The 9-12 Project of Central PA
2024-03-28T20:45:14Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2985035134?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/group/friendsofthesecondamendment/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=3oxwk6zqoznxk&feed=yes&xn_auth=no
Volunteers Needed in D.C. April 19, 2010
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2010-01-26:3029713:Topic:24611
2010-01-26T19:27:01.282Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<h1 class="title"><a href="http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/">Second Amendment March</a></h1>
<h1 class="title">Volunteers Needed in D.C.</h1>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="submitted">Submitted by <a href="http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/user/2" title="View user profile.">terri_stocke</a> on Sat, 01/23/2010 - 00:28</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<p>We have volunteer opportunities for the D.C. rally. These volunteer positions include:</p>
<h2>Emergency Medical Technicians (must be certified)</h2>
<p>EMT's will be posted…</p>
<h1 class="title"><a href="http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/">Second Amendment March</a></h1>
<h1 class="title">Volunteers Needed in D.C.</h1>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="submitted">Submitted by <a href="http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/user/2" title="View user profile.">terri_stocke</a> on Sat, 01/23/2010 - 00:28</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<p>We have volunteer opportunities for the D.C. rally. These volunteer positions include:</p>
<h2>Emergency Medical Technicians (must be certified)</h2>
<p>EMT's will be posted in a tented area at the rally. The National Park Service mandates that we have a certain number of EMT's based on
our attendance numbers. You do not need to be in the tent the entire<br />
time -- you can be on the grounds, and we can also divide this<br />
responsibility into shifts.</p>
<h2>D.C. Hosts</h2>
<p>Host volunteers are needed near metro stops and various street corners and charter bus dropoff points near the rally to guide people
to the site.</p>
<h2>Information Table/Petition Table</h2>
<p>Volunteers to be posted at a Second Amendment March information table. We may also have our petition forms here (rather than a
separate table).</p>
If you are willing and able to help with any of these tasks, please complete our <a href="http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/volunteer_form">volunteer form </a>and our national volunteer coordinator will contact you as the march approaches. Thank you
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-11-10:3029713:Topic:23305
2009-11-10T15:46:40.019Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<img src="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/img/author/baldwin.gif" style="float:left;"></img> From <a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=338" target="_blank">Campaign for Liberty</a><br />
<br />
According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center's web site, "Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the 'Firearms Freedom Act' (HB-315) seeks 'To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under…
<img style="float:left;" src="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/img/author/baldwin.gif"/>From <a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=338" target="_blank">Campaign for Liberty</a><br />
<br />
According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center's web site, "Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the 'Firearms Freedom Act' (HB-315) seeks 'To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words "Made in Ohio" be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.'"<br />
<br />
The report went on to say, "While the HB315's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:<br />
<br />
"'The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.'<br />
<br />
"Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution."<br />
<br />
See the report at:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-ohio">http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-ohio</a><br />
<br />
Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.<br />
<br />
More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen at:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa">http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa</a><br />
<br />
As you might suspect, the federal government doesn't take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that "Federal law supersedes the Act."<br />
<br />
The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, "Their [ATF's] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.<br />
<br />
"This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit them."<br />
<br />
Ah! But that's just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades--so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, "No." And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to "draw a line in the sand" for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.<br />
<br />
The Second Amendment itself states, "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." (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure "the security of a FREE STATE." (Emphasis added.) "Free from what?" you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.<br />
<br />
The founders--even the Centralists of the day--all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:<br />
<br />
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)<br />
<br />
"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny." (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)<br />
<br />
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)<br />
<br />
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman's Journal, February 20, 1778)<br />
<br />
Coxe also said, "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)<br />
<br />
So, for now, 10 states have proposed--and 2 have passed--a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.<br />
<br />
In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:<br />
<br />
"On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:<br />
<br />
*Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,<br />
*Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,<br />
*Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and<br />
*Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates."<br />
<br />
In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, "The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored."<br />
<br />
The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, "The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.<br />
<br />
"With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty--and unconstitutional."<br />
