these key issues: "Government
wiretapping of innocent citizens and gun owners" "Anti-gun
terror bill" "Anti-gun terror bill -- final passage"
"Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban" "Kohl 'Gun
Free Zones' Ban" http://gunowners.org/104svote.htm
Memo to stupid Republicans:
Time and again, gun owners have handed you victory. Yet time and again
you betray us, figuring we have no choice but to support the lesser of
two evils. Enough of us have wised up to you and refuse to play this game
any longer. Continued betrayal of your oath of office and of the Constitution
will no longer be tolerated-- and there are enough of us who are enraged
by your infidelity to deny you that critical margin of a percentage point
or two by which most elections are won.
Trent Lott has been an unprincipled disaster-his
being forced to fall on his sword is a good thing. But Bill Frist is a
completely unacceptable replacement. Republicans will elect him Senate
majority leader at the risk of enraging and alienating the most reliable
constituency they have ever had.
Memo to gun owners: If you agree that electing
Bill Frist will be a slap in the face to gun owners with dangerous potential
once he's in power, let the Republican leadership know. Demand that they
elect a leader who is committed to protecting the entire Bill of Rights.
Tell them you will accept nothing less. Contact them immediately.
EMAIL them at: info@rnc.org and webmaster@nrsc.org
and at any other addresses you have, particularly your Senator's if he
or she is a Republican.
MUCH BETTER: Write to them via regular mail
at Republican National Committee, 310 First Street, SE, Washington, DC
20003. Call them at (202)863-8500. Fax them at (202)863-8820.
Do it now. Let them know they are creating a huge problem that does not
need to be. Help nip this in the bud before Frist gains unstoppable political
momentum - and to let them know you'll be watching closely if he IS voted
in.
Finally -- send this email to your friends.
COA PRODUCES, DISTRIBUTES, AND PAYS TO RUN PRO-GUN RIGHTS ADVERTISING.
DONATE AND HELP US REACH THE PUBLIC WITH OUR MESSAGES,WHICH YOU CAN SEE
AND HEAR ON OUR WEBSITE: www.citizensofamerica.org
|
|
Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Gun Control Provision
Federal Courts May Not Restore Ownership Right to Felons
The
full ruling
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, December 11,
2002; Page A05
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that
convicted felons who cannot get their right to own firearms reinstated
by a Treasury Department agency may not turn to the federal courts for
help, a decision that bolsters a key gun-control law intended to keep
weapons out of criminals' hands. By a unanimous vote, the nine justices
held that a federal district court lacked the authority to order Texas
gun dealer Thomas Lamar Bean's firearms privileges restored after the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms declined to consider his request
because Congress had refused to give it money to do so.
"[M]ere inaction by ATF does not invest
a district court with independent jurisdiction to act on an application,"
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion for the court.
Federal law bars gun possession by felons,
but felons may ask the secretary of the Treasury, through ATF, to give
them a second chance if it determines that they do not pose a threat to
the community. For the past 10 years, however, Congress -- concerned about
reports that dangerous people were exploiting this provision and then
committing sometimes violent offenses -- has denied ATF any funds to implement
it. Thus, when Bean approached ATF in 1999 to seek reinstatement of his
gun privileges, which had been stripped because of a one-time conviction
for illegally bringing bullets into Mexico, the agency sent his letter
back. A Texas district judge, noting Bean's otherwise clean record, restored
his privileges based on a part of the law that gives courts power to review
"denials" by the ATF, and last year the New Orleans-based U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the order, citing Bean's
"almost incredible plight."
The 5th Circuit's remark echoed the concerns
of gun rights advocates, who argue that the ban on funding ATF gun privilege
restorations is unfair to many people who commit technical or minor violations
of the law. But the Bush administration, otherwise sympathetic to gun
owners' concerns, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. And in the
opinion yesterday, Thomas emphasized that "[i]naction by ATF does
not amount to a 'denial,' " so the courts have no role.
"The Court recognized that there is
nothing in the law that would allow activist federal judges to deputize
themselves as surrogate ATF agents and spend time and resources restoring
gun privileges to convicted felons," said Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation
director of the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center.
