Archive for the 'Right To Keep and Bear Arms' Category

The Possibility Of A Modern Civil War Is Real

Published
by
Your Liberties
on April 7, 2009
in Anti-Liberal, Conservative, Economy, Liberal, Natural Rights, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Right To Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment
. 13 Comments

A domestic uprising is becoming more of a reality as our rights are threatened by the epic failure that is socialism.  It’s common knowledge that our country is struggling within its own borders.  Conservatives and liberals are at each others throats, and although there was much talk about bipartisanship we have yet to see any inclination this will happen with the democrats holding the majority.  The real question is how bad do things have to get before actions overpower negotiation.

The economy is still garbage, the unemployment rate is 8.5%, and there is active legislation to suppress rights and liberties afforded to us by our founding fathers.  This administration is an embarrassment to society, and society will only take so much before it fights back.  Attempts at negotiation with have proved fruitless, Ann Coulter said it best herself.

Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments.

Its no secret that the financial stability of our country is in jeopardy.  The massive amount of money being poured into the financial sector has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is our pockets.  Its likely going to come from pockets of Americans not yet old enough to have a voice.  Funding the bailouts is like stealing from piggy banks.  There is not an American out there who is not feeling the effect of stupid liberals trying to level the playing field.  Our country was founded around capitalism; keep your filthy hands to yourself.  Obama, in his infinite wisdom was was quoted saying

I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

The only people this is good for is the lazy liberals who have refused to apply themselves and expect to dig in my pocket for “change”.  Try it again and you will pull back a bloody stump.

The national unemployment rate is hovering around 8.5% the highest rate since 1983.  With this many misplaced workers tension is mounting between unemployed citizens and the marxists who think its their job to run this country.  To all Karl following morons who put faith into big government and our current administration, we have news for you, we were given the right by men much wiser than all of you collectively to take you down a peg or two.

A country not focused on free enterprise is doomed to fail, and your unwillingness to admit that will be your demise.  Every public asset has roots in free enterprise, and therefor every argument you can make for socialism is weak.  If you do not stop force feeding us your agenda we will have no choice but to take a defensive stance, and by defensive I mean smear your sorry excuse for an opinion back to London where it came from.  This is not a threat, it is a promise, one that I am allowed to make if you continue to violate my rights.

I am an American, DO NOT TREAD ON ME!

House Bill 228 - Every State Should Follow Suit

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 26, 2009
in Castle Doctrine, Natural Rights, Personal Responsibility, Right To Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment
. 3 Comments

January 30th the House Judiciary Committee passed an amended version of House Bill 228 otherwise known as the Montana Self-Defense Bill.

The original text of HB 228 contained the following provisions:

  • No duty to summon help or flee.  You can read about the Castle Doctrine here.
  • Defensive display of a firearm.  This states that you can open carry a firearm and cannot be charged with brandishing the weapon if you display it for harmless defensive purposes.
  • Landlords and hotel operators may not restrict a tenants rights to defend themselves.
  • Allows law abiding citizens to use reasonable force when executing a citizens arrest when such an arrest is allowed by law.
  • Ensures that claims of self defense are given adequate consideration during investigation.
  • If self defense is claimed in a criminal case then the state and not the defendant must bear the burden of providing evidence to validate or invalidate this claim.
  • Attorney fees must be awarded if self defense is proved in a criminal case.
  • Firearms seized during investigation of a self defense claim must be returned within the defined timelines.
  • Firearms are not to be destroyed if they are not needed as evidence.
  • Employers may not restrict you possessing the tools necessary to defend yourself.

House Bill 228 was amended prior to leaving the House Judiciary Committee and three of the provisions were removed.  The removed provisions are:

  • Attorney fees must be awarded if self defense is proved in a criminal case.
  • Firearms seized during investigation of a self defense claim must be returned within the defined timelines.
  • Employers may not restrict you possessing the tools necessary to defend yourself.

This bill ensures that both your natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and your 2nd Amendment Rights as stated in the Constitution are protected.  It is imperative that this bill passes the senate without further amendments.  The three removed provisions have already taken a bite out of the importance of this bill.

Your Liberties strongly urges you to contact your local representatives and urge them to protect our rights as American citizens by supporting HB 228.  We also strongly urge you to contact your local representatives and advise them that this bill is essential to protect our constitutional and natural rights.

What Is This Country Coming To?

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 12, 2009
in Right To Keep and Bear Arms
. 0 Comments

What is wrong with our administration when an upright, honest, brave, and experienced man is denied the ability to purchase a firearm for the purpose of defense.  This story depicts the trials and tribulations of an Omaha, Nebraska man who was first denied his right to keep and bear arms because he suffers or had suffered from PTSD as a result of serving our nation in Iraq.

First of all, he answered the question regarding being treated for a mental disorder honestly. I would hardly classify seeing a counselor once every 3 months as being “treated”, I see my dentist almost as frequently as this guy sees his counselor, my dentist isn’t treating for any kind of condition, its more preventative maintenance.

He is a vet, he was trusted by our country to train new soldiers to safely fire their weapons in defense of our country.  I don’t believe that an exception can be made based on this fact but we must acknowledge that our armed forces trusts his abilities to handle and operate a firearm.

