Senator Moran’s Letter to President Obama Urging Repudiation of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty

Senator Moran’s Letter to President Obama Urging Repudiation of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty

Senator Moran’s letter is a compilation of very solid reasons for why the United States should not be participant in the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. I have included two of his six reasons below. Senator Moran states clearly at the end of his letter that the Senate will not ratify the treaty. I hope so. Why would We The People, through our elected representatives, ever want to transfer our autonomy and gun rights heritage to an international bureaucracy? Please read Senator Moran’s letter.

Written by Senator Jerry Moran
October 10, 2013

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.” But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this capitulation has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.

Second, the treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote. As the treaty is amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept. This would circumvent the power and duty of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States.

Third, the treaty includes . . .

I hope this letter gets some attention.

Read the rest of Senator Moran’s letter at Gun Owners of America.

Gun Rights – How To Win Friends and Influence Enemies? Some Thoughts on Open Carry

Gun Rights – How To Win Friends and Influence Enemies? Some Thoughts on Open Carry

Jack Eldon Jackson provides a very thoughtful analysis of the current polarization in the gun rights vs. gun control debate. Using the Founders/Framers as examples and illustrations, he calmly reminds us how patient they were as they sought to establish the Constitution. They wisely chose not to provoke their enemies, but patiently wrote to demonstrate the superiority of the Constitution. They wanted support for their ideas.

Using that context, he reminds us how polarized we have become as a society with regard to gun rights. And, in some States with ‘open carry’ laws it appears that some gun owners who are zealous of their ‘rights’ have almost adopted an in-your-face attitude with their guns in public. Jackson argues that these gun owners are not helping the cause longterm, but in fact are creating fear, animosity, and opposition to what we are doing.

. . . Unfortunately, fewer people today are willing to take the time to truly understand the serious political, economical, and social consequences involved in America’s current constitutional crisis, especially with respect to the Second Amendment. Case in point, the flippantly polarizing antics of a growing faction within some gun-rights groups. The recent statement by Starbucks’ CEO Howard Schultz “requesting that customers no longer bring firearms” into their stores brings to light a prime example — in fact, showing how some people have become so excited about being in the advocacy game they’ve completely lost focus on the ball.

Over the past year, a small number of gunners in the “open carry” movement have descended upon select Starbucks stores as part of a messaging effort to normalize the public’s perception and acceptance of firearms. To their credit, they purchased large amounts of product and expressed their appreciation for the company’s noncombative (i.e., neutral) stand on the Second Amendment. Sound good?

Not so fast. You see, these people didn’t just show up and financially support Starbucks, they arrived in small platoon-like groups with shotguns and tactical rifles slung fore and aft as they sipped their way swaggering about between adult and child patrons alike!

Gee, I wonder. Wouldn’t a discreet, nicely holstered sidearm have sufficed?

While I can appreciate this group’s anxiety over current events and the urge to exercise their constitutional right, such mindless behavior can only be seen as anything but normal. In truth, such antics only serve to help bring about the very thing we all want least — government intervention. . . .

A very thoughtful article, and I highly recommend it. Are you helping or hurting the gun rights cause? Trying to change an already polarized society’s opinion on guns takes time, patience, and wisdom. Give it some thought and read the article.

Read more here.

Senate Web Site Gets Second Amendment Wrong? Yes, It Does

Senate Web Site Gets Second Amendment Wrong? Yes, It Does

Comments found on the senate.gov web site about the Second Amendment are incorrect. The following article by AWR Hawkins mentions the following.

A Senate.gov web page covering the Constitution gets the scope of the Second Amendment wrong, telling readers that it is not clear whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right.

Here is what the Senate’s web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
This is simply not true on at least two levels. . . .

The Senate site can be found here:

See their comments on the Second Amendment here.

Read more of AWR Hawkins’s article at Breitbarthere.

Emily Gets Her Gun – The Story of Emily Miller’s Efforts to Get Her Gun in Washington D.C.

Emily Gets Her Gun – The Story of Emily Miller’s Efforts to Get Her Gun in Washington D.C.

This was originally published as a series of articles in the Washington Times. Some reviewers don’t like that (read the reviews at Amazon), but I disagree. While more could have been added, apparently, why not just accept the book on its own merits, ie, the story of Emily Miller who shares her experience to get a legally registered gun in the anti-gun environment of Washington D.C. Nothing wrong with that, and how many actually read the original series? So, the book serves a great purpose to inform and educate, although not the last word.

From Amazon

published September 3, 2013

In the wake of tragic shootings in Newtown and Aurora, the anti-gun lobby has launched a campaign of lies, distortion, misrepresentation, and emotional manipulation that is breathtaking in its vitriol and its denial of basic facts. Their goal is to take away our Second Amendment rights and then disarm law-abiding Americans.

Emily Miller tells her personal story of how being a single, female victim of a home invasion drove her to try to obtain a legally registered gun in Washington, D.C. The narrative—sometimes shocking, other times hilarious in its absurdity—gives the reader a real life understanding of how gun-control laws only make it more difficult for honest, law-abiding people to get guns, while violent crime continues to rise.

Using facts and newly uncovered research, Miller exposes the schemes politicians
on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and around the country are using to deny people their Second Amendment rights. She exposes the myths that gun grabbers and liberal media use to get new laws passed that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

The gun rights debate isn’t just about firearms. It’s about protecting a fundamental right that is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It’s about politicians who lie, manipulate, and outright break existing laws to get what they want. It’s about President Obama wanting a bigger federal government to control you. Not just your guns—you. The fight for gun rights is the fight for freedom. Emily Miller says stand up and fight back now because your Second Amendment will only be the first to go.

