Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

DC changes handgun laws

June 24, 2009 by  

DC changes handgun lawsIn order to avoid a lawsuit, the Washington DC government has issued new regulations that expand the number of models of handguns that residents can own.

The federal lawsuit was filed in March by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf of three individuals who wanted guns that were not on the city’s existing list. Those who had been previously denied an opportunity to register their handguns will be invited to reapply under the new guidelines, SAF says.

"[T]he city had been disqualifying certain handguns based on such factors as color, even though they functioned identically to approved models," commented SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "This [ruling] ends that nonsense."

According to the Washington Post, the expanded list contains at least 1,000 additional types and models of handguns. In addition to permitting guns in the District that are legal in California, the city will also allow residents to apply to register handguns that are permissible in Massachusetts and Maryland.

Last year, in the District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to strike down the city’s three-decades-old handgun ban as unconstitutional.

Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “DC changes handgun laws”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • John

    All I have to say is if everyone was mandated to carry a gun no one would dare break a law and crime would decrease. It seems crazy, but if you knew that the old lady standing next to you was packing heat would you dare try to steal her purse? Or if you knew that everyone in a bank had a gun would you rob the bank? The idea that taking guns away from law abiding people some how reduces crime is a farce, the bad people still have them because they have contempt of law anyways.

    • http://N/A JIM

      Its an Obamanation

      • SUSANM


        • Gene Tolar


          • SiliconDoc

            Shall not be infringed.

            Is clear enough to anyone, but the tyrannists have decided otherwise.
            Gotta love the article as well – DC may have up to 1000 different guns on their list, but then one has to make an application to own one – and the article doesn’t state if DC okayed 3 applications or 4 so far.

            It appears our modern tyrannists have decided the Constitution actually says :
            Shall be infringed upon in any and all cases, no matter what, and is punishable by many years in state and federal prison and immense fines and complete repeal of any possibility of any right for the rest of ones days, which was never granted in the first place.

            I am so disgusted by the way this nation is turning into a piece of dictatorial communist, marxist, socialist fascist crap.

            What the hell does : SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED mean to these hellbound knotheads?

    • kevin

      Even if no gun laws existed, it is our human right to protect ourselves in face of adversity. Most religious people say to turn the other cheek, but, what if that cheek belonged to our threatened kids ? The police are no help in protecting us. I live in a small town where the police are around 5 minutes from my doorstep. But, as you well can imagine, a lot can happen in five minutes.
      If the government would just crack down on illegals, and those that wish to do harm on others, it could easily be accomplished by enforcing already existing laws. The history of our country is made by those that believe in god, or at least the idea of something better than ourselves, and firearms.
      If our society comes down to guns being banned totally, I’m all for creating a self defense course in the ancient art of the use of swords. I’ll glady pick up a ‘Gladius’ and use it if I have to.

      • Neil

        Even Jesus said “He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’ ” (Luke 22:36)

        • Ralph

          Hi Neil

          Jesus Christ never intended for the righteous (those who believe on him) to live at the mercy of the unrighteous. What Christ is teaching in this passage, we have the right to defend ourselves against those who seek to rob, steal, kill, or destroy us through unrighteous living.


      • debra

        Oh no…way too messy!! Just blow the damn heads off and be done with.

      • Roy A

        It does not matter where you live it is like the saying that on our Deputies said “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away”. So “support your right to keep and bear arms” if you want to and do not try to take my right away from me if you choose not to. After people register their weapons they will know that they have them and it will be easier to come get them.

    • Craig

      Pretty Boy Floyds Cookson Hills Gang,OK robbed a Eureka Springs,Ark Bank at noon one day in the in the 20′s before gun carry was outlawed. All the robbers were shot ,& killed onsite by bank personnel or citizens .Two were tracked down in the & killed in the city limits. Only one driver made it to prison, his tires were shot out & he hit a pole. No citizens were injured.and the episode was applauded in the national news.
      The good ol days …

    • http://Personallibertys Tom

      Thank you John! Now why is that so hard for our elected officals tounderstand that!

