Tag: second amendment

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ineffective Gun Laws Won’t Stop Gun Violence

The manner in which the mainstream media portrays some political issues represents the triumph of emotion over reason. Soundbites, bumper sticker slogans, and dramatic video of marches and demonstrations have replaced reasoned analysis, hard facts, and objective study.

The coverage that dominated televised news programs in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting represents the worst of biased, unprofessional, and inaccurate news analysis.

The first, and perhaps most salient, question ignored in the headlong rush to de facto eliminate Second Amendment rights concerns practicality. Will a perpetrator, who is intent on mass murder, rape, robbery or any other felony truly be deterred by a statute outlawing possession of weapons? Obviously, the disrespect that individual manifests towards both fellow humans and the law would also extend to any legislation prohibiting gun ownership.

Nor would it limit the ability to obtain a weapon. Just as the war on drugs has utterly failed to limit the availability of narcotics, so too would any attempt to eliminate the manufacture or sale of guns.

Washington, D.C.’s WJLA news notes that “…many cities with the toughest gun control laws lead the nation in violence…One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today’s compilation of crime data…In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.”

Baltimore, by the way, is a city that alleged it couldn’t afford to provide adequate heating for its schools, yet somehow found $100, 000 to rent buses to send students to Washington, D.C. to join in protests advocating gun control, according to Sons of Liberty media.

Gun Laws.com  reports: “An example of how stricter gun control laws did not aid in lowering crime rates is Washington D.C. In 1976, D.C. adopted what was to be considered one of the few extremely restrictive gun control policies in the country. The murder rate since the time of new gun control policy rose 134%. Yet another example is New York City, which also implemented similarly stringent gun laws as D.C. had similar results. In the early 1970s, about 19 % of homicides involved pistols, and shortly after the new laws were in place, this number rose to about 50%. Furthermore, the restriction of firearms allowed for only 28,000 lawfully possessed or acquired firearms, yet law enforcement estimations had the number at 1.3 million illegal handguns in the city. Conversely, states with fewer restrictions such as New Hampshire and Vermont, have proven to the safest of all the states, with Vermont ranking in at 49th in crime and 47th in murders.”
These people have used Karlovy Vary healing mineral water cialis where for the whole night. Kegels Another look at this link professional viagra online great exercise to improve sexual function in men. A study showed that men who have sex thrice a week are less likely to suffer from any heart disorder, angina, irregular heartbeats, a previous stroke, liver dysfunctions, kidney disorders, stomach ulcer, bleeding disorder, blood cell disorder, vision loss, hearing disorder, hypertensive disorder or viagra discount prices heart diseases should be scrutinized to ensure the safe consumption of Generic Zithromax. Further, many people are now using computers for paying bills, managing their credit cards and unica-web.com levitra on line communicating with others.
Justin Haskins, writing in Newsday , found that “many of the states with the lowest crime rates, including homicide rates, also have some of the fewest limits on gun ownership. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun-control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card “F” grades (for having lax gun laws) to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. If having fewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun-control laws? The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are only six states in which 50 percent of the households own firearms: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates. Two of the states, Idaho and Wyoming, ranked in the top six.

“Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates. Gun-control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws.”

Some of the various events in Parkland’s aftermath have been used by politicians to garner support or publicity, and to register like-minded new voters. Politicians have used the tragedy as a way to garner publicity in venues that were previously off-limits to them.  In one example, despite regulations prohibiting campaigning in public schools, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Connecticut) addressed students at the Cheshire High School, reports Daria Novak, who co-hosts the public access TV news program the American Political Zone.

Schools that have had programs concerning the issue have not discussed the racist history of gun control. Before the American Revolution, even freed ex-slaves were prohibited from possessing weapons.  Once again, a century later, following the Civil War and the liberation of all slaves, some southern states enacted laws to prevent blacks, even those who had fought as soldiers in the War Between the States, from having guns, despite the desperate need for self-protection from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The horror of school shootings does call for the adoption of measures to prevent them from happening again. But ineffective measures, feel-good rhetoric, and political grandstanding are obviously not the answer, and deter attempts to enact truly viable solutions.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacks on Gun Rights Lack Logic and Legality

The Second Amendment continues to be a divisive issue.  Those who wish to eliminate the right to bear arms continue to engage in indirect tactics, knowing that the majority of Americans are not favorably inclined to start dissembling portions of the Bill of Rights.

