Abbott Warns Obama Texas V. Tyranny

Abbott Warns Obama Texas V. Tyranny

America is in a gunfight. The bad guy government wants to disarm the good guy citizens. The battle: tyranny versus freedom. The Obama government has started the bleeding-out of Constitutional rights and protections for all citizens through its ramped-up attacks and erosions of Constitutional amendments. On patrol at the Constitution’s perimeter are leaders like Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, among others, who refuse to back down and bow to totalitarianism.

Few Americans are aware of the surprisingly narrow defeat in the Senate, 53-46, of a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would have effectively savaged the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To see which senators voted for the U.N.’s control over American gun rights, read here (Ed. note Bob Casey voted nay and Pat Toomey voted aye)

The following letter from Texas Attorney General Abbott to President Barack Obama regarding this President’s support of the U.N. treaty over the Constitutional rights of American citizens demonstrates how real leaders, defending America, step forward in times of peril:

April 2, 2013

Sent via facsimile and U.S. mail

Dear Mr. President:

The Arms Trade Treaty agreed to today by the United Nations (UN) is a threat to Americans’ Constitutional liberty. I urge you to reject that treaty. If you sign it, and if the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, Texas will lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

America is exceptional in part because our Constitution safeguards our individual liberties — including the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment. During your reelection campaign, you consistently claimed to support Second Amendment rights. Yet the day after you won reelection, you announced your support for the Arms Trade Treaty, a UN agreement on firearms restrictions. That treaty:

Fails to recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms or the right to defend one’s family, person, and property;

Empowers a new UN bureaucracy focused on firearms restrictions that will be run by international bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people of the United States; Employs vague and sweeping language that could be used for any number of future restrictions on Second Amendment rights; and Places no defined limits on the UN’s power to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty. It is now up to you to sign it – or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.

Agreeing to the treaty does more than trample Second Amendment rights. It also threatens to erode all liberties guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution by establishing the precedent that the UN has some level of authority to govern our lives. The very reason we fought for independence was to free ourselves from dictates by leaders in other lands. This treaty contradicts the underpinning philosophy of our country.

I recognize that the ostensible purpose of the treaty is to combat the illegal international trade of weapons into third-world war zones. The treaty could, however, draw law-abiding gun owners and gun store operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty. For instance, the treaty appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN.

The treaty also contains a vague and open-ended call for heightened domestic regulation of imported firearms, which make up a large percentage of the market for new firearms in this country. Indeed, the most troubling aspect of the treaty is the vagueness of its language. As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document. Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Treaties do not trump constitutional liberties. Even if you, as the President, signed and the Senate ratified the UN Arms Trade Treaty, our Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land and would supersede any treaty provision that violated Second Amendment rights. When the Constitution says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it means no one–including the UN–can infringe that right.

These principles have long been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, (1957), the Supreme Court ruled that the United States cannot use its treaty power to violate Constitutional rights. In that case, an international agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom provided that dependents of American service members stationed in the UK would be tried for crimes by military tribunal and thus deprived of certain Sixth Amendment rights, including the right to trial by jury. When the wife of an American serviceman was accused of murder and convicted by a military court, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. The Court rightly concluded that ‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” Id. at 16. In a passage that should be required reading in our public schools, the Supreme Court affirmed that “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Id. at 5-6. For that reason, the Supreme Court “has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” Id. at 17.

As Reid v. Covert demonstrates, the Second Amendment is by no means the only constitutional right that can be threatened by international agreements. Regardless of their position on gun rights, all Americans should oppose any treaty that does not adequately protect our constitutional rights. If the Second Amendment can be trusted to international organizations that do not share our constitutional traditions, then why not the First Amendment? Why not the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment?

Our Nation’s Bill of Rights is a rare and precious thing. It does not exist anywhere else in the world. And the UN cannot be trusted with it. The UN includes foreign governments that have shown hostility to the kinds of constitutional liberties guaranteed to Americans. All Americans are harmed when unaccountable international bodies like the UN are empowered to interfere with our protected freedoms.