The case is U.S. v. Bean, No. 01-704. |
Ninth Circuit Federal Court Upholds California Assault Weapons Ban,
Strongly Rebuts Ashcroft Justice Department View That Second Amendment
Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms P.R.Newswire, 12/5/2002
17:50
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- In response
to today's 72-page decision in Silveira v. Lockyer by the Ninth Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals unanimously upholding California's strict assault
weapons ban and strongly rebutting the position embraced by Attorney General
John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right
to keep and bear arms
CLICK
HERE TO SEE THE WHOLE OPINION
12/05/02 01-15098 SILVEIRA V LOCKYER
(72 pages in PDF format, takes several seconds to download)
SELECTED SECTIONS FROM THE OPINION:
(All words in BOLD are my emphasis)
A robust constitutional debate is currently
taking place in this nation regarding the scope of the Second Amendment,
a debate that has gained intensity over the last several years. Until
recently, this relatively obscure constitutional provision
attracted little judicial or scholarly attention. As a result, however,
of increasing popular concern over gun violence, the passage of legislation
restricting the sale and use of firearms, the cultural significance of
firearms in American society, and the political activities of pro-gun
enthusiasts under the leadership of the National Rifle Association (the
NRA), the disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment has grown
particularly heated.
We believe the answer to the definitional
question is the one that most persons would expect: “militia”
refers to a state military force. We reach our conclusion not only because
that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously
enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word “militia”
consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to
the people of the state as a whole.
Having determined that the first clause
of the Second Amendment declares the importance of state militias to the
proper functioning of the new constitutional system, we now turn to the
meaning of the second clause, the effect the first clause has on the second,
and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. The second clause —
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
— is not free from ambiguity. We consider it highly significant,
however, that the second clause does not purport to protect the right
to “possess” or “own” arms, but rather to “keep
and bear” arms. This choice of words is important because the phrase
“bear arms” is a phrase that customarily relates to a military
function.
Historical research shows that the use of
the term “bear arms” generally referred to the carrying of
arms in military service — not the private use of arms for personal
purposes.
Finally, we address the use of the
term “keep” in the second clause. The reason why
that term was included in the amendment is not clear.
When the second clause is read in light
of the first, so as to implement the policy set forth in the preamble,
we
believe that the most plausible construction of the Second Amendment is
that it seeks to ensure the existence of effective state militias in which
the people may exercise their right to bear arms, and forbids the federal
government to interfere with such exercise. This conclusion is based in
part on the premise, explicitly set forth in the text of the amendment,
that the maintenance of effective state militias is essential to the preservation
of a free State, and in part on the historical meaning of the right that
the operative clause protects — the right to bear arms. In contrast,
it seems reasonably clear that any fair reading of the “bear Arms”
clause with the end in view of “assuring . . . the effectiveness
of” the state militias cannot lead to the conclusion that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right to own or possess weapons for
personal and other purposes.
| MY 2¢: It looks like this is the best case
so far that will make its way to the Supreme Court. It will force
the issue in the way that it attacks the Fifth Circuit’s decision
in Emerson. The Supreme Court decides the cases that it will take
up for many reasons including how much support one side or the other
feels that they have to start with and if the case presents the right
arguments for reaching the conclusions that will impact other cases
and not be limited to just the case being argued or just a few cases.
I would feel better about this if some of the more liberal Supreme
Court Justices were replaced but this case will heat up the debate
when replacements are put forward. |
CLICK
HERE TO SEE LAST YEARS STORY
U.S. v. Emerson Ruling Is In - Celebrate -- With Reservations
|
Delaware Judge Tosses Suit Against Gun Makers
CLICK
HERE FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE
Judge Fred S. Silverman has dismissed Wilmington's lawsuit against the
gun industry, saying the city cannot recover police overtime and other
costs from firearms manufacturers. Judge Fred S. Silverman said reducing
handgun violence in Wilmington was a "laudable ulterior motive"
for filing the suit, but he said the court system was not the solution.
"Handgun violence is a scourge," he said. "But as much
as the court would support efforts to reduce the problem, the court will
not twist a jury trial involving municipal costs into a wildly expensive
referendum on gun control." |
Calhoun
named ranking minority member of the Committee on Standing Committees
End of the year Report.