Get it on Amazon. Be informed.

History of Second Amendment and Current Firearm Policy Debates To Be Featured in New Documentary

History of Second Amendment and Current Firearm Policy Debates To Be Featured in New Documentary

An exciting new documentary entitled, INFRINGED: Second Amendment in the Crosshairs, on the Second Amendment’s history and our current firearm policy debates is being produced.

Award-winning filmmaker Peter Jay Gould is now developing INFRINGED: Second Amendment in the Crosshairs, a new feature-length documentary designed to separate fact from fiction in today’s gun rights debate.

“Our plan is to create a captivating, compelling, feature-length film comprised of dramatic historical reenactments, including a passionate presentation of the Founding Fathers’ original debate over the Bill of Rights,” said Gould. “We’ll track through the years, right on up to today, showing how the Second Amendment has served as the linchpin protecting all our other liberties.” All historical re-creations will be shot on location and feature actors speaking dialogue adapted from the Founding Fathers’ own personal writings.

The project will additionally include illuminating interviews with leading Constitutional scholars—including Independent Institute Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook, author of the acclaimed forthcoming book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”—as well as revealing TV news clips and crime re-creations.

You can visit the movie’s site (INFRINGED) here. It loaded a little slowly initially, so wait, and then you can enter the site.

Read more here.

Are Some Schools Misleading Students About the Second Amendment? Yes, Some Are

Are Some Schools Misleading Students About the Second Amendment? Yes, Some Are

The following article at Ben Swann is almost unbelievable. But since it happened at a public school, I’m not that surprised. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised.

This particular article states that students in an 8th grade history class were taught by their teacher that it is okay for a police officer to confiscate someone’s gun at a police stop, even if that person has all the right permits and credentials to legally have their gun.

Please check the article out and look at how the question was worded.

This is blatant misinformation and deceptive.

Parents, if you value gun rights and the Second Amendment, I hope you are looking at your son or daughter’s work at school. What are they teaching? Are they misleading your student and confusing them about the Second Amendment’s meaning?

Gun Rights Victory In Illinois – Second Amendment Protects Carrying Outside of Home

Gun Rights Victory In Illinois – Second Amendment Protects Carrying Outside of Home

A gun rights victory in Illinois?. Eugene Volokh, of www.volokh.com, explains the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision, People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013). He comments:

“From today’s unanimous decision in People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013):

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

I think the result is correct, because Heller‘s reasoning does indeed apply to carrying for self-defense in most public places, and not just in the home. Indeed, Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago had no occasion to squarely confront this question, because they dealt with total handgun bans, including on home possession.”

Read more at Volokh.com

Tennessee Guns Across America Rally Video – Gun Rights Activist and Author Nikki Goeser Speaks

Tennessee Guns Across America Rally Video – Gun Rights Activist and Author Nikki Goeser Speaks

Nikki is the author of Denied a Chance: How gun control helped a stalker murder my husband.

She is the victim of gun control laws that left her defenseless, allowing a criminal to walk in and shoot her husband to death right in front of her.

Watch and hear why she is now an activist for the Second Amendment.

“How gun control killed my husband” – an interview with Nikki Goeser

This is an excellent interview with Nikki Goeser, author of Denied a Chance: How gun control helped a stalker murder my husband.

Nikki Goeser had a life most people only dream about. She was married to a great guy named Ben, and they were deeply and genuinely in love. Attractive, intelligent, and determined, Nikki graduated from university with a degree in psychology, she worked at a local college by day, and, at night, Nikki and Ben ran a professional Karaoke company that provided entertainment for several of Nashville’s clubs and bars. Then, in one terrible moment on April 2, 2009, her life was changed forever.

Nikki first began to legally carry a gun after the kidnapping and murder of two University of Tennessee students in 2007, but, on that rainy April night two years later, she was forced to lock her gun in the glove compartment of her car due to the Tennessee law that forbade citizens with a carry permit from bringing their weapon into a restaurant or bar. Nikki was forced to watch in horror as a man who had been stalking her pumped six bullets from a .45 caliber pistol into Ben Goeser, ending his life and shattering Nikki’s existence.

Since that terrible day, Nikki has worked tirelessly to eliminate the dangerous no carry zones that protect no one and make it easier for criminals to victimize law abiding citizens. After a prolonged political battle, she was finally successful is getting the law changed in Tennessee, but the victory came with potentially fatal flaw. Restaurant and bar owners have the option of posting a sign making their premises a no carry zone; a move Nikki considers an open, public announcement to criminals that they have free reign to rob and pillage an establishment full of unarmed citizens. . . .

This is an excellent article with a detailed discussion of why gun control doesn’t work, and what we need to defend our 2nd Amendment rights.

Read the complete interview with Nikki Goeser here.

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns by Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck’s new book, Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns, offers an up-to-date look at the current climate regarding gun rights and gun control. It is a short book with lots of current quotes by many well-known individuals who are in the debate over gun control. He attempts to confront the many misconceptions (background checks) and outright lies (AR-15) about guns and the Second Amendment that are bandied about in the media.

From Amazon’s blurb:

History has proven that guns are essential to self-defense and liberty—but tragedy is a powerful force and has led many to believe that guns are the enemy, that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that more restrictions or outright bans on firearms will somehow solve everything.

Glenn reveals who is saying what. Great price on Amazon.

Read Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns and prepare to defend your second amendment rights.