YAHOO NEWS: Supreme Court could take guns case

.

STOPLYING.CA DOCUMENTARY FILM:

Mass Murderers Agree - Gun Control Works!

Nobody wants a shooting war with their own government.

But if your government decides to take guns away from innocent people...

You'd better believe they want a shooting war with you.

WATCH AND SHARE NOW - http://stoplying.blip.tv/

.

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
PH: 703-321-8585
FX: 703-321-8408
goamail@gunowners.org

Who Is GOA?

"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

.

Yahoo! News

Supreme Court could take guns case

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

* Email Story
* IM Story
* Printable View

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

.

www.gunowners.org/a103007.htm

Oct 2007

Senate Considering Treaty That Could Affect Gun Rights

-- Ask your Senators to support the "Second Amendment Protection" Amendment

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

It turns out that Washington might soon be giving an arm of the United Nations jurisdiction over the import, export, and oceanic transport of GUNS and AMMUNITION.

You would think that even Washington politicians would not be so stupid as to give people like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Burma's despotic military junta, the Sudan's genocidal strongmen, or Cuba's Fidel Castro the right to interfere with our Second Amendment rights on American soil, right?

Well, what makes sense to the common person isn't always the reality in Washington.

The Senate Foreign Relations committee will soon be debating the ratification of a treaty that bears the appropriate acronym of LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty). LOST would put the ocean's resources in the hands of the UN's International Seabed Authority -- and yes, that spells trouble for our Second Amendment rights.

First, there are concerns that the International Seabed Authority might close firing ranges based on the bogus argument that runoff from these ranges pollutes the world's oceans.

This battle over lead run-off is one that gun owners have already fought in this country. We shudder to think that we could one day find ourselves fighting this battle at the global level as well!

But, even more frightening, Article 88 of the treaty stipulates that the high seas are "reserved" for peaceful purposes. And this provision would be enforced by the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

What does this mean? It clearly doesn't mean that the U.S. or any other country is going to shut down its navy. But, on the other hand, it would be foolish to assume that the UN will not eventually try to use this provision to prohibit the oceanic transport of all firearms and ammunition -- except, of course, for guns and ammo bound for murderous dictators.

Make no mistake: The United Nations is composed of hoards of heavily-armed genocidal tyrants. And the last thing these people want is for firearms and ammunition to fall into the hands of "peons" like you and me.

And the UN has shown no reluctance to try to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty and interfere with our Second Amendment rights. Just consider the several attempts they have made over the last decade to sucker the United States into a binding treaty that would call for greater gun control restrictions inside our own country.

Peter Leitner, who was the Representative to the Law of the Sea negotiations in Geneva during the 1970s and a key witness at the hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, is not only an authority on the LOST treaty, he is concerned about the danger it poses to individual rights

He says, "The inherent danger in this Treaty is the fact that nothing is set in stone and broad matters of interpretation will be the province of the 'one-nation/one-vote' Assembly.� We will have no leverage, veto-power, etc., in that forum."��

And then there's the term "Peaceful Purposes" in the treaty. Leitner says that this is "one of those extraordinarily vague terms that lend themselves to political manipulation."

If the US can claim that LOST allows US ships to board foreign ships and look for weapons of mass destruction, he argues, "then other nations can interdict cargoes they find offensive as well.� I think the [Second Amendment] gun guys have a very legitimate concern!"

Another opponent of this treaty is John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton almost single-handedly kept the US from signing onto anti-gun treaties sponsored by the UN. Now he is making the rounds on Capitol Hill, reportedly lobbying conservative senators against LOST.

ACTION: Write your senator. Tell him not to vote to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty until the following amendment is adopted:

Article 88 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Notwithstanding anything in this treaty to the contrary, no action shall be taken under this treaty which would impede the export, transport, or import of small arms and ammunition into the United States for the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States."

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Article 88 of the Law of the Sea Treaty stipulates that the high seas are "reserved" for peaceful purposes.

This clearly doesn't mean that the U.S. or any other country is going to shut down its navy. But, on the other hand, it could mean that the UN will eventually try to use this provision to prohibit the oceanic transport of all firearms and ammunition -- except, of course, for guns and ammo bound for murderous dictators. And enforcement will be in the hands of the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

The United Nations is composed of hoards of heavily-armed genocidal tyrants. And the last thing these people want is for firearms and ammunition to fall into the hands of "peons" like law-abiding American citizens.

And the UN has shown no reluctance to try to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty and interfere with our Second Amendment rights.

This is on top of concerns which have already been raised that the International Seabed Authority might close firing ranges based on the bogus argument that runoff from these ranges pollutes the world�s oceans.

As a result, I would ask you to vote against the Law of the Sea Treaty unless and until the following amendment is adopted:

Article 88 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Notwithstanding anything in this treaty to the contrary, no action shall be taken under this treaty which would impede the export, transport, or import of small arms and ammunition into the United States for the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States."

I eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,
****************************

Hit The Right Target!

Give to Gun Owners Foundation through the CFC using Agency Number 10042

In many federal offices there are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressures to give to the Combined Federal Campaign. Your boss may think his prestige depends upon getting everyone to kick in. The same thing happens in all too many corporations during the United Way fundraising drive.

You may have wanted to give but couldn�t find a group that wasn't attacking your rights, let alone defending them, on the list of participating organizations. But that has all changed!

Federal employees now are able to designate Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) as the recipient of their gifts to the Combined Federal Campaign. Use AGENCY NUMBER 10042 for Gun Owners Foundation when you make your Combined Federal Campaign pledge or donation. Your gifts will go toward helping our legal assistance program protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans across the nation.

Also, if you work for a company that participates in the United Way, you too, may be able to designate that your gift be to Gun Owners Foundation. Many local United Way Campaigns allow Gun Owners Foundation to participate through their Donor Choice Programs. Some, however, do not. Check with your local United Way Agency. You will not only be helping people and protecting your rights, but you will also get a tax deduction.

http://www.gunowners.org/a103007.htm

.

“The Inconvenient Truth” is that charging us for exhaling CO2 is the dumbest scam on earth.

Plus they won't say what they're actually "doing" with the money to save the earth, meaning they're just using our money to make themselves more money.

This hoax was created by The Club of Rome futurist think-tank, and revealed in their book “The First Global Revolution” published back in the 1970’s.

Like most cabals they’re long-term planners, we’ve seen their plans unfold, and we can see their plans exposed.

.

In lieu of “wars” usually used to scare people into fighting and surrendering, The Club of Rome was looking for way to scare the whole world into coming together for their ends, and settled on “man-made global warming” to get us blaming each other and agreeing to accept a global government to save the planet.

The “Kyoto Protocols” and other treaties have already committed the people of countries worldwide to pay global taxes to a global taxation body.

.

Who do we pay taxes too?

Government.

Who do we pay global taxes too?

Global Government.

.

Infowars.com

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'

Newsbusters | November 9, 2007
Noel Sheppard

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let's hope so, John; let's hope so.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_weather_channel_founder_warming_is_greatest_scam.htm

.

Peace, (NOW!!!)
BK

_______________________

...

Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy - http://blackkrishna.blogspot.com/

Music - http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/blackkrishna.htm

MySpace - http://www.myspace.com/blackkrishnaverse

YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/CrackKrishna

NewsNowPublic - http://members.nowpublic.com/black_krishna

YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/MPVij

Archive - http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Black%20Krishna

...