The TexasFred Blog
News Opinion Commentary
This is The Header

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

June 28th, 2010 . by TexasFred

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

Full Story Here:
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

I am, have always been, and will continue to be a supporter of the Second Amendment, I will be that supporter until the day I die. That will be the day they can have MY guns, the day I die. Not one day sooner!

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.

What part of that is so hard for LIBERAL law makers and bleeding heart gun grabbers to fully understand?

Militia – noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

We, The People, we ARE that militia!

We all know that the military is supposed to be the protector of the land, but let me pose this to my readers; what happens when the military isn’t enough? What happens when the military is led by a Commander in Chief that is NOT an American? A CiC that has but one desire in his heart? That desire being the total destruction of the USA as we know it? A CiC that isn’t adverse to destroying the United States military if that’s what it takes to fulfill HIS dream?

An armed American is also a defender of THIS nation. We are the back-up to the U.S. military, and we are the last line of defense against an oppressive regime, one much similar to what we now see in the White House.

If this nation were to be attacked with nuclear weapons, a militia is a moot point until AFTER the attack. A militia will be the survivors, and once we can see what’s left of this nation and our military, make NO mistake, We, The People, would once again be called upon to defend what is ours and what this nation stands for!

Do you know why the United States wasn’t invaded during WWII? It actually had very little to do with our military capabilities.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page

Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

January 23rd, 2010 . by TexasFred

Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he can’t imagine “anything more devastating to the public interest” than the Supreme Court’s decision to ease limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions.

He also suggested in his radio and Internet address Saturday that the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

In the 5-4 decision Thursday, the high court threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” the president said. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don’t.”

Full Story Here:
Obama calls campaign finance ruling ‘devastating’

This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010. You can’t say that Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of making SNAP decisions. It’s taken him 2 full days to react to the ruling by the Supreme Court.

It took him 8 days to even make noise about the Christmas Day terror attempt! But, in all fairness, he was on a much needed vacation in Hawaii and he couldn’t be interrupted. The POTUS does need his rest you know. He did however, interrupt his golf game to make an emergency run to a local hospital when one of his cohorts children suffered a skinned knee or some such. That shows the compassion of THE MAN!

And when Haiti was devastated, Obama sprang into action. He committed troops, supplies and American dollars that we just don’t have to spare or spend. 

It was his people after all, well, more or less. I don’t think Haiti is a Muslim nation, if it were we’d be doing even more than we are now, but for some reason, it seems that Barack Hussein Obama only reacts immediately to that which captures HIS fancy, not necessarily to that which endangers the lives of Americans!

Barack Hussein Obama is either the deepest, most deliberate thinker to ever inhabit to White House or he is a dullard of immense proportions. Personally, I am going with dullard, dense, very slow to react, as some in the firearms business say regarding BAD ammo, “About a 10 second FLASH to BANG delay!”

He also suggested in his radio and Internet address Saturday that the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

His domestic agenda? HIS domestic agenda? Would that be the domestic agenda that destroys the American economy? Or maybe it’s the agenda where we give up every right we have as a free nation and are forced into a world of socialism, communism, Marxism, or any combination of those failed agendas!

I don’t even begin to claim that I fully understand the nuance of this campaign reform mess. I know it was connected to McCain-Feingold, and I know that the SCOTUS struck it down. That is a good thing. If McCain had a hand in it, well, McCain is just another RINO, a Dem wannabe!

I also know that if Barack Hussein Obama is so all-fired up in the air over it, if he feels that there can’t be “anything more devastating to the public interest”, then this MUST be a good thing that came to pass.

“I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest,” he said. “The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

I think what Barack Hussein Obama meant to say was, ‘now the playing field has been leveled’. That’s not a good thing for the Dems I suppose. I mean, if he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest,”, well, the Dems must be in a tizzy! :twisted:

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page

Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

July 19th, 2008 . by TexasFred
WASHINGTON (AP) - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month’s Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

Full Story Here:
Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons

You just have to know, it’s bound to happen. Some criminal loving defense attorney, the scum of the earth, is going to try and bastardize the USC and the 2nd Amendment so that a convicted felon can own a gun legally.

I don’t know how everyone else feels about this, but in MY opinion, anyone that has been convicted of a felony, that hasn’t had that conviction overturned and expunged from their record, knows full well that by their commission of a felonious offense, and their conviction of said felonious offense, they have forfeited their rights to own firearms in most locales.

And quite honestly, I have absolutely NO problem with that being the law of the land. An example of some state laws, this one being from Wisconsin:  

A prohibited person is a person who is specifically prohibited from exercising his or her right to bear arms. Wisconsin statutes provide specific laws about who is prohibited from carrying a firearm. In general, prohibited persons include anyone who has been convicted of a felony, as well as anyone who was found not guilty or not criminally responsible by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness, whether the determination was made in this or another state, unless a court ordered otherwise. Plea bargaining for a felony conviction is still a felony conviction. Felon In Possession Firearms Or Dangerous Weapons

And then there this little gem from Washington state:

As a sentence condition and requirement, offenders under the supervision of the department of corrections pursuant to chapter 9.94A RCW shall not own, use, or possess firearms or ammunition. In addition to any penalty imposed pursuant to RCW 9.41.040 when applicable, offenders found to be in actual or constructive possession of firearms or ammunition shall be subject to the appropriate violation process and sanctions as provided for in *RCW 9.94A.634. Firearms or ammunition owned, used, or possessed by offenders may be confiscated by community corrections officers and turned over to the Washington state patrol for disposal as provided in RCW 9.41.098. RCW 9.41.045: Possession by offenders.

OK, I’m just not seeing a lot of *wiggle room* here. The laws are fairly clear in their *shall not possess* I think. Some states DO make provisions but are very vague in their public statements:

Felon in Possession of a Firearm MCL 750.224f
If you are a convicted felon you must meet certain requirements before you are lawfully allowed to carry a firearm. If you, as a qualifying felon, are caught in possession of a firearm, you could be facing felony charges and a prison term of 5 years along with potential fines of up to $5,000.
Michigan Firearms Charges

If you are a convicted felon and still have a felony arrest and conviction on your record, haven’t you placed yourself in a position of not being able to legally own a fire arm?

I don’t deny anyone the right to self defense, but a violent felon has placed himself in a position to face a loss of rights, and perhaps, after a period of time and rehabilitation, there could be some form of reinstatement, but the criteria would have to be very strict and well enforced.

I guess Tony Baretta said it best, “If ya can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…”, or, as in Robert Blake’s case, at least have a sympathetic jury. :?

Bookmark and Share
Return: Top of Home Page