<br />
See Rep. Lynn's letter at:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn">http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn</a><br />
<br />
This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin
Anti-gun ObamaCare bill Coming to the House Floor Very Soon
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-11-04:3029713:Topic:23091
2009-11-04T15:34:33.431Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<b>Anti-gun ObamaCare bill Coming to the House Floor Very Soon</b><br />
<i>-- This week is the critical time to lobby your Representative</i><br />
<br />
<b>Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org">http://www.gunowners.org</a></b><br />
<br />
Wednesday, November 4, 2009<br />
<br />
We have reached the point in the battle over ObamaCare which will decide whether we win or lose.<br />
<br />
The details of Speaker Nancy…
<b>Anti-gun ObamaCare bill Coming to the House Floor Very Soon</b><br />
<i>-- This week is the critical time to lobby your Representative</i><br />
<br />
<b>Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org">http://www.gunowners.org</a></b><br />
<br />
Wednesday, November 4, 2009<br />
<br />
We have reached the point in the battle over ObamaCare which will decide whether we win or lose.<br />
<br />
The details of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill are in, and they can be seen at <a href="http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf">http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf</a> .<br />
<br />
The bill (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages long and weighs over 20 pounds. And even though a search of the bill will not reveal the word "gun" or "firearm," that doesn't mean the bill is neutral in regard to your Second Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
For starters, this bill will -- like all the ObamaCare versions before it -- most likely result in all of your gun-related health data being dumped into a government database that was created in the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.<br />
<br />
The bill will also create special "wellness" programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.<br />
<br />
The bill purports to cut Medicare by $500 billion -- in a move which will result in massive rationing for seniors, while ultimately adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.<br />
<br />
The bill will mandate that you purchase expensive government-approved policies and will (according to some studies) triple your insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements.<br />
<br />
Of course, this all means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions -- like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!<br />
<br />
ACTION: Write your Representative. Tell him or her to oppose this bill. Don't be discouraged by reports in the liberal media which have tried to tell us -- since January -- that this battle is hopeless. We can win, and, with your help, we will win.<br />
<br />
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at <a href="http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm">http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm</a> to send a pre-written message to your Representative.<br />
<br />
----- Pre-written letter -----<br />
<br />
Dear Representative:<br />
<br />
The Pelosi health care bill, sponsored by Rep. Dingell, has now been made public.<br />
<br />
For starters, this bill will -- like all the ObamaCare versions before it -- most likely result in all gun-related health data being dumped into the government database that was created in the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information that doctors have gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude a person from owning firearms.<br />
<br />
The bill will also create special "wellness" programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.<br />
<br />
The bill will, according to some studies, triple insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements -- while mandating that Americans purchase expensive government-approved policies.<br />
<br />
But, perhaps most instructively, there is this: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised to produce a $900 billion bill which would not add "one dime" to the deficit.<br />
<br />
This bill will cost $1.3 trillion and will increase the deficit by AT LEAST $150 billion.<br />
<br />
The only way Pelosi or the Congressional Budget Office can continue to pretend to the contrary is to take $247 billion in bill costs and slip them through in separate legislation.<br />
<br />
In short, this process is fraudulent.<br />
<br />
I have many issues with this legislation. And so I urge you to oppose this legislation and keep the government from inserting itself even more into my everyday life.
Schwarzenegger signs ammo-regulation bill
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-10-15:3029713:Topic:22322
2009-10-15T13:08:28.481Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<b>Schwarzenegger signs ammo-regulation bill</b><br />
<br />
<i>Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer<br />
Tuesday, October 13, 2009</i><br />
<br />
Full story <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/BA551A4M82.DTL" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>(10-12) 18:28 PDT SACRAMENTO</b> -- People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumbprinted and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.<br />
<br />
After vetoing similar bills…
<b>Schwarzenegger signs ammo-regulation bill</b><br />
<br />
<i>Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer<br />
Tuesday, October 13, 2009</i><br />
<br />
Full story <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/BA551A4M82.DTL" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>(10-12) 18:28 PDT SACRAMENTO</b> -- People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumbprinted and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.<br />
<br />
After vetoing similar bills three times since 2004, Schwarzenegger signed AB962 by Assemblyman Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Sunday, saying he now believes it will promote public safety.<br />
<br />
The measure is California's first statewide regulation of ammunition sales. It survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.<br />
<br />
Starting in July, the law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers' reach.<br />
<br />
Like gun transactions, all ammunition sales will have to be face-to-face, a requirement that will force online buyers to arrange delivery of ammunition to a seller in California. Another provision makes it a crime to knowingly sell or give ammunition to someone who cannot possess it legally, including felons, gang members and the mentally ill.<br />
<br />
...
Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda Heads To Supreme Court
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-10-07:3029713:Topic:22002
2009-10-07T10:34:04.014Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<img src="http://news.dienerconsultants.com/cimages/b766095e88fdad79f7649819816735cb/SAF_Logo.jpg" style="float:left;"></img> <b>Chicago Gun Ban Case to Determine Gun Rights For All States</b><br />
<br />
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local…
<img style="float:left;" src="http://news.dienerconsultants.com/cimages/b766095e88fdad79f7649819816735cb/SAF_Logo.jpg"/><b>Chicago Gun Ban Case to Determine Gun Rights For All States</b><br />
<br />
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.<br />
<br />
Obama made public his clear anti-gun agenda in March 2004 in Chicago. Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill 2165 allowing citizens the right to protect themselves and for local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20 without Obama's vote. STOP Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda now before he can appoint any anti-gun judges.<br />
<br />
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs. We are in this fight because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.<br />
<br />
Protecting our gun rights is expensive and it's impossible to put a price tag on. <b>This time freedom will cost $250,000 to defend your Second Amendment rights</b> in this challenge to the Chicago gun ban. SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!<br />
<br />
We urgently need you to demand that all State Attorneys General file an Amicus Brief stating they agree that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and applies to all 50 states.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070" target="_blank">FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed<br />
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!</a><br />
<br />
At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.<br />
<br />
Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.<br />
<br />
"The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government," noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. "State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town."<br />
<br />
Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.<br />
<br />
"I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case," McDonald said. "I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families."<br />
<a href="https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070" target="_blank"><br />
FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed<br />
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!</a><br />
<br />
Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, "The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one's own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights."<br />
<br />
"We're pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago's gun laws," added ISRA President Don Moran. "In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago's gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones."<br />
<br />
The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.<br />
<br />
Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.<br />
<br />
The Second Amendment Foundation (<a href="http://www.saf.org">www.saf.org</a>) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.<br />
<br />
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!<br />
<br />
For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.<br />
<br />
As I write this, the anti-freedom extremists are raising tens of thousands of dollars to defeat us at the Supreme Court …maybe even more! We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.<br />
<br />
Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!<br />
<br />
Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.<br />
<br />
Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.<br />
<br />
Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.<br />
<br />
But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom.<br />
<br />
FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed<br />
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!<br />
<a href="https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070">https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070</a><br />
<br />
Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.<br />
<br />
For more information about SAF go to <a href="http://www.saf.org/">http://www.saf.org/</a><br />
<br />
Thank you. I know I can count on you.<br />
<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
<br />
Alan M. Gottlieb<br />
Founder<br />
Second Amendment Foundation<br />
<br />
P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal this victory from us--we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!<br />
<br />
FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed<br />
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!<br />
<a href="https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070">https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3070</a><br />
<br />
Send Checks To:<br />
Second Amendment Foundation<br />
James Madison Building<br />
Dept Code 3070<br />
12500 NE 10th Place<br />
Bellevue, WA 98005<br />
<br />
Paid for by Second Amendment Foundation 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax deducible.Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-09-22:3029713:Topic:21421
2009-09-22T20:47:30.245Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns?cid=email-this-article" target="_blank">examiner.com</a><img src="http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2782/images/OC_photo.jpg" style="float:right;"></img><br />
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone…
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns?cid=email-this-article" target="_blank">examiner.com</a><img style="float:right;" src="http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2782/images/OC_photo.jpg"/><br />
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."<br />
<br />
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.<br />
<br />
In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.<br />
<br />
Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.<br />
<br />
On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).<br />
<br />
Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that<br />
<br />
"[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."<br />
<br />
Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that<br />
<br />
"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."<br />
<br />
Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.<br />
<br />
Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.<br />
<br />
NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com.