    • DaveH

      I agree, but rather than mandate that everyone carry, just let those that want to carry.
      It’s ironic to me that I’ve heard the major networks ragging on people for not coming to someone’s defense when a knife-wielding thug is attacking that victim, yet at the same time they’re doing all that they can to make us defenseless.

    • http://naver Brady

      Hello everyone. I just want to say that the ones crying about their 2nd Amendment rights should try to ubderstand what it really means. It does grant us the right to bear arms, but it is for the maintaining of a well regulated militia in each state (You can read this from any history textbook in our schools today.).
      I have 4 kids and none of them have to carry guns to protect themselves. I served with the military for 20 years so my kids know what guns can do to the human body. I’ve told them certain things about Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve raised my kids to think before doing anything and to live trying to do what is right in the eyes of God and our laws. I do not agree with what Neil said about Jesus. Jesus said these things so that scriptures would be fulfilled dealing with his crucifixion, not about owning weapons. Please study these things before you speak and people will believe you more than they do now. My kids know it is their right, but since this right has limitations to it, therefore it is not a right at all. It is a priviledge to own a weapon. Someone said that the bad people have them, so we should too? This is about the same mentality that Kim Jung Il is using in North Korea with his nuclear missiles. If you own a weapon (gun) that’s fine, just make sure that it is legal and it is a type you can own. We don’t need assult rifles being carried by people on the street for protection. Take it from a 20 year decorated combat veteran. If you have any replies, please make them in good taste.

      Brady “Samurai”
      U. S. Army, retired

      • John

        First I would like to thank you greatly for serving our country. I salute you for your service.

        As for the Second Amendment, this is what it 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.”

        We all know that (and seem to forget) that the Constitution starts with “We the people…” The second amendment is actually two parts. The militia is to be regulated and necessary for a free and secure state. The second part is the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The way I read it these are completely different thoughts.

        I also would like to point out that you are correct, about your comment “You can read this from any history textbook in our schools today.” However when you consider that textbooks are being watered down and the purpose of historical events are slowly being eroded into new ways of thinking it is apparent that many of those “history books” include less important facts about the underlying history of the world and our nation. In some cases only facts that pertain to a particular point of view are often included in history books in schools. More or less what I am trying to say is school history books are often abbreviated versions of history and often do not include all the facts. A recent example of this is my daughter was studying about Israel was created by the UN, and how the United States has (Traditionally been the biggest supporter of the country) and how the Muslim nations hate us for that reason. It was brief, and true, but the real reason why the Muslim nation hates us has to go back more than 4000 years!. The truth is Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Issac was Abraham’s Legitimate son from his wife Sara, As it turns out Issac is considered to be the Father of the Jewish Nation (or Israel). On the other side Ishmael was the illegitimate son of Abraham and Sara’s hand maiden Hagar. According to the customs of the day Abraham’s inheritance was to go to his legitimate son which would be Issac. This of course leads to envy of the sons of Ishmael, and when Israel was recreated in 1948, and the reason why the Muslims hate us.

        In short the History book was correct, but school history books often do not completely explain why or how things happened and can easily be twisted or changed in a way that is technically accurate, but can give wrong impressions because of their brevity.

        It could be argued that the second amendment is only one thought, but if you read many of the other amendments (within the bill of rights) they often appear to what we would consider “run on sentences” in today’s language. Interestingly the first example of a period within a paragraph that is not at the end of the paragraph is actually found in amendment 12. The reason for this is unclear as I really have not sat down to study why they are written in this way. I suspect it was the current practice of the day.

        My point is school history books may regard the Second amendment as a means of having and regulate Militias, ultimately that is only half of the amendment.

        I wholeheartedly agree with you about the assault rifles and fully automatic weapons being carried by “the people.” I do not see any need to actually own or posses one of these weapons, unless you are a collector. And those weapons in collectors hands should be made inactive.

