Supreme Court Decision on 2nd Amendment Weak on "Shall Not be Infringed"

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gun Owners of America (the only no-compromise gun rights lobby in Washington; see their position on McCain), while applauding the major aspect of the Supreme Court case (in an extremely close 5-4 ruling), also warns that the government is still "infringing", under the despot's plea of "necessity", and Americans should be vigilant to reclaim all of this trampled amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling could be an opportunity to challenge the Constitutionality of the plethora of gun regulations and laws. They state in an email:

In so doing, the Court's decision -- in dissenting Justice Breyers words --"threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

Yes both Tory and Whig parties of our present Parliament, and state and local governments, want to maintain gun regulations and laws, licensing, permits and sales data-bases--i.e. infringement and hurdles by which the government regulates your "rights" in a most hypocritical fashion. The most "conservative" Judge Scalia was careful to keep a lid on the pretended legal government "infringement" laws by adding this in his opinion, as reported in the LA Times:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings," he wrote. The majority opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed or dangerous and unusual weapons, such as machine guns, were not in doubt.

The weakness of the court's very narrow ruling then is evident, regulation still dominates, but the basis for further appeals is now laid.

THE FORGOTTEN CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

In GOA's own legal brief to the Supreme Court, published in part by USA Today below, they included the following, which includes the legal purpose of the 2nd amendment in its historical context--i.e. a last line of defense against tyrannical government (as ironically former Attorney General Ashcroft was quoted as affirming in his confirmation hearing by Sen. Kennedy), including the right to bear all kinds of arms without government permission or restriction:

Opposing view: An unambiguous right

2nd Amendment bars regulation of people’s ability to bear arms.

By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America's Founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense — the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon and powder — actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism."

Entrusting the nation's sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government's military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment's "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals' test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson are attorneys for Gun Owners of America, which filed a brief in the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.

Solution? $2 Gas in 30 Days if Congress Acts

"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals...Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."

Tell Congress to act on this now! Legally limiting financial speculation (oil future's trading) by government regulation would send oil prices down to levels based upon physical supply and demand they claim. One only wonders if this would overcome the devalued dollar which also drives prices up. But they should do it immediately!

The argument of these financial analysts says that the propaganda about needing increased supply is wrong and that OPEC (and even Ahmadinejad's analysis) is correct that speculation in the trading market, dollar devaluation, and geopolitical war fears are driving the price.

It would be irresponsible to delay action on this credible analysis from those in the financial markets who have expertise on speculative trading.

clipped from www.marketwatch.com Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday. Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135. Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets. "Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."

America Becoming Land of Surveillance, West Virginia Too

Charleston surveillance camera

traffic cameras in West Virginia have multiplied

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

--the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

All this increase in surveillance cameras, including in West Virginia, despite a lack of evidence that it is effective, or even evidence (mentioned in article below) that proves it is ineffective from UK studies. (See our previous "surveillance" tagged articles). But the security merchandisers (see WVDOT contractors here) are making a fortune and state and local governments are impulsively spending faster than a woman with a credit card. The source article states this:

P. Freeman said the domestic market for such systems last year had doubled over five years, to $9.2 billion, and estimated that it would more than double again by 2010, to more than $21 billion.

So you as a taxpayer are paying for your loss of liberty (4th amendment rights), while they profit, which is insult to injury. It is worth wondering how many government officials own stock in security companies (either individual stocks or mutual funds), which would be a conflict of interest (perhaps even insider trading) in that lawmakers and officials (including those heading state DMVs and DOTs) also profit through authorizing this spending.

clipped from www.msnbc.msn.com Smile! More and more, you’re on camera Public surveillance video mushrooms despite lack of evidence it works After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, local governments across the country set aside concerns over privacy and installed surveillance cameras in public streets and plazas. Now — even after a damning report by the head of London’s extensive surveillance network and with little evidence that the systems work — police in many cities are trying to add thousands more cameras to their networks. “‘Cameras Everywhere’ continues to be the best description of the trend in the video surveillance market,” security market analysts J.P. Freeman Co. said in a report in 2006 that estimated that a quarter of major U.S. cities were investing in the technology. Officials in many cities are eager to take advantage of money from state and federal security agencies to install the cameras on street corners and intersections

Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran before Inauguration

This neocon with close ties to Israel speaks openly...for Israel. After the election, before inauguration he asserts is their window of opportunity. This would force the next President's hand to control US foreign and war policy beyond the Bush regime. Israel knows how to control the US government and with the neoconservatives in the Pentagon, not just the administration, this is easily done.

Unlike the U.S. and Israel, Iran has never attacked or invaded another country. Only Israel is a credible nuclear threat, and it is they who will spark the war. The U.S. should back off and not get involved. Israel will reap what it sows and they will attempt to drag the U.S. into it despite the fact that the U.S. cannot make a case that it is fighting in self-defense. It is 'entangling alliances' that start world wars. If Israel nukes Iran that would be genocide.

subtitle: former US ambassador speaks for Israel.

clipped from www.telegraph.co.uk Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in. The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said. Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes. Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009. They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar

US House Votes Down 4th Amendment, Warrantless Spying on Americans is Okay

HR6304 - FISA AMENDMENTS ACT
Great video outlining similar abuse http://www.WashingtonYoureFired.com

On June 20, 2008 - 293 Representatives voted in favor to invalidate the 4th Amendment--including Shelly Moore Capito and democrats like Nancy Pelosi.

But before they voted, this is what our leaders in Washington had to say about HR6304



AMENDMENT IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

"A legislative act, contrary to the Constitution, is not law".

