http://townhall.com/…

Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don’t dare say this publicly since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them “rights.” While some of these “rights” make sense in order to prevent the government from falsely imprisoning innocent people, at some point there is a line where these specified additional “rights” for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans.

So even though we all know the Guantanamo detainees have been aiding and abetting terrorists whose sole goal in life is to kill U.S. citizens, we pretend that the U.S. Constitution includes all these additional “rights” for terrorists and their aiders and abettors, ultimately enabling them to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens.

Many of the anti-terrorism methods being attacked by civil libertarians involve new methods and areas of communication never addressed nor contemplated by the Constitution or Congress. Claims that our freedoms are gradually being eroded by the government’s attempts to deal with terrorism are inaccurate since these new areas had never been established as constitutional rights for those accused of terrorist activity.

The Constitution doesn’t establish rights. It is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights merely explicitly points out particular things Congress can not do. Madison and others thought the original 12 amendments were pointless due to the nature of the Constitution. Negatives rights and enumerated powers.

Congress has passed laws attempting to reconcile changing technologies with the Fourth Amendment’s vague general protection against “unreasonable” searches and seizures – emphasis on unreasonable.

Changes in technology are of little or no matter. “Unreasonable”… without reason. If you want to search and/or seize the 4th Amendment explains how to legally do so. It clearly includes “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If these “terrorists” are found to have done harm or clearly intended harm on another then by all means. However, you can’t go and justify the search or seizure after the fact. And note how she calls these people terrorists outright rather then accused terrorists. I don’t even think accused terrorist is appropriate as there has been no evidence they actually performed any act of terrorism. Likely they are wannabe terrorists at best. Which in and of itself is no crime. Not a real crime but one of thought.

Just received this from Gun Owners of America:

Friday, December 12, 2008

As early as Monday, December 15, the state senate could vote on a One-Handgun-A-Month bill.

This bill, S1774, is a gun ban — pure and simple.

It is imperative that you register your opposition right away. Sure, your senator might claim this is not much of an imposition. “Who needs more than one handgun in a month,” he might say.

But your senator needs to realize that we have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. If the legislature can limit your right to buy a handgun to one a month, then they can limit it to one a half-year… or one a year… or one a lifetime!

There is not much time. Again, the bill could come up as soon as this Monday.

ACTION: Please urge your state senator to OPPOSE S1774. You can go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/SelectMun.asp to identify your Senator. Then, after selecting the correct legislator, you will be taken to a
webform where you can make your voice heard. A pre-written letter is provided below which you can either copy-and-paste into the webform or use as a basis for your own message.

You can see the bill at:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/S2000/1774_I1.HTM

The bill also restricts sale of a handgun to a “person possesses and exhibits a valid permit to purchase a firearm and at least seven days have elapsed since the date of application for the permit.” Given that can take upwards of 10 months for the application I don’t see what this is for.

Section a. (7) amending N.J.S.2C:58-2 is where you’ll find the 30 day limit:

(7)   A dealer shall not knowingly deliver more than one handgun to any person within any 30-day period.

It’s repeated in section i.

i.      Restriction on number of firearms person may purchase. Only one handgun shall be purchased or delivered on each permit [, but a] and no more than one handgun shall be purchased within any 30-day period,

…

A person shall not be restricted as to the number of rifles or shotguns he may purchase, provided he possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card and provided further that he signs the certification required in subsection b. of this section for each transaction.

I notice too in the bill that the 30 day turn around for purchaser permits is still in place.

Granting of permit or identification card; fee; term; renewal; revocation.  The application for the permit to purchase a handgun together with a fee of [$2.00] $2, or the application for the firearms purchaser identification card together with a fee of [$5.00] $5, shall be delivered or forwarded to the licensing authority who shall investigate the same and, unless good cause for the denial thereof appears, shall grant the permit or the identification card, or both, if application has been made therefor, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application for residents of this State and within 45 days for nonresident applicants.

Perhaps the New Jersey State Police could be informed of this.