If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is ratified or applied in a way that violates the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, it will be null and void. That will be little comfort, however, to law-abiding gun owners who would no doubt wonder why the United States entered into a treaty that empowers the UN to interfere with their Second Amendment rights. Rather than reach that point, the better course is to stop the treaty before the Senate can even consider it.

If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is not stopped at the federal level, I — and my fellow state attorneys general — will take up the fight to preserve the Constitution. Ratification of this treaty would compel immediate legal action to enforce the Constitution’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sincerely, G
reg Abbott,
Attorney General of Texas

 

Abbott Warns Obama Texas V. Tyranny

Gun Control And Mayors

Marcus Hook Mayor James “Jay” Schiliro who is facing charges for allegedly firing a gun inside his home in an attempt to
intimidate a 20-year-old  man to have sex with him is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the
organization run by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to advance
stricter gun regulations around the United States, reports Breitbart.com

Wonder how he feels about sodomy laws.

Schiliro  is charged with official oppression, recklessly endangering another person, unlawful
restraint, false imprisonment and providing alcohol to a minor, all
misdemeanor offenses.

He is a Republican, by the way. It doesn’t matter. A disproportionate number of politicians are sociopaths. Don’t trust anybody who really wants to be the boss.

Papelbon Guns And Pompous Pretensions Of Sports Writers

Papelbon Guns And Pompous Pretensions Of Sports Writers— Phillies reliever Jonathan Papelbon, who was once a star for the Red Sox, was asked by Boston media people for some comments about safety at sporting events in light of the Boston Marathon attack.

“The Phillies did this thing the other day where we came down
through the bleachers for one opening game, and I don’t feel comfortable
doing that,” he said. “I really, truly don’t. Today’s day and age
has gotten so crazy, everything. You know, all this stuff going on.
Shoot, man, Obama wants to take our guns from us and everything, you’ve got this kind of stuff going on. It’s a little bit insane for me. I
really don’t know how to take it.”

Well, golly did that provide an opportunity for  the pompous pundit wannabees stuck with covering sports a chance to wax wise about a political issue.

“The man clearly did not major in classical philosophy when he was
at Mississippi State, so we probably should not be surprised if there is
anything two-dimensional or self-centered about his processing of the
events of the last 48 hours,” said David Murphy of the Philadelphia Daily News. “He gets paid money (a lot) to pitch (one
inning). This is an example of why we are better off letting him
concentrate on that.”

So Murphy, you major in classical philosophy? How about just an occasional reading of Western political philosophy? You ever come across William Blackstone’s quote: Free men have arms; slaves do not. You ever hear of William Blackstone? Stupid question. Of course not. You are a sports writer.

How about Thomas “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” Jefferson?

By the way, at least Papelbon attended college unlike high school drop out Jim Carrey, who has actually made a crusade about the issue rather than merely provide a from-the-heart answer to a question.

Oh, and here is some classical philosophy for you: μολὼν λαβέ

 

Papelbon Guns And Pompous Pretensions Of Sports Writers

Guns And The Man In The Middle

When it comes to “Gun Control,” I think I’m somewhat of a centrist. I like the feel of a gun in my hand. And I have owned many.

I’ve been firing guns since I was 17; that’s when I entered the military. After four years in the Air Force and 22 in the Philadelphia Police Department, I have had ample training with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

When I therefore go to a gun dealer in my (now) home state of New Jersey, one would expect that I could legally purchase a single handgun for private use with some semblance of efficiency, given my background.

So why the devil does it take three months for me to be “approved” for a handgun purchase? Now I’m not talking about approval for carrying  a handgun. Federal law already dictates that I can legally carry a handgun in any state, by virtue of my honorable retirement as an American law enforcement officer.

It seems paradoxical that federal law permits me to carry a firearm, but the Peoples’ Republic of New Jersey wants me to wait three months before they give me “permission” to buy one.

