Death of the 4th Amendment

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court disemboweled the Fourth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that citizens cannot challenge government wiretapping laws, in particular the unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and, more recently, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

According to Justice Samuel Alito, millions of Americans can no longer expect the government to uphold the Constitution and prevent the NSA from conducting dragnet surveillance.

The government established so-called “sovereign immunity” last August when the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco dismissed Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama following a December 2010 court case ruling the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program was illegal.

FISA is a near perfect scheme for the government. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rubber-stamp surveillance requests of supposed terrorists (the Justice Department claims there are over a million terrorists in America). The feds are not obliged to identify a target and they can conduct surveillance a week before making a FISA Court request. Surveillance can continue in the unlikely event that a request is denied and an appeal is set in motion.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It allows federal agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and does away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement, itself blatantly unconstitutional.

“FISA gives the government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who communicate with any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment,” Andrew Napolitano wrote in December. “The right to privacy is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution has largely kept America from becoming East Germany.”

Alito’s argument rests on the fact that FISA is a secret court. “Yet respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a,” he wrote.

Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented the ruling.

Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure into the dustbin of history. It means we are one step closer to becoming East Germany where the Stasi conducted dragnet surveillance with impunity.

Stasi, however, was old school. The modern high-tech surveillance state is infinitely more effective and will be used to monitor the political attitudes of all Americans in dragnet fashion and ferret out for persecution – and elimination – those who pose a threat to the status quo.

State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKTV) – The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent gun laws said that Wednesday was “monumental,” as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

On Thursday, thousands are expected in Albany to rally against the Governor’s gun laws. Many are looking to preserve local jobs at places such as Remington Arms, while others say they are just citizens who feel that their Second Amendments are being infringed upon.

Colorado legislature to consider liability for assault weapon owners, sellers and makers

Can it get any better than this? They want to hold gun manufacturers liable but what about alcohol companies and drug manufacturers that kill 100 times more people yearly than guns do?

 Senate President John Morse unveiled the details of a new gun-control bill aimed squarely at those who own, sell or manufacture a class of weapons he says have “no public benefit” and “no business on our streets or in our forests”: military-style assault weapons.

The bill will hold gun sellers and manufacturers liable for damage caused by their weapons if they don’t conform to “the highest degree of care” in ensuring those weapons aren’t sold to future criminals. It makes owners of such weapons responsible for every shot fired outside the confines of a private residence.

“You fire this weapon, you own that bullet, whatever it does,” Morse said during a press conference announcing the details of the bill, which will be introduced in the state Senate on Wednesday.

The bill defines an “assault rifle” as any firearm other than a handgun, shotgun, bolt-action or lever-action rifle.

“These guns are four times as powerful as handguns,” he said. “That means they’re more effective at killing, they’re more efficient at killing, and they do a lot more collateral damage when they’re used.”

“There are people who believe they have the right to own these guns,” he continued, “but we need to be better at making sure that we’ve articulated clearly the responsibility that goes along with these guns.”

The bill exempts those who use an assault weapon to defend themselves or others inside a dwelling in response to a threat of physical force. Also excluded are police officers and military personnel acting within the scope of their duties.

Everyone else — from the shooter to the manufacturer — could be on the hook for civil damages.

If the bill were to become law, it would place new responsibilities on gun sellers to ensure they’re not selling assault weapons to potential criminals. It would be up to a jury to decide if a seller were negligent in selling a gun to someone he or she should have known would use it in a crime, Morse said.

“We set the standard that you’ve got to have reasonable grounds to know that this person is not going to use the gun dangerously or unlawfully,” he said.

Morse said that in the case of the Aurora theater shooting, had this law been in effect, those who sold suspect James Holmes his AR-15 would “risk getting sued because, by definition, you didn’t get the job accomplished.”

Pressed for an example of what would constitute a sale in which a gun store didn’t exercise “the highest degree of care,” Morse said selling “15 AR-15s” to a customer wearing a T-shirt that said “I love Osama bin Laden” would likely not meet the requirement if any of those guns were later used in a crime.

Texas Lawmaker Proposes Tax Free Day for Gun Purchases

Looking for a reason to buy a gun in Texas? Republican State Rep. Jeff  Leach has filed a bill to give Texas gun-buyers a break — making Texas Independence Day (March 2) a tax-free holiday for anyone who purchases a rifle, pistol, shotgun or semi-automatic. Buy a gun, skip the sales tax. Leach calls his bill the Texas Gun Ownership Reinforcement Act.