Note that there is no requirement for letters of recommendation as part of the application for a permit. Letters of recommendation, besides the State criminal check which should only take minutes, have been the longest parts of the application process. Both getting them in the hands of the people requested (upwards of two months from issuing the application; the police departments fault) and getting them back to the department (partially my fault but letters were supposed lost in the mail or forms rejected).

e.     Applications.  Applications for permits to purchase a handgun and for firearms purchaser identification cards shall be in the form prescribed by the superintendent and shall set forth the name, residence, place of business, age, date of birth, occupation, sex and physical description, including distinguishing physical characteristics, if any, of the applicant, and shall state whether the applicant is a citizen, whether he is an alcoholic, habitual drunkard, drug dependent person as defined in section 2 of P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-2), whether he has ever been confined or committed to a mental institution or hospital for treatment or observation of a mental or psychiatric condition on a temporary, interim or permanent basis, giving the name and location of the institution or hospital and the dates of such confinement or commitment, whether he has been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition, giving the name and location of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the dates of such occurrence, whether he presently or ever has been a member of any organization which advocates or approves the commission of acts of force and violence to overthrow the Government of the United States or of this State, or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution of either the United States or the State of New Jersey, whether he has ever been convicted of a crime or disorderly persons offense, whether the person is subject to a restraining order issued pursuant to the “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991,” P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et. seq.) prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, and such other information as the superintendent shall deem necessary for the proper enforcement of this chapter.  For the purpose of complying with this subsection, the applicant shall waive any statutory or other right of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement.  The application shall be signed by the applicant and shall contain as references the names and addresses of two reputable citizens personally acquainted with him.

The punishment is as follows:

A buyer or seller who violates the provisions of the amended bill would be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.  Fourth degree crimes are punishable by imprisonment of up to 18 months, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

I’m sure most people have heard about this already but here is a collection of information about what’s going on.

• Ron Paul talks with Tom Abrahams on ABC 13
• Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty
• Campaign for Liberty’s YouTube channel

If you are in anyway a supporter of liberty and freedom, if you are a supporter of Ron Paul or anything he stands for, please signup to become a member of the Campaign for Liberty to be kept up to date on the second phase in the Ron Paul Revolution. We are looking to get 100K before September 2nd. You can read the mission statement, strategy and statement of principles at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/.

There is also a blog [RSS feed] manned Trevor Lyman who helped rally people around the moneybomb concept and Michael Nystrom of Daily Paul.

I think this is a wonderful direction for Paul to take. He has no reason to continue his campaign now that all the votes are in. He can take his money and continue the momentum that his campaign has created which was what worried me the most.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/…

Gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association won a victory today with the Florida House’s passage of a contentious bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work.

The measure (HB 503) is a watered-down version of what the NRA had hoped for but is seen as a compromise that the Senate is also expected to sign off on.

Under the proposal, employees and visitors who have state-issued concealed weapons licenses would be able to bring their weapons to work and leave them locked in their vehicles.

The measure would exempt certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, defense-related businesses and those that deal with explosive materials.

Also exempted would be company-owned or leased cars.

The business community, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, has vigorously objected to the measure, saying it pits the property rights of employers against the Second Amendment rights permitting guns.

Thing is… gun rights are a subset of property rights. An individual can set whatever rules they wish for their property. If the employer doesn’t want employees to carry guns they don’t carry guns else they have no right to be on the property. There is no such thing as “Second Amendment rights.” The second Amendment says: “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 delegates rights? It assumes a preexisting right to keep and bear arms and indicates the federal government may not infringe that right. They don’t permit guns… they disallow Congress from not permitting guns.

This is the problem with the NRA. They aren’t disciplined. They agree to all sorts of gun control laws and then pull this kind of crap.

Gun Owners of America is a much better organization.

http://www.downsizedc.org/…

Yesterday, 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 independent voted to violate the Constitution and their oaths of office. Only 28 Democrats, 1 independent, and ZERO Republicans remained true to their oaths. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called “Protect America Act.”* It permits the President to spy on Americans without a warrant.
* It grants retroactive immunity to tele-communications companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in previous warrantless spying, thereby creating an incentive for other companies to engage in similar crimes in the future (only Qwest Communications insisted on warrants).

All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions. Fortunately, the House version of this bill, while not perfect, is signficantly better. Our best hope, and we must take it, is to tell the House to stick by their version of the bill.

You can go here and use DownsizeDC’s services to send a form letter against this issue to your congressmen. If the Congress and administratation believe the wiretaps were not illegal than why would they need to worry about lawsuits? John McCain voted for this. Continently Senator Clinton and Obama missed this vote. Paul issued this statement on it on January 30th.