I commend Mr. Mechaley, he had the determination to seek an appeal on the denial of his application.  He made a very compelling argument relating to sworn duty officers, those who patrol our streets and keep us safe.  Many LEO experience PTSD as a result of incidents that occur while in the line of duty, these officers are still allowed and even required to carry a firearm.  Representatives from the police department did not reject this argument.  Mr. Mechaley also made the suggestion that the permit be reworded to ask the applicant if they have ever been declared mentally impaired, or been comitted to a mental institution.  I would agree that the question need to be revised to remove the vaugness.

I also commend the city of Omaha for overturning the denial.

The problem I really have here is that hoops are put in place and we are made to jump through them in order to obtain a firearm.  I believe there is a hard line than can be drawn in the sand regarding who should and should not be allowed to own a weapon, and our applicant does not fall anywhere near that line.  This is a half hearted attempt at supressing our 2nd ammendment rights and we shall not stand for it.

Dont Take My Assault Weapons Bro!

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 4, 2009
in Obama and Right To Keep and Bear Arms
. 0 Comments

On February 25th Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying

As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Well Obama can take his “assault weapon ban” and shove it up his liberal ass.

First of all lets define an assault weapons as used by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which caries the subtitle of Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

A semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A folding, or telescopic stock.
  • A pistol grip.
  • A bayonet mount.
  • A flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel that may accommodate one.
  • A grenade launcher.

A semi-automatic pistol that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A magazine that attaches to the pistols grip.
  • A threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender, a flash suppressor, a handgrip, or a suppressor.
  • A barrel shroud that could be used as a hand-hold.
  • Has an unloaded weight of more than 50 oz.
  • A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm.

A semi-automatic shotgun with two of more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A folding, or telescopic stock.
  • A pistol grip.
  • Has a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds.
  • A detachable magazine.

Now lets give an assault weapon a more valid definition.

An assault weapon has the following characteristics:

  • It is a single weapon that has the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
  • It must be capable of selective fire.  Be that semi-automatic with the option of burst or fully automatic.
  • It must chambered for an intermediate power cartridge being more than a pistol and less than a standard rifle.
  • Its ammunition must be supplied by a detachable box style magazine.

The definition used by the government for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is ridiculous at best.  I will use one of my favorite rifles of all time for a couple of examples on why I think the feds definition has no substance.  The Ruger 10/22 is a small caliber varmint rifle use for hunting small game and general “plinking”.  This platform is highly customizable with the ability to add a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip, a suppressor, and with a little ingenuity a bayonet mount.  All these items are currently legal and it needs to remain that way.  Is this rifle any more dangerous to the overpopulated prarie dog towns that riddle our country? Not hardly, sure it can have a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a suppressor, but it still fires without any of the above.  The same holds true for one of my other favorite rifles - the AR-15.  It can accept all of the accessories that would classify it as assault rifle according to Obama.  But once again without any or all of the items it still fires - one round per trigger squeeze.

My point is this … assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons ban are no more dangerous than their non Assault Weapon counterparts.  Its the assault weapons as defined by the second definition that scare the ever living hell out of me.

Is a rifle that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull more dangerous than a rifle that can fire only one round per trigger pull?  You bet your ass it is!  These types of weapons have been strictly controlled since the National Firearms Act of 1934.  You can still own and purchase NFA titled weapons manufactured before 1986 but because of the basic economic principle of supply and demand they are much more difficult to find, and they are very expensive.  Economics will keep legal NFA weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them.  An Assault Weapon Ban will not reduce or eliminate the undergound market for illegal NFA weapons which is the real problem, if you think it will then you really are more of a dumbass than you portray yourself to be.

The Castle Doctrine - Your Right To Defend Yourself In Your Home

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 3, 2009
in Castle Doctrine and Right To Keep and Bear Arms
. 3 Comments

These days we hear story after story of people defending themselves in their own homes.  I want to take a look at our rights and responsibilities when confronted by an intruder in our own homes.

The Castle Doctrine, or the Defense of Habitation Law is a derived from English Common Law. The law defines ones home, or in some cases any place that you legally occupy, as a place where you have the liberty to be free from trespass.  It also gives you the right to defend your life, or the life of another who legally occupies the “castle” with deadly force if the situation warrants it.  In a legal proceeding your actions can be defended as justifiable under the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine is currently enforced at the state level, and this is the way it should remain in order to limit the involvement of the federal government.  However not all states have or support the right to defend yourself in your home.  The opposition of the Castle Doctrine is termed the “Duty to Retreat”.

Each state with some form of Castle Doctrine requires that at least of one the following conditions is met (per Wikipedia):

  • An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
  • The intruder must be acting illegally — e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
  • The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
  • The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
  • The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
  • The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the “Duty to Retreat” and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of “Castle Doctrine” expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

The list of states that have no Castle Doctrine are:

  • Iowa
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • District of Columbia

If you live in one of these states, then forgive me, but I am sorry.  According to our Second Amendment as described in the Heller Opinion not having a Castle Doctrine is a violation of this liberty.  We each have the individual right to keep and bear arms for private use (including self-defense).  With any form of Duty to Retreat in place this encroaches on our right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense.  It is not as blatant a violation as the assault weapons ban but requiring you to retreat in any manner is preventing you for defending yourself.  Self preservation is a natural instinct brought out by fear and pain.  I have moral and ethical objections to any law that requires me to keep myself in the presence of a threat when the Second Amendment affords me the right to stop the threat.

As citizens we all have obligations to uphold our constitution.  If you reside in one of the states listed above I urge you to express to your state that not having a Castle Doctrine is a violation of your Second Amendment rights.

I welcome information regarding active petitions to enact a Castle Doctrine in the above states.