“Texas must take the lead in the fight against the federal government’s attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment Rights,” Leach said in a statement. ”As we fight against the federal government’s overreach, there is no more appropriate day to instate this tax-free holiday than on Texas Independence Day.”

Under this legislation, there would be no sales tax on the following items bought on Texas Independence Day:

Shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, and other handguns

·         Gun cleaning supplies, gun cases, gun safes, and optics

·         Ammunition

·         Archery equipment

·         Hunting stands, blinds and decoys

 

Leach says idea has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Currently, there already is a tax-free holiday before every school year on the sale of back-to-school shoes, clothes, books, backpacks and supplies. Leach’s bill would extend the sales-tax break to guns.

Indiana Sheriff Debunks The “High-capacity” Magazine Argument (Excellent video and stats)

Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is pushing a “high-capacity” magazine ban using the argument that mass shooters like Adam Lanza and Jared Lee Loughner would not have killed as many people if they were forced to stop firing and reload their guns.

This argument is completely fallacious, as the video below demonstrates.

“Loughner’s massacre ended only when he stopped to reload and bystanders wrestled him to the ground. If he had used a standard magazine and was forced to reload earlier, some of his victims might have been spared,” Lautenberg and McCarthy wrote in 2011.

The reload question is addressed in the video. It is not a factor. A determined mass shooter will continue to kill until he runs out of ammo. The size of his magazine is at best negligible.

Restricting the size of magazines is an incremental step down the road to complete government confiscation and disarmament.

The History of Gun Control

Throughout the history of the world there have been despots, tyrants, dictators and kings who have imposed their will over those they conquered. After defeating rival armies in battle, many of these rulers went on to lead cruel, ruthless and abusive regimes largely by keeping the subjugated powerless to resist.

Men like Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia; Genghis Khan, who founded and ruled the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise; the Caesars of the Roman empire; and the pharaohs of the Egyptian empire all conquered, then kept power, by ruling with iron fists over people who were powerless to resist because they did not have the means to do so. In feudal England, British subjects in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere were forbidden to bear arms, and as such were forced to remain loyal to the crown (until they won their independence by force of arms).

In more recent times the invention and mass production of the firearm made conquering – and then controlling – entire populations much more difficult, which is why the most heinous despots in the last 150 years have moved to limit or ban access to guns. In our own country, prior to the Revolutionary War, some colonists did own firearms but in the months before, and directly after, the war began King George’s generals implemented gun confiscation policies – a primary driver behind the adoption of the Second Amendment by our founding fathers.

As gun control once more becomes an issue, and as some lawmakers, academics, pundits and ordinary Americans call for outright gun bans and confiscation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in mid-December, it is vital and appropriate to examine the history of gun control around the world, and the carnage visited upon the innocent by gun-grabbing tyrants.

Soviet Union – 1929 — Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II tossed 11 million Russian peasants into World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, scores of armed Russians – many current or former Russian soldiers who were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin – rebelled against a ruling regime that was already teetering on the edge of collapse.

Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Soviet citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished – a time which saw the rise of one of the world’s most repressive regimes, that was led by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin (he ruled from 1941-1953 but was entrenched in the country’s leadership by 1928).

From 1929 to the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country’s leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths. Early in Stalin’s political career, he launched two national collectivization campaigns in order to transform the country into an industrial power. Both campaigns, however, were rife with murder on a massive scale.

“In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance,” says a history of his political career at Gendercide.org. “The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict laborers, overwhelmingly men.

His “callous disregard for life” was matched only by his paranoia; later, he purged the Communist Party itself of anyone and everyone he believed was a threat – all under the auspices of a total gun ban.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves,” he once said.

The Ottoman Empire – 1911 — The Ottoman Empire, the origins of which were in Turkey, implemented full gun control in 1911. A few years later, beginning in 1915 and lasting until 1917, some 1.5 million Armenians (out of a total of 2.5 million) living within the empire were rounded up and murdered by the “Young Turks” of the ruling class. In what has since been called the Armenian Holocaust, “Armenians all over the world commemorate this great tragedy on April 24, because it was on that day in 1915 when 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were rounded up, deported and killed,” says a short history of the slaughter by the University of Michigan. “Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets and in their homes.”

