Debunking a rumor

From Paul Payne...

SUBJECT: SB-2099


SOURCE: 

http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/SB2099.shtml


QUESTION:
Is it true that . . .  Senate Bill
SB-2099 will require owners of firearms to pay a $50 charge per gun and
list each gun on their federal tax form?


ANSWER: The answer
is no.  This Internet rumor states that SB-2099 is legislation
currently being considered by the Senate. The bill supposedly requires
owners of firearms to list on their 1040 tax return all guns they own and
then pay a $50 charge per firearm. There is no such legislation by this
name in the 111th Congress.


The facts:

• The last bill given the
  number S.
  2099 was in the 105th Congress. This bill dealt with federal
  sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting offenses.
  
• Legislation that the Senate is currently working on will be listed on
  the
  
  Active Legislation page or can be searched for on
  Thomas. For more information about
  the legislative process or finding bills, please see the
  
  Legislation VRD page.
  

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5098

Sonia Sotomayor on gun rights...

NRA-ILA: Sonia Sotomayor on gun rights

Also, the good folks at FreeRepublic.com are liveblogging the hearings. FReeper pabianice reports that Sotomayor has reaffirmed her position that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the States.

[Sotomayor] Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.

The Ninth Circuit, of all courts, disagrees with Sotomayor. in Nordyke v. King, the 9th concluded that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect an individual liberty against infringement by the States.

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

(This represents a split between the 9th Circuit and Sotomayor's 2nd Circuit. Nordyke, if I remember correctly, has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Many analysts believe that the Court will take the case. Thus if Sotomayor is confirmed, she'll be asked to hear an appeal that coud overturn one of her opinions.)

Why do we "cling" to our guns?

So what is it that motivates us clingy gun owners? Why the obsession with guns? This clip from Iran (Be forewarned: This is extremely graphic and disturbing. Do not click the link if you are easily offended.) shows what happens when the government holds a monopoly on violence.

Across Iran, the people have been protesting an obviously fraudulent election. Government thugs, the Basij, have felt free to employ whatever violence they please to put down this growing insurrection. This includes firing on unarmed civilians, such as poor Neda. Reports say that she and her father weren't even involved in the protests, but were merely observing from some distance when she was shot by a sniper. Neda, whose name means "voice" in Farsi, was silenced by her own government.

There are those who will say that "this can never happen here". No, it can't. But why can't it happen here? It can't happen here because our government doesn't hold a monopoly on violence or the means by which one can do violence. More importantly, it knows this and has known it for over 200 years. No American leader would even think of suppressing protests the way that a foreign dictator would. The dictator knows that his subjects are unarmed and can be beaten down in whatever fashion pleases him. In the US, any politician aspiring to similar oppression knows from the start that we aren't unarmed subjects; we're armed citizens. He knows that against even a fraction of the nation's 100,000,000 gun owners, he doesn't stand a chance; thus he wouldn't even try.

Hence the obsession.

But this can change. Gun owners won a major victory in Heller, however that victory can be lost through apathy. If we allow our rights to slip away a little at a time, there may come a time when an American father will have to watch his 16-year old daughter die before his eyes; unable to defend her, fight back, or do anymore than wail in grief for his Neda.

The new and improved NRA web site

Go check out the new NRA web site.

More on Obama and guns

Hugh Hewitt weighs in on Obama and his "I don’t have the votes in Congress" comment...

The idea that Second Amendment rights depend on Congressional inaction due to a lack of votes is the give-away here.  First Amendment rights cannot be curtailed by Congressional Action. Fourth Amendment rights are not subject to majority vote.  Gunowners and originalists wonder why Obama is conceding that majorities in House and Senate can take guns away.

We should point out that Obama is supposedly a ConLaw professor. As such, he should know that Congress doesn't get to vote on what is or isn't a Constitutional right.

So what should we gather from this? Namely that Obama is lamenting the fact that he doesn't have those votes! If he had them, he'd surely dust off that old quote from Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

For a guy who doesn't want to take our guns...

...he sure has a funny way with words:

Obama: "Even if I wanted to take (guns) away, I don’t have the votes in Congress."

A reminder

Our monthly meeting is tonight at 7pm. We've got a lot to talk about this month. Not only is there the Heller decision to talk about (And celebrate!), but there are developments on condors and how the greenies' effort affect those of us who hunt.

(A note: Asking the wait staff "Where's the NRA meeting?" may not be of much use. Not all of them know who we. Just walk on in to the back of the restaurant. We're almost always in the back room on the right as you walk in.)