        Interestingly I do not own any weapons…


        • Stan

          Very well said. I would like to reference a book that will put all the Second Amendment militia armed only theories to rest.
          It is called THE FOUNDER’S SECOND AMENDMENT Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.
          This book is based on the Founder’s own statements as revealed in newspapers, correspondence,debates and resolutions from 1768 to 1826.
          This book is worth every penny and will lay to rest the question of individual right to bear arms. You are right in stating that the Second Amendment is in two parts. The founders of the Second Amendment knew how important it was to also maintain a well regulated militia along with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
          NUFF SAID,

        • http://personallibertydigest doug

          There points I agree with and disagree with in Johns communication. But I would like to point out the difference between a militia and an army. Websters definition of a militia states, a part of an organized armed forces of a country liable to be called only in an emergency. / a body of citizens organized for military service. / the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service. The emphasis is on ,a body of citizens organized. They may in an emergency be called to arms by their government. Webster goes on to define an army as, a large body of personnel trained for war,/ a unit capable of independent action, consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxilary troops./ a complete military organization of a nation for land warfare. / a body of persons organized to advance a cause. The emphasis of this definition is the organization, the leadership, directed by that government. It is plain to me that a militia would be ineffectual without some kind of assault rifle, and that the citizens being given the right to bear arms should be allowed under this provision be allowed to prepare themselves for such action. Doug

      • queenieAZ

        I belong to the VFW,NRA,GOA, & a militia in MO.I think that the states should have a well regulated militia, they don`t. A few do, but the one in MO. petered out.Maybe that should be priority.We are all running around like chickens with our heads cut of.Spewing about what the government is doing or not doing.Perhaps if the states that were pro-gun organized a militia, we would have some defense against the states that are anti-gun???It seems to me that the most pro are the southern, & anti are the northern, another civil war :) There is one in AZ, but too far away for me to join.

  • Richard Pawley

    This is true and the media never seems to report on the number of crimes prevented because someone owned a gun. Additionally, as I point out in my new book, “In the year prior to the ban on personal self-defense in Washington, D.C. just over 60% of all murders there were by guns but after the ban, when only the criminals could have guns, the percentage rose so that thirty years later the percentage of murders by guns in the “murder capital of the country” had risen to over 80%”

    “…This should not have been ‘news’ as Ireland first banned handguns four years before Washington, D.C. and the murder rate by gun rose damatically, and over the years was well over twice what it was when citizens could defend themselves. In 1998 England and Wales got the bright idea that their citizens would be better off if they too were unable to defend themselves from crimnals and they banned guns. The rate of crime by guns really took off and increased 340% in the seven years following what I call these ‘support your local criminals’ laws. I lost all interest in even visiting there after that.”

    As I pointed out in “The Last Days of the Late Great United States” those in Washingon, D.C. still cannot protect their business or stores with a gun.

  • http://comcast Frank King

    It is a known fact that places like Florida and Texas where the people can carry gun legally have a low crime rate compared to places like Maryland, D.C,and Detroit which have strict gun laws (which aren’t enforced enough by the way).
    It makes sense that if a criminal doesn’t know who has a gun on them, they are less likely to start anything.
    Some people, legistlatures and governors refuse to acknowledge this fact. It is easier to make more laws that we don’t need. If they would also enforce the death penalty like they mean it, that would help. Baltimore where I used to live has the second highest murder rate in the country has some strick gun laws. However, they don’t enforce strong penalties for law breakers. The governor is trying to get rid of the lame death penalty they have now and do away with it completely. I am sure that will lower crime… right!!

    • DaveH

      I do believe that gun-control would be better for the leaders, as it would make it harder for the citizens to rise up if government got out of control. I also believe that most of the leaders only care about themselves. So the only way we can keep our freedom is to vigorously spread the information about which leaders are voting against our freedoms and vote those suckers out of office. That is the only way to make them care about us. One great resource for keeping our gun freedom is “”.
      When it comes to crime, I’m not really sure that the government has a big incentive to combat it. Think of all the money that is made by the system for each criminal. The lawyers make money, the court makes money, the prison system makes money, the media makes money. If they give them the death sentence, then how are they going to make money on them?