The Ottoman government established “butcher battalions” which consisted primarily of violent criminals who had been released from prison just to kill ethnic Armenians. Those who were members of the army (which was currently fighting the Allies in World War I) “were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed,” said the university history.

Germany – 1938 — Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938, just prior to the implementation of his horrendous, murderous campaign to exterminate the Jews. In the end, 13 million Jews and other perceived lesser races were killed by Hitler and his Nazi Party.

In 1942, at the height of the Second World War and German advances, Hitler said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.

China – 1935 — The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, just two years before Japan invaded in 1937. In the period from 1935 to 1952, some 20 million citizens and political dissidents were murdered. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, which was launched by the country’s supreme ruler, Mao Zedong, took place from 1966-1976, and “claimed the lives of several million people and inflicted cruel and inhuman treatments on hundreds of million people,” says MassViolence.org. “However, 40 years after it ended, the total number of victims of the Cultural Revolution and especially the death toll of mass killings still remain a mystery both in China and overseas.” The actual figures remain a highly-classified state secret.

Regarding gun control, Mao once said: “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Cambodia – 1956 — The year this Asian nation issued its total gun control edict was in 1956, but the real carnage did not begin until several years later, during the regime of the demonic Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million “educated” people whom he believed represented a threat to his power in “killing fields” that were later depicted in a movie by the same name.

In all, more than 56 million people around the world have been murdered as a result of gun control laws imposed by rulers and despots who knew that the only way they could continue to brutalize their own people and stay in power was by disarming them.

And now left-wing pols, politicians, academics and pundits want our leaders to have the same ability to rule unopposed and unafraid of reprisal.

“Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George,” writes Bradlee Dean for WorldNetDaily.

Anyone truly interested in preventing mass murder should not be a supporter of gun control.

Sources:

http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/easteurope/octrev.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/gun-control-dictator-style/

http://www.massviolence.org

Pingback from: http://www.naturalnews.com/039264_gun_control_timeline_true_history.html#ixzz2M6qSGPwQ

New York’s Seven Round Law Bans Most Firearms

New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act that passed in January will effectively outlaw most firearms in the state. The law mandates a seven round maximum capacity for ammunition magazines and there are currently no manufacturers producing seven round magazines. According to the Democrat and Chronicle, no manufacturer plans to start making them.

“There was never a need for a (seven-round magazine),” Paul Martin, owner of Pro-Gun Services in Victor, New York, told theDemocrat and Chronicle. “Not many manufacturers are going to bother to make something just for the state of New York.”

The Democrat and Chronicle contacted a number of manufacturers to see if they plan to make seven round clips. Remington, Smith and Wesson, Pro Mag Industries and Brownells did not respond. Glock had no comment. Of the small number who responded, none gave a definitive answer.

“We will not be marketing anything specific to New York,” Karl Hoffman, an account executive for the magazine manufacturer Metalform told the Democrat and Chronicle.

“Can you realistically expect a company that’s huge to gear up and say, ‘Let’s make something for those poor suckers in New York because they’ve got a bad law?” said Fred Calcagno, owner of American Sportsman gun shop.

“That number, 7, was not arbitrary,” an NRA member posted on the Smith & Wesson forum. “They chose it because it was more than most revolvers hold, but fewer rounds than most semi-autos. They can now claim they aren’t restricting sportsmen or target shooters because they were magnanimous enough to allow guns that carry more than wheel guns… which aren’t evil military style weapons.”

“Add to that there are nearly zero seven round mags available for most handguns and rifles and you have a de facto to ban on hundreds of weapons not specifically addressed by the legislation.”

The NRA member is right — Cuomo and the gun-grabbers in New York did not simply pull the number seven out of a hat. They knew imposing this limit on clips would effectively outlaw a large number of firearms and create a new class of criminals.

“Perhaps that is the reason they passed this law – as a back-door method of instituting a sweeping ban on semiautomatic handguns,” Anna Rittgers wrote in January.

“The practical result will be the state prohibiting law abiding gun owners from using their handguns in self defense, as it will become illegal to use even the most common firearms.  There is no ‘grandfather clause,’ so legal gun owners who comply with New York State’s existing ten round magazine limit will have to sell or dispose of thousands of those magazines within a year to comply with the new law. Those that fail to comply – who possess magazines that can hold eight or more bullets – will be guilty of a misdemeanor.”