--Chief Justice John Marshall

ACT NOW TO BLOCK PASSAGE OF THIS IN THE SENATE, using DownsizeDC.org's legislative contact system with this message:

"Please do everything you can to defeat the Senate version of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Please use your power to filibuster."

Please send this message now, with your personalizing comments added.

McCain's Image Campaign: "I Hate War", You believe me don't you?

Soft, sentimental music plays with this message. Playing now on a TV near you (video also at article source), including in small states like West Virginia as well as those listed as battle grounds . Now this is consistent with McCain's strategy as the article McCain and the Neocon Resurgence points out:

Many observers in Washington believe that McCain intends to pull a shrewd maneuver to enhance his electability by packaging himself as someone who can end the partisan divide in Congress. McCain knows that the Republican Party's conservative base, which mistrusts him, has nowhere else to go in national elections.

This is quite a contrast to his "Bom, bom, bom...bomb, bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys segment here:



Will the real John McCain please stand up? Going into war with Iraq had nothing to do with "keeping the country I love safe", whatsoever, unless you still believe Iraq was behind 9/11 and possessed WMD. These are neoconservative wars (see Pat Buchanan's article here) planned in advance of that "catalyzing event" and "new Pearl Harbor", 9/11, and James Woolsey and Bill Kristol (key neocon and PNAC members) are among his advisers.

McCain's real foreign policy is called rogue state roll-back:

By 1999, in defense of Clinton’s war [ed. which republicans justly criticized, but now forget about when GWB does the same], McCain was declaring, “I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine [not], call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values.”

--i.e. more wars of global revolution and "regime change" for democracy!

clipped from www.cbsnews.com New McCain Ad: "I Hate War" John McCain's campaign has released a new 30-second television ad, "Safe," in which the presumptive GOP presidential nominee discusses his and his family's experiences in war. According to the New York Times, Democrats believe McCain is spending $3 million or more on ads expected to begin running today. McCain is focusing on battleground states: "Democrats monitoring his spending said the commercials would run in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico; beginning on Saturday, he bought time in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania." "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war," McCain, looking directly at the camera from in front of a stark black background, says in the spot. I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. I'm running for President to keep the country I love safe.

West Virginia, Rogue State Formed Unlawfully

"It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. "

-- Pres. Abraham Lincoln

I hold that there is, legally and constitutionally no such state in existence as the state of West Virginia and consequently no senators from such a state. My object is simply to raise a question to be put upon the record, and to have my name as a Senator recorded against the recognition of West Virginia as a state of the United States. I do not believe that the Old Dominion, like a polypus, can be separated into different segments, and each segment become a living constitutional organism in this node. The present state of West Virginia as it has been organized, and as it is seeking representation on the floor of the Senate, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

-- Senator Davis, Kentucky

It was West Virginia Day June 20th. The state was formed illegally by a minority insurrection 145 years ago. Beautiful state, but with an unlawfully formed government. This is lifted from West Virginia's own archives. History records the controversy.

"there is no evidence that the majority of people within the counties which were to compose the new state had ever given its assent to its formation."

Fruits of the Civil War, Old Dominion Virginia was ripped in half. Virginia has never officially recognized the rogue state of West Virginia in law. Lincoln himself called it merely expeditious , not legal.

Lincoln and Congress had no more authority to permit the state anymore than Bush could authorize West Pennsylvania or Northern California.

During the Civil War those who supported the Yankee Union position were called "anti-Virginians". State's rights was greatly trampled which the Constitution itself in the 10th amendment makes plain in order to restrain federal power--a power of an absolute and irresponsible majority (i.e. democracy). It's been rougher ever since in restraining the federal usurpation!

clipped from www.wvculture.org Statehood for West Virginia: An Illegal Act? The admission of West Virginia in the midst of a war was an unusual event in the history of our nation. The circumstances of its admission leaves doubt as to whether the granting of statehood to West Virginia had a basis in law. Shortly thereafter, on May 23, 1861, the Secession Ordinance was ratified overwhelmingly by the people of Virginia. Only 20,373 Virginians voted to stay with the Union, while 125,950 cast votes to join the Confederacy.7 The question arises. Was this new government a sincere effort on the part of loyal Virginians, or was it a subterfuge to enable separatists to set up an entirely new state separate from the parent state? Even after West Virginia was admitted to the Union, Senator Davis of Kentucky objected to seating its Senators in the upper house. President Lincoln had doubts about the legality of admitting West Virginia to the Union. admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession

Arizona Joins the Revolt, Outlaws REAL ID

Next! Liberty is a threatening thing to Homeland Security. If it was really about making drivers licenses secure then the Feds would not care. But it is really about federal power and their matrix of surveillance that they want to construct that is at stake.

West Virginia needs to defend its own and the federal Constitution (4th and 10th amendments), and outlaw and nullify REAL ID in the next legislative session, irregardless of Governor Manchin and the DMV's irresponsible and unjust support of REAL ID, to defend our liberties that began on July 4, 1776.

clipped from www.azcentral.com Napolitano: Real ID a no-go in Arizona Arizona will join roughly a dozen states that have vowed not to participate in federal plans for a uniform standard on state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards. On Tuesday, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a measure, House Bill 2677, barring Arizona's compliance with the Real ID program. In so doing, she called it an unfunded federal mandate that would stick states such as Arizona with a multibillion-dollar bill for the cost to develop and implement the series of new fraud-proof identification cards. HB 2677 is a rare recent example of broad, bipartisan agreement at the state Capitol, with the Democratic governor and GOP-led Legislature finding common ground in their opposition to Real ID. Some of that opposition is grounded in concerns about privacy and government advancement toward a national identification card. For Napolitano, the biggest issue is related to Real ID's costs for the states.