Court Victory Against Police Immunity in an Open-Carry Case
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-09-16:3029713:Topic:21189
2009-09-16T17:27:54.789Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
Reason online: <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/136122.html" target="_blank">Court Victory Against Police Immunity in an Open-Carry Case</a><br />
<p style="text-align:left"><img src="http://www.reason.com/blog/"></img></p>
<br />
Brian Doherty | September 16, 2009, 12:53pm<br />
<br />
Details on a nice court victory for citizen rights against police immunity from a federal court in New Mexico, from the Liberty for All blog. The case was:<br />
<br />
St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety, U. S. District Court of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM.<br />
<br />
Mr. St. John…
Reason online: <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/136122.html" target="_blank">Court Victory Against Police Immunity in an Open-Carry Case</a><br />
<p style="text-align:left"><img src="http://www.reason.com/blog/"/></p>
<br />
Brian Doherty | September 16, 2009, 12:53pm<br />
<br />
Details on a nice court victory for citizen rights against police immunity from a federal court in New Mexico, from the Liberty for All blog. The case was:<br />
<br />
St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety, U. S. District Court of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM.<br />
<br />
Mr. St. John went into a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun. New Mexico has no law forbidding the open carry of a handgun.<br />
<br />
The theater owner called Alamogordo Public Safety. Four law enforcement officers (LEO) approached Mr. St. John and with force removed him from the theater, took his handgun and patted him down. After checking, found out that the handgun was legal and that he was not a criminal, returned his handgun and let him go back to the movie but without his handgun, which he placed in his vehicle.<br />
<br />
Mr. St. John filed suit in state court but the case was moved to a federal court because Mr. St. John alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and also asserts his rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.<br />
<br />
The undisputed fact is that Mr. St. John seizure was unreasonable. He had not committed a crime, was not committing a crime and was not about to commit a crime.<br />
<br />
The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.<br />
<br />
The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.<br />
<br />
In short, the LEOs can be sued....This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/ or maybe face a lawsuit....<br />
<br />
The Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner has more thoughts and interesting details on this decision:<br />
<br />
I thought this decision was interesting because this court goes even further to address the “community caretaker function” of the police and that it may be invoked as a defense only so long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop. Merely receiving a call from a hypersensitive person that someone is armed where it is lawful to be armed, is not reason enough to believe anyone’s safety is in danger in the absence of any suspicious or threatening behavior. This seems to me to be the big disconnect with law enforcement training. The 911 operators need to ask more questions of the caller to determine if there is any criminal activity before sending out one or more officers. In this case, Mr. St. John was in a theater watching a preview to a movie, a perfectly legal activity. The responding officers should have been trained to discern the difference between unlawful activity and a person quietly watching a movie.<br />
<br />
The court also found that merely being armed does not automatically make a person armed and dangerous, which would be necessary to justify a limited protective search (Terry stop) that justify officers disarming an individual.