But I chose to live here, so I abide by Jersey’s law—foolish and excessive though I believe it to be. Personally, I want only those legally fit to operate a firearm to be able to legally own one. Does that mean I’m a gun control advocate? Or does my affinity for guns make me a gun nut?

Doesn’t the answer depend on what exactly is meant by those very broad and over-generalized terms? Some activists called Charlton Heston a gun nut, while other advocates looked at Adolf Hitler as a gun control fanatic.

Ask any sane individual (whose job does not depend on votes), and likely they’ll say that, yes, they do believe in some kind of firearms’ control. Indeed; how could any reasonable adult declare that guns should be made as available as loaves of bread?

But what I mean by gun control can be vastly different from my neighbor’s definition of those two words.

I have no difficulty with my state of residence checking backgrounds to insure that a potential purchaser of a gun is not someone who is likely to use a firearm for an illegal purpose. And in today’s culture of immediate communication, the three-month New Jersey wait is unjustifiable for any law-abiding American, whether a law enforcement officer or a hairdresser. (Active New Jersey cops must also go through this process if they wish to buy a gun. Absurd, isn’t it?)

There are those, however, whose idea of gun control is to make guns illegal—illegal to own, to transport, to manufacture. Furthermore, some even argue that any gun—legal or not—removed from the street, is a step in the right direction; ergo police should not even be armed.

The trouble with that assertion is simple: It doesn’t remove the illegal user. And wouldn’t drug dealers, thugs, gang members, and organized crime support that idea of gun control!

Sensible control of firearms lies somewhere between New Jersey’s indefensible quarter-year waiting period and a casual exchange of guns like buying cans of soup from a Wal-Mart.

I’ve been investigated and fingerprinted so frequently (military service, police department work, teacher’s certification), that I have no problem with anyone checking my background, and I’m inherently suspicious of anyone who rants against such investigations.

As a retired law enforcement officer, I have to be certified annually to maintain my right to carry a firearm. That means a trip to an approved firing range and evaluation by a licensed firearms trainer as I fire dozens of rounds from various positions. I believe I’d be a fool to object to that.

Can someone explain why I should not object to a similar precondition for any potential gun owner? Especially since most are neither as proficient nor as experienced a shooter as I. If you want to own a gun, don’t you also want to be schooled in the legality and proficiency of its use?

In my opinion, if you can handle the background check, and then a certified trainer declares that you can safely handle a gun, I believe the Constitution mandates that you have a right to legally acquire a firearm.

(Excerpted from Good Writers Block)

Letter To Toomey

I sent this about an hour and a half ago to Sen. Toomey:

Dear Sen. Toomey

I’m sure you are getting a lot of grief for the proposal by Sen. Manchin and yourself to expand background checks for firearm purchases.

And you deserve it.

Still, I don’t hate you and you can continue to chalk me up as a supporter albeit with concerns that you are catching Potomac fever.

I do wish that you and other Republicans would stop playing defense and take the offense. How about you start making the case about the benefits of private firearm ownership. Our murder rate, for instance, is at a near low for my lifetime despite (because?) the number of states allowing concealed carry rose from 10 to 41 since 1980.

Philadelphia is a less dangerous city that it was in the ’80s & ’90s. Really. How about pointing things like that out?

Regarding mass school shootings it would also be nice if someone noted that  they didn’t occur — the first was the Grover Cleveland School shootings in 1979 that inspired the song “I Don’t Like Mondays — when the children started the day with a prayer and looked at the Golden Rule on classroom wall.

And, of course, when our society recognized that helpless life was something to be protected and not defined away for the sake of convenience.

I don’t think that is a coincidence.

 

Letter To Toomey

 

Letter To Toomey

Toomey Gives Response On Gun Bill

James J. Fitzpatrick, the Southeast Pa. regional manager for Sen. Pat Toomey,  has sent the following response to Mary Ellen Jones of the Delaware County Patriots regarding proposed firearm background check legislation that Toomey and Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) are supporting.