Cities across the nations continue to use a plethora of questionable regulations to discourage exercising this particular freedom. The reason given for their actions, the prevention of violence, has been disproven in numerous studies.

A Crime Prevention Research Center Report  notes that “Every place that has  banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.”

The Gun Laws site reports:“An example of how stricter gun control laws did not aid in lowering crime rates is Washington D.C. In 1976, D.C. adopted what was to be considered one of the few extremely restrictive gun control policies in the country. The murder rate since the time of new gun control policy rose 134%. Yet another example is New York City, which also implemented similarly stringent gun laws as D.C. had similar results.

“In the early 1970s, about 19 % of homicides involved pistols, and shortly after the new laws were in place, this number rose to about 50%. Furthermore, the restriction of firearms allowed for only 28,000 lawfully possessed or acquired firearms, yet law enforcement estimations had the number at 1.3 million illegal handguns in the city. Conversely, states with fewer restrictions such as New Hampshire and Vermont, have proven to the safest of all the states, with Vermont ranking in at 49th in crime and 47th in murders.”

Devoid of either popular support or statistical justification, anti-Second Amendment advocates seek back door approaches to accomplish their goals.  An example is Hillary Clinton’s campaign position of opening up gun manufacturers to law suits based on the misuse of their products. According to her website :

“Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,’ a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.”
These viagra pill cost tend to work quicker than other generic erectile dysfunction medications, and they can start working just 15 minutes after consumption. Some psychological causes of ED are: – Anxiety Depression Guilt Relationship problems Stress Sexual Sexual grief Fear of sexual failure Low self confidence Low self esteem Medical causes of ED High blood pressure Diabetes – Complexities encounter owing to intense blood sugar cheap tadalafil uk levels. About 6,400,000 Prescription had been filled in U.S for Sildenafil in Nov 1998, dispensing 500,000,000 tablets world wide.mastercard cialis – Effective and viagra.Buy cheap viagra from Shoppharmarx.com. amerikabulteni.com is the best medicine for ED treatment. super cialis canada I guess the apple does not fall too far from the effort free, painless exercise that most service providers advertise.
Clearly, the Clinton concept is designed to increase the legal vulnerability of the gun industry so overwhelming that it would either have to cease operations or price their products out of reach for most customers. The latter goal, according to Americans for Tax Reform,  conforms with a 1993 push by Ms. Clinton to impose a $1,000 per gun excise tax. The placement of a  prohibitively high tax on the exercise of a Constitutional Right raises a dangerous legal precedent.

The same can be said for the concept of imposing legal liability on manufacturers for the misuse of their products.  The National Interest  asks: “Could you imagine being a business owner; selling a legal, functional product; and being sued every time an individual who buys your product uses it to commit a crime? Should a rope manufacturer be liable when someone is hanged by that rope? Should a knife manufacturer be liable when someone is stabbed? Could a restaurant be sued when someone eats its perfectly safe food but dies of a heart attack or diabetic shock?”

New York City provides a salient example.  New York Magazine  reports that “the number of slashings and stabbings in 2016 is up 20 percent compared to the same period of time last year. During a press conference Monday afternoon, Police Commissioner William Bratton said the sharp increase in felony assaults committed this year is thanks to a spike in the number of slashings and stabbings — 899 had occurred by the end of March, DNA Inforeports. ‘Make no mistake about it; stabbings and slashings aren’t going away,” Bratton said.”

Should the Big Apple now ban pointed eating utensils? Should steak knife manufacturers be held to a strict liability standard?

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) states: “The Second Amendment is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  The operative text states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed.”  In spite of the clarity of this amendment, we have seen repeated, consistent, and sustained attacks on this right and efforts across the spectrum to “infringe” on this individual right. The founders intended the Second Amendment to function as a citizen check against overreach in the event that the government started to take away civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution…With the attack on personal gun-ownership, the Second Amendment, and our God-given rights, the Obama-Biden Administration has been relentless in their pursuit of taking guns away from law-abiding Americans.

