Archive for Second Amendment

Gun Czar Joe Biden “I Guarrantee you Barack Obama ain’t tak’n my shot gun”

Posted in Czar, Gun Control, Gun Violence, Joe Biden, Second Amendment with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vice President Joe Biden is expected to lead the White House task force to examine more gun control legislation, but back in 2008 he did everything he could to convince voters that his running mate supported the Second Amendment.

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”

Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.

“If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden added, referring to Obama.

In April of 2012 , Remington Arms has been awarded a multi-million dollar contract that could create up to 50 jobs in the Mohawk Valley, federal government sources confirmed to NEWSChannel 2.

The nearly $84 million contract is for manufacturing equipment for the U.S. Army through April 2017. The project consists of making nearly 100,000 M-4 rifles.

Senator Chuck Schumer responded to the Army’s contract with Remington Arms saying, “Today is a great one for Remington Arms in Ilion, its workers and the Mohawk Valley economy as a whole. The Ilion plant has secured an expanded role in producing high-quality equipment for our brave men and women overseas, and this contract will provide a huge boost to Central New York’s economy.”

Schumer
James Rabbia, plant manager of the Remington Arms facility in Ilion, and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer talk during a tour of the Remington Museum on Tuesday.

Chuck Schumer’s Secret Meeting to change the Constitution

BIG BROTHERS? Will the new Super Congress replace US Constitution and usher in the New World Order ?

Posted in Alex Jones, New World Order, Super Congress with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 3, 2011 by saynsumthn

The “Super Congress,” which was approved by the House yesterday and is set to be rubber stamped in the Senate today, will establish a new level of unaccountable government, and will strip elected representatives of the right to amend legislation or filibuster on whatever issues it sees fit, not merely limited to the debt situation.

This body will have “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers, including gun control, entitlement cuts and tax hikes.

The Huffington Post describes it this way: Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits.

Congressman Ron Paul describes it this way:

In a statement made yesterday in response to the passage of the Budget Control Act, Congressman Ron Paul expressed his alarm at the establishment of this “disturbing” new committee, and warned that it would be used to ram through tax increases. “The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments,” said Paul. “Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”

And even Left-Wingers like Keith Olbermann is calling the Super Congress Unconstitutional: His rant is not enjoyable, but we must call a spade a spade ! ” Where does it say in the US Constitution that they can create a third house to do their bidding?” “Firstly, pick a side, ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.”

Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, expressed in his remarks on the floor last week he does not favor the joint committee:

“I am also concerned about the dubious special committee. It is a plan that allows Congressional leaders to dictate critical national issues without being subject to full committee process and without amendment. Such actions are a serious evasion of historical Senate procedure. I strongly believe with encouragement from the Leaders that our regular process could produce a better result. If the White House or the Democrat leadership in the Senate had taken the legally required budget process seriously at any point in the last year—if they had presented a single credible plan to cut spending—we wouldn’t be here right now in the 11th hour.”

Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, has been a vocal critic of the joint committee and said, “I have reservations about a committee, in any event. I’m not anxious to cede any of my responsibility to a group of others.”

I guess with some members and the Tea Party revolting against the RANK leaders of both parties- this call for a Super Congress seems expected, POWER GRAB !

Some believe that this Super Congress will attack the second amendment !

Bad Aim? NRA shoots 1 to save 2 – free speech deal

Posted in free speech with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 18, 2010 by saynsumthn

This is an editorial from the Washington Post and explains the title:

NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill’s cynical, fatal flaws

“[]The NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.” — NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010

By Cleta Mitchell
Thursday, June 17, 2010; A21

The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.

The NRA “carve-out” reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment’s precise language: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

Congress can’t help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents’ mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle.

For its part, the NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for “neutrality” from the legislation’s requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind.

Since the court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated “disclosure” restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.

Democrats would effectively neuter the court’s decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as “byzantine” and an “arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements.”

The NRA’s wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it.

Receiving less attention than the NRA “carve-out” but no less cynical is the bill’s sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members’ dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members’ contributions to labor’s campaign-related spending wouldn’t need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.

In Citizens United, the court held that the First Amendment doesn’t permit Congress to treat different corporations differently; that the protections afforded political speech arise from the Constitution, not Congress. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a congressional power to license the speech of some while denying it to others.

The NRA carve-out is a clear example of a congressional speech license.

The ostensible purpose of the legislation is benign “disclosure,” upheld in Citizens United as permissible under the First Amendment. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of disclosure requirements in another case argued this term; Scalia intoned in oral argument that “running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.”

That’s true. Indeed, the law upheld in Citizens United requires all donors to candidate-related expenditures to be publicly disclosed to the FEC in a timely manner.

But the Disclose Act isn’t really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association.

It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes.

This is not just “disclosure.” It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

The writer is a partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law and is a member of the NRA’s board of directors.