On the gun issue, first I think we have come a long way. When it started out they were talking about bans, registries, and magazine limits. When the back and forth debate is whether or not to slightly expand background checks I think it is a win either way with this President.

Second, on the background check issue. We were approached by Sen. Machin’s office to potentially broker a deal on certain private sales and transfers. Right now in PA if you wanted to sell me a handgun/pistol, I would need to go to a federally licensed dealer to receive a background check. If, however, you wanted to sell me a rifle, or any other type of long gun, I would not need to do that. We think there is a potential room for a deal in that space given that many gun owners already require individuals to whom they are selling long guns or rifles to go through a background check. I think Pat’s thinking on it is at the very least on these transactions, the check would reduce the likelihood that someone would be selling to a felon, someone with a past of substance abuse, or someone that has a past of mental illness. It would also in turn protect the seller from liability on the back end if anything were to happen with the gun they sold.

With that said, these are simply conversations at this point between Manchin and Pat. No bill has been written and one will not be on the floor until next week at the earliest.

Ed note: The above message was sent April 9. A vote to start debate on the measure passed cloture in the U.S. Senate the afternoon of April 11 by a 68-31 margin preventing a filibuster. The Toomey-Manchin amendment has yet to be added.

Toomey Gives Response On Gun Bill

Toomey Gives Response On Gun Bill

Remembering Tasso da Silveira School

Two years ago today, April 7, 2011, Wellington Oliveira used a .38 revolver and a .32 revolver to murder 12 children and wound 12 others at  Tasso da Silveira Municipal School in Rio de Janerio.

Brazil has strict gun control making it very difficult for law-abiding people to own or carry a firearm.

Gun control does not stop evil people. It does stop good people from stopping the evil of evil people.

Remembering Tasso da Silveira

Comcast Bans Gun Advertisements

Philadlephia-based, Obama-supporting Comcast has banned advertising by gun and ammunition sellers.

In a totally unrelated issue, the cable giant will be airing Scarface with Al Pacino at 11 this morning, March 23. Remember Tony Montana can have a grenade launcher. He’s a criminal.

Free plug of the day, check out Bob’s Little Sports Shop in Glassboro, N.J.. The man’s a poet unlike the gangster lovers at Comcast.

Comcast Building Lobby Comcast Bans Gun Advertisements

Comcast Bans Gun Advertisements

al Qaeda Says Yes We Can

al Qaeda Says Yes We Can — The latest edition of Inspire, al Qaeda’s English langauge magazine, features a graphic of a pistol aimed at the head of Pastor Terry Jones above President Obama’s motto “Yes We Can” with the subtitle “A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away, Defend Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him”

Jones is the Florida pastor who burned a copy of the Koran a while back.

Next to the image of Jones is an Old West style “wanted poster” with a list of photos and/or names of those being sought “dead or alive for crimes against Islam”. Those listed include author Salman Rushdie, politicians Geert Wilders (whose name they misspelled) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and artists Lars Vilks and Molly Norris, the latter whom is an American who has changed her name and been in hiding since 2010 upon advice of the FBI.

And the Democrats want to ban guns for those who want to be left alone.

al Qaeda Says Yes We Can

al Qaeda Says Yes We Can

Defending The 2nd Amendment

A panel discussion featuring Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, poet and sports shop owner Ben Viden, Delaware State Sen. Dave Lawson, and Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe will be held 1 to 4 p.m., Sunday, March 3, at Independence Visitors Center Ballroom, Independence Mall, Philadelphia.

Sponosrs are Independence Hall Tea Party Association, WNTP 990AM, American Sheepdogs, Cherry Hill Area Tea Party, Coalition for Advancing Freedom, Delaware County Patriots, Founders Values, Greenwich Tea Party, Patriots of South Jersey and Patriots of Lower Bucks County.

Visit here for tickets.

Defending The 2nd Amendment