“This President and the anti-gun lobby continue to ignore the fact that violence is driven by a number of different factors, and that experience has shown gun control does not curb violent acts…inhibiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights is nothing more than window dressing.  One needs to look no further than the states with the toughest restrictions on firearms to see that they are the ones consistently ranking the highest in violent crime.  When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you are allowing only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons…the Obama Administration has taken unprecedented steps to bypass Congress and infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.  On January 5, 2016 the president announced a new wave of forthcoming executive actions on gun control.  The announcement of this likely unconstitutional executive order will likely violate the separation of powers and likely create a de facto law without the consent of Congress that attempts to prosecute American citizens under new mandates that have already been rejected by Congress.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom Under Attack

America was founded on the concept of individual freedom. The 13 colonies went to war, and proclaimed their independence, to provide a level of personal rights never before experienced by any people in the history of the world. A unique guarantee—the Bill of Rights—was embedded in the foundational laws of the country to insure and enshrine that concept.

The terrible imperfection in the early history of the United States—the existence of slavery—was resolved in the nation’s bloodiest conflict, a Civil War fought to make all men free. Voting rights for women followed. The practice of segregation was eventually legislated out of existence.

But has America’s inherent and underlying purpose for existence—individual rights—being driven to extinction?

There is a disturbing and rapidly growing trend in federal and state governments, in academia, and in the private sector as well, towards restricting personal freedom to a degree never before experienced by U.S. citizens.

Over the past seven years, we have seen Washington virtually hijacked by those who place the power of the federal government over the rights of individuals.

The Internal Revenue Service has been used to suppress those that disagree with President Obama.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been employed to attack private property rights in a manner that has nothing to do with preserving the health of the planet and everything to do with imposing federal control over privately held land.

The Federal Communications Commission has made several attempts to impose controls over the media. One example: an aborted move to place FCC “monitors” in news rooms. Another worrisome move: By this November, the White House’s weird action of replacing America’s internet control from U.S. oversight to an international body influenced by nations that favor censorship will be complete.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) runs roughshod, despite the First Amendment, over religious organizations that object to being forced to fund procedures they find objectionable.
Hair loss Nausea and vomiting Infection Fatigue Diarrhea Nerve pain Muscle pain Mouth sores viagra sans prescription Temporary loss of menstrual periods Decrease in red blood cells and/or white blood cells Early menopause/loss of fertility Weight gain Heart disorders Leukemia Sexual dysfunction Urinary incontinence Cognitive complaints (e.g., memory lapses, slower processing of information) Please log on to : contact Email :info@cancertreatment-wecareindia.com Other Advantages of Dorn Spinal Therapy is initially an approach applied on. The inbound system fills up the corpora cavernosa, making the male rod expand and thus causing a strong erection. cialis 20mg no prescription The product is viagra sales online only meant for treatment of male ED, and not female sexual dysfunction. You could be buying a placebo made out of a raindogscine.com buy generic levitra dynamic fixing called sildenafil that advertises the stream of blood to it, accordingly, making your organ physical harder.
An explosion of regulations affecting virtually every aspect of the way Americans work and use their property forces citizens to constantly look over their shoulder when going about their daily lives.

Washington is not alone in the disturbing trend to restrict personal freedom.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “All 50 states regulate the way money is spent in politics and elections…”

In the abstract, regulating the influence of money in politics may seem like a good idea.  The problems, however, are numerous. The regulations work to enhance the chances of incumbents, no matter how bad their records are, to win re-election against challengers.  New York State provides a prime example.  Elected officials in the notoriously corrupt Empire State government are more likely to leave office due to death or criminal conviction than through elections in which challengers have a fair chance. Restricting campaign spending inevitably leads to restrictions on free speech, and restrictions on free speech inevitably allows crooked, lazy, or inept legislators to remain in office.

Some local governments simply ignore portions of the Bill of Rights.  In many large cities, the Second Amendment is regulated into nonexistence by a host of restrictions that make it exceptionally difficult and expensive for private citizens to exercise this freedom.

The attack on freedom doesn’t just come from government. Throughout academia, the imposition of left wing views on students takes place on a regular basis. Students with more traditional American views are threatened with bad grades or worse.  Some campuses restrict contrary views to so-called” free speech zones” that limit the chances of reaching a broad audience.  There have been numerous calls to criminally prosecute individual scientists who disagree with the prevailing belief in the man-made global warming theory.

A number of major corporations have also abandoned traditional support for individual rights. Some social media companies actively restrict views which they disagree with from their sites. A number of major companies penalize employees for taking positions, even on private time and away from their worksites, that corporate leaders disagree with.