GOA: Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina Under Attack
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-09-14:3029713:Topic:21050
2009-09-14T21:25:50.011Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<b>A Pro-Gun Stalwart Comes Under Attack</b><br />
-- Please stand with Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina<br />
<br />
Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102<br />
Springfield, VA 22151<br />
<a href="http://www.goapvf.org" target="_blank">http://www.goapvf.org</a><br />
<br />
Monday, September 14, 2009<br />
<br />
Even if you missed the President's speech to the Congress on health care last week, you certainly have seen the news following the event.<br />
<br />
Most notable was the fact that pro-gun congressman…
<b>A Pro-Gun Stalwart Comes Under Attack</b><br />
-- Please stand with Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina<br />
<br />
Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102<br />
Springfield, VA 22151<br />
<a href="http://www.goapvf.org" target="_blank">http://www.goapvf.org</a><br />
<br />
Monday, September 14, 2009<br />
<br />
Even if you missed the President's speech to the Congress on health care last week, you certainly have seen the news following the event.<br />
<br />
Most notable was the fact that pro-gun congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina -- rated "A" by GOA -- decided to call out the President because of his... well, shall we say... his failure to communicate truthfully.<br />
<br />
No matter what you think about the time and place Wilson chose to tell President Obama "You lie," the facts are on Joe Wilson's side.<br />
<br />
The President lied repeatedly throughout his speech. Even the Associated Press -- hardly a bastion of conservatism -- noted that the President failed to accurately articulate the truth in several instances.<br />
<br />
Wilson's opponent, however, is trying to use the national attention on Wilson to raise money for his campaign. In fact, Wilson's opponent says he raised over $1 million in the first 48 hours following the speech.<br />
<br />
It's up to the pro-gun community to respond in kind and help Wilson through this difficult time. But first, who is Rep. Joe Wilson and what has he done for gun owners?<br />
<br />
Not only has he consistently supported the Second Amendment with his votes, he has also cosponsored needed gun rights legislation. This year, he has cosponsored two reciprocity bills in the House -- including the GOA-supported HR 1620, which protects Vermont-style carry -- plus a bill that removes certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms.<br />
<br />
In previous years, Wilson was the chief sponsor of the Citizen's Self-Defense Act, a bill that would protect individuals who successfully defend themselves or others from violent attack, only to find themselves in the clutches of anti-gun prosecutors.<br />
<br />
And when a conference committee watered down GOA's language to arm airline pilots following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rep. Wilson stepped up to the plate. He successfully pushed through legislation to allow all commercial pilots (not just passenger pilots) to carry guns. Further, when TSA bureaucrats dragged their feet once armed pilots became the law of the land, Wilson authored yet another bill that streamlined the certification process.<br />
<br />
Here's the bottom line: Joe Wilson couldn't stand listening to the President dish out lie after lie. He says his emotions got the best of him, and he yelled "You lie" in the midst of a presidential address. He regrets the time and place he did it... but he is not sorry for what he said.<br />
<br />
He was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. He did what millions of Americans -- many people like you -- would have loved to do. How many of us would like the chance to tell the President, to his face, to stop lying?<br />
<br />
It's ironic. The President stood there on national television and said his opponents were lying. But when Joe Wilson countered that it was the President who was, in fact, lying... it was Wilson who came under attack from the liberal media.<br />
<br />
That's why we need to stand with Rep. Joe Wilson. If we lose a pro-gun stalwart because of his willingness to call out the President on his lies, it will be a crying shame.<br />
<br />
You can contribute to the Wilson campaign by going online at <a href="https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=Wilson&page=2" target="_blank">https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=Wilson&page=2</a><br />
<br />
Even if it is a contribution of solidarity -- only $5 or $10 -- it will be worth it. But if you can afford more, please do so.<br />
<br />
Wilson is in for a tough race because the left-wing, anti-gun movement smells blood and they will pour even more money into this race.<br />
<br />
Representative Wilson deserves all the help we can give. Let him know that gun owners are standing with him!<br />
<br />
Tim Macy<br />
Vice Chairman<br />
<br />
<br />
****************************<br />
Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is a Project of Gun Owners of America.<br />
****************************
GOA: Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-09-10:3029713:Topic:20441
2009-09-10T20:37:31.360Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<b>Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800</b><br />
<br />
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org" target="_blank">http://www.gunowners.org</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Thursday, September 10, 2009<br />
<br />
By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill.<br />
<br />
Please send in…
<b>Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800</b><br />
<br />
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert<br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org" target="_blank">http://www.gunowners.org</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Thursday, September 10, 2009<br />
<br />
By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill.<br />
<br />
Please send in those postcards -- as it's very important for legislative offices to see mounds of gun owners' mail being dumped on their desks!<br />
<br />
Now that Congress is back in session -- and the President has given his televised push on health care -- it is time for us to redouble our efforts.<br />
<br />
To review the bidding:<br />
<br />
Every major health care bill being considered in Congress would require many (if not most) Americans to be covered by insurance policies written by the Obama administration -- so-called ObamaCare.<br />
<br />
Among other things, ObamaCare will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database -- pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.<br />
<br />
So, as a gun owner who doesn't want this data to be trolled by the BATFE from a federal database, you might say:<br />
<br />
* "I'm not going to buy an ObamaCare policy."<br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