  • Dewayne in Texas

    Well everybody has heard this one, When gun’s are out lawed only outlaw’s will have gun’s. The ban on semi automatic assault cover’s to many weapon’s.Sure the gov. can ban these from us,but the crook’s will still have and get fully automatic weapon’s that we cannot get or own unless you have a FFL,( federal firearm license) The way i feel is we need our weapon’s because the police can’t be everywhere at one time, i don’t want to have to shoot someone but i don’t want to be a victim either.When it come’s to protecting my family i will do any and everything to protect them even if it mean’s killing someone.My weapon for home defence is a 12 gauge shotgun with a 18 1/2 inch barrel,you don’t have to a sharpshooter with it. P.S. God Bless America and our Troop’s here and over sea’s. If can read this thank a Teacher and if you can read this in English thank a Solder.

  • mike

    when you have only seconds to live a cop is only minutes away. they cant be everywhere all the time. the right to carry should be like a drivers license
    good in any state. crime would surely decrease, but what do i no im not a
    govt official

  • John Leek

    My friend who has a tocarry permit in many states, was visiting us last night and said in Illinois he cannot take a handgun into his mother in laws house for protection.

    • Will Wallace

      No worries, a good stout club should be enoungh to protect him from his mother in law. :)

      • John Leek

        Good Reply!

      • Paul

        My Mother-in-Law was a sweetheart but when she was mad she was mad.

  • Ken

    Consider gun control laws. It is clear that governments don’t care about disarming criminals. Their real objective is to harass and eventually disarm law abiding citizens. It is the free citizen whom they fear because he might resist their ambition of total control. Gun control laws have no effect on criminals, since they are professional law breakers.

  • RobertW

    All I want to know is how mch longer ia America going to sut around and let our rights taken away from us. Right now my son i sitting in the Phoenix Jail with 2 counts of assault with a deadly weapon. His mother had been backed up in the door by one of their nieghbors who had already been in a fight with other nieghbors this week. My son was in fear of his mother’slife and his so he picked up the rifle I had given him and opened the door so his mother could get in the apartment and away from the idiot who was theating his mom and where he could protect her from him. He never went out their apartment. The police arrested him and he is jail with an $18,000 bond and this other guy is sitting at home laughing. Is this justice? This is not the justice my son or I served our country for. I am for closing the borders and give back the rights of Americans. The 2nd Revolution is close at hand.

    • DaveH

      You should contact “” or the “Institute for Justice”. If they can’t help your son, they could probably at least refer you to a good lawyer.

    • QueenieAZ

      Your son is in jail in AZ for protecting his mother??? Doesn`t sound like AZ.If this happened in Phoenix, I can see it.I think they are paranoid about guns now, with the increase in NRA or,they might help.I live in no. west AZ.Every one has guns here, they can be carried open without a permit !!! I have a CCW, but I seldom carry.Sorry about your son

  • Tiwap

    Look at what’s happening in Australia as we speak. There crime rate is “shooting” upwards because of their gun ban. This is a no brainer, and you can be sure if the government tries to take guns from Texas there will be a battle. It should be that way in every state of our union. WAKE UP PEOPLE….


    Register your handguns and your asking for trouble, the criminals are the one’s to be registered and then they can be to ones monitored, those who are legal citizens need to enforce the real laws that deal with preventing real crime not made up laws tha harrass to common citizen and their rights.

    If you are a knife collector te legilative pimps are now going to punish all those who use quick opening knives and knives that can be opened with one hand, why? It will not stop the criminal but will restrict all kinds of legal citzens that have need of or collect these knives their right to own them or collect them, again punish the legal but do not identify the criminal element and use the law as a preventive tool for the good of those who follow the law. We are in possession of far to many career politicians, they are in office for to long without being monitored, many of our state legislatures are full time, they need to be