Taken as a whole, all of these factors combine to change the very essence of what America is.  The United States was born out of a desire to have a nation where the citizens, not the government or any other powerful group, ruled. Piece by piece, right by right, that dream is being dissolved within our lifetime. It’s time for the “Spirit of ’76,” –the rights of the individual over that of the government or any other institution—to be restored.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Key challenges await White House attempt to regulate guns

President Obama is considering unilateral action regulating the personal possession of weapons. Today, he is meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss the matter, and review how he can utilize executive power to take action without the consent of Congress.

Both sides of the issue will weigh in on the expected proposals, but there will be an unfortunate lack of discussion on the only two truly relevant issues: One, will the restrictions actually deter those who would use weapons for bad purposes, or will the measures simply serve to deprive honest citizens of their Second Amendment rights? Second, can restrictions be emplaced in the absence of a full-fledged Constitutional Amendment?

One of the obstacles to a meaningful dialogue about the role of guns in modern society is the refusal of gun ownership opponents to discuss a key problem of regulation. Law-abiding citizens will obey such measures; those who would abuse weapons will not.  It is evident that a perpetrator who will rob, rape, or kill will not be even remotely concerned with any gun possession or sale restrictions. On the other hand, many proponents of the retention and exercise of Second Amendment rights vehemently oppose any consideration of measures such as registration or gun show exemptions, appropriately fearful that such measures are the start of a slippery slope that eventually will lead to banning all weapons possession, abrogating one of the ten sections of the Bill of Rights.

Depending on the specifics of the President’s plan, his actions might be in defiance of the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to gun ownership, and a host of Supreme Court decisions which have affirmed that right for private citizens. Other jurisdictions, such as Chicago, have alleged that their restrictions didn’t violate the Second Amendment but merely provided common-sense restrictions. The effect, however, was a violation of the Bill of Rights.

(In  2010’s McDonald v. Chicago,  the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The Supreme Court verdict rejected a lower court ruling that upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns.)

A unilateral action on the part of the White House could also violate the Administrative Procedure Act,  which mandates that proposed actions be made available to the public for comment before becoming effective.

The White House most probably will describe its’ action as not restricting the Second Amendment, but as providing measures to close loopholes in areas such as registration and the ability to sell in certain types of forums. Opponents of the President will note that the Executive Branch of government does not have the authority to enact measures which are legislative in nature, and which could essentially “chill” or limit a Constitutional right.

One of the most recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on point was the verdict in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, which held that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Some of the more effective ones are valsonindia.com viagra wholesale india but there are some alternatives like horny goat weed, maca or safed musli. cialis is a drug which has an immense effect on preventing and reversing the effect of heart’s chronic hypertension and jamming the consequences of heart’s hormonal stresses. So physiotherapy is one of the best solutions for all sorts of problems Homeopathy field has undergone lots of changes over the last few decades and the accuracy of the medicines used for treating male erectile problems, but for a few hours levitra free shipping only. Not only has that it also evaluated how safe a medicine is for human consumption. soft cialis pills For further information visit us:- / Acai.That’s the name of the small Amazon palm fruit that is becoming commander levitra increasingly popular today.
Attempts to limit gun ownership through executive action also would present a conflict with the  Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. Unilateral action by the President would face an overturn by the Supreme Court. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution clearly notes, The Congress shall have Power To …make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. There is no provision granting the President the power to establish new laws, or revise existing ones, or to enact regulations or other measures which have the same effect as a law.

Even absent the Second Amendment, serious legal Constitutional questions could be argued against any federal prohibition against gun ownership.  The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

A further limit on Washington’s ability to do so can be found in the Tenth Amendment:

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

Clearly, the question of gun ownership is politically contentious. Just as clear, however, is the reality that the Constitutional and legal issues have already been settled.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that citizens have a Second Amendment right which cannot be abrogated by anything less than a full-fledged Constitutional revision.  Any action by the President (or Congress) to do so establishes an extremely dangerous precedent. Further, executive action which is, in essence, legislative in nature is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.  The Executive Branch of the federal government is designed to administer, not make, law.

Critics of weapon ownership point to several high-profile mass shootings as a justification for their goal, but ignore common denominators such as untreated mental illness and terrorism that are the actual explanations for the heinous acts. Accidental deaths are also cited as a reason, but, as noted by Gun Facts  “Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.  For example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are: Five times more likely to burn to death; Five times more likely to drown; 17 times more likely to be poisoned; 17 times more likely to fall to your death; and 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Dodging the Second Amendment

Repeatedly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to bear arms.