* "I'm going to buy the type of insurance that I want to buy."<br />
<br />
Well, anti-gun Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) has a question for you: <b>"How would you like to pay a $3,800 a year fine?"</b><br />
<br />
That's right. In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy.<br />
<br />
So, what's going to be required under ObamaCare? And how much is it going to cost?<br />
<br />
Baucus isn't going to tell you that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.<br />
<br />
Take into consideration that the Baucus draft -- with its $3,800 per year fines and its ObamaCare -related gun databases -- is <b>the so-called "conservative" bill</b>. This is the one that <b>they're trying to get Republicans to sign onto</b> because it's so "conservative." The final Pelosi-written conference report will be much, much worse.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what? He lied.<br />
<br />
<b>ACTION:</b><br />
<br />
1. Write your Senators. Ask them to oppose the anti-gun Baucus draft, with its requirement that Americans purchase an Obama-approved insurance policy or pay a $3,800 annual fine. This legislative draft has not yet been publicly released; however, several news agencies have reported on its key features -- and these reviews are widely available on the Internet.<br />
<br />
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at <a href="http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm">http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm</a> to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.<br />
<br />
2. Distribute this email far and wide. There are people that you know who should be involved in the fight against socialized health care who are just sitting on the sidelines. Please forward this email to them and get them involved in the fight!<br />
<br />
----- Pre-written letter -----<br />
<br />
Dear Senator:<br />
<br />
Please oppose the open-ended anti-gun mandates contained in the Baucus health draft. Among other things, Baucus-mandated policies, which would have to be approved by the Obama administration, will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database -- pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.<br />
<br />
So, what if a gun owner insists on buying the type of insurance he wants to buy? Sen. Baucus would fine him up to $3,800 a year.<br />
<br />
That's right. In a recently released draft, Baucus would fine gun owners up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders them to buy. So, what's going to be required by this Baucus-mandated policy? And how much is it going to cost?<br />
<br />
Baucus isn't going to tell us that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign.<br />
<br />
In short, please oppose the anti-gun, anti-freedom Baucus "compromise" and please let me know exactly where you stand on this issue.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,
GOA: Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'
tag:wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com,2009-09-08:3029713:Topic:20343
2009-09-08T18:53:32.018Z
Peter Trippett
https://wesurroundthemcentrecounty.ning.com/profile/PeterandKarenTrippett
<b>Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'</b><br />
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting<br />
<br />
<b>Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert</b><br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org">http://www.gunowners.org</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Tuesday, September 8, 2009<br />
<br />
Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.<br />
<br />
This time…
<b>Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'</b><br />
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting<br />
<br />
<b>Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert</b><br />
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151<br />
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408<br />
<a href="http://www.gunowners.org">http://www.gunowners.org</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Tuesday, September 8, 2009<br />
<br />
Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.<br />
<br />
This time it's the proposed "Regulatory Czar" who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.<br />
<br />
His name is <b>Cass Sunstein</b>, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.<br />
<br />
For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence. He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:<br />
<br />
<i>I think we should go further ... the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities. (Italics are his emphasis.)</i><br />
<br />
If that's all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.<br />
<br />
In Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!<br />
<br />
<i>"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property," Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).</i><br />
<br />
Well, that's a relief ... he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.<br />
<br />
Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip ... only to find out that you've been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!<br />
<br />
By the way, if you're wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won't be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.<br />
<br />
In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:<br />
<br />
<i>Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.... [O]n the Constitution's text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.</i><br />
<br />
Hmm, what part of "shall not be infringed" does Sunstein not understand?<br />
<br />
Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.<br />
<br />
As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life hell.<br />
<br />
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.<br />
<br />
That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.<br />
<br />
No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ... then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar ... now, there's an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.<br />
<br />
It's time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.<br />
<br />
<b>ACTION:</b> Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at <a href="http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm</a> to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----- Pre-written letter -----<br />
<br />
Dear Senator:<br />
<br />
I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this "Regulatory Czar" would have upon firearms and hunting.<br />
<br />
Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, in Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!<br />
<br />
Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."<br />
<br />
I wouldn't be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority -- 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O'Leary poll in August -- who opposes licensed concealed carry.<br />
<br />
I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein's views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,