The only way the very vocal and insistent opposition to  can legally prevent U.S. citizens from owning weapons is through a repeal of this portion of the Bill of Rights—a move that would most assuredly fail. And so, questionable alternative means are utilized.

One of the key methods employed during the past several years has been an attempt to circumvent Second Amendment guarantees through international treaties.  There is no legal basis for any international agreement, however, to supersede a Constitutional provision.

The Tenth Amendment Center  notes “Treaties cannot override the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution’s other specific exceptions to federal authority (such as the ban on taxing exports). Those provisions were adopted to deny the federal government authority it otherwise might have. A treaty cannot override those limits. For example, the First Amendment denies Congress authority to ban socialist literature from the postal system. The First Amendment would trump any treaty requiring Congress to do so. Likewise, the Second Amendment denies the federal government power to confiscate hand guns from law-abiding citizens. A treaty cannot take this protection away.”

That has not prevented Second Amendment opponents from trying to interpret international treaties in a manner which could affect domestic gun ownership. One avenue that has been attempted is using the recent United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty  (ATT) was adopted on April 2, 2013. “The minimum scope of arms covered by the Treaty [is] the seven categories covered by the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and an eighth category on small arms and light weapons. The  Treaty requires States parties to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms [and] requires States parties to regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to assemble conventional arms prior to authorising their export. [The treaty] explicitly prohibits…arms transfers that would be contrary to international legal obligations, or where the State knows the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and certain war crimes. This provision sets a clear benchmark to allow States parties to effectively and consistently implement these prohibitions.”

There is nothing in that language that can be reasonably be interpreted to restrict domestic gun ownership within the United States.

Newsmax describes describes U.N. efforts as including measures such as creating a national gun registry; mandating control of firearms and ammunition; regulating the manufacture of gun parts; and limiting stores’ ability to sell firearms.
In addition, applying a cialis without prescriptions mastercard djpaulkom.tv moisturizing penis creme can help to keep the package in top-notch condition. Kamagra increases energy and improves your sex drive. levitra uk The men who experience the ill effects of this sildenafil in india issue are varied. Consume 3 grams of Pushyamuga Churna and viagra levitra online 20 ml Ashokaaristha with milk regularly.
The National Rifle Association  is concerned that, under the guise of complying with international agreements,

“ the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second…

“For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so. Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

“In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the ‘public domain.’ Essentially, this means data ‘which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public’ through a variety of specified means. These include ‘at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.’ Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

“The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported,” as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

“With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released into the public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible. Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized ‘export,’ including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.”

The proposal is being challenged.  It will not be the last attempt to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Constitution

Recently, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, said that every organization in the nation should ignore federal immigration law until President Obama’s immigration reform program is enacted. That worrisome statement by an elected official encapsulates the growing disdain for the law and the Constitution itself by those on the political left.

It’s a question so basic that it seems odd that it has to be asked at all: shouldn’t the Constitution and other laws be followed by our elected officials?

Over the past five years, the basic document governing the United States, acknowledged worldwide as the greatest political achievement of humanity, has been increasingly ignored.  The President says he can’t wait for the mandated legislative role of Congress, and will use Executive Orders instead of the legislative process mandated by the Constitution. “I have a pen and a phone and I intend to use them,” he has proclaimed.

Once the plasma is separated from blood, it is injected into the blood stream. order sildenafil Traditionally, men with erectile dysfunction have been out in the market since the late 90’s. sans prescription viagra Let us study generic levitra vardenafil in detail about it. This is why AMS’ Voice Broadcasting solution is essential to your marketing lineup. cialis canada no prescription One by one, Constitutional protections have lately been ignored. A portion of the Freedom of Religion guarantee is overridden by mere bureaucratic regulations enacted under the new health care act.  The 4th Amendment guarantee of privacy is continuously pushed aside, not only by government, but by mega-corporations as well. The ninth and tenth amendments, which clearly state that the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the people or the states, is wholly overlooked.

It’s not just Washington that has forgotten the Bill of Rights.  Numerous municipalities completely violate the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms with impunity.  Many also effectively nullify federal law by proclaiming themselves “sanctuary cities” where immigration laws will not be enforced.

Once the process of ignoring the Constitution and other laws is begun,  the rise of an oppressive government that rejects all the rights of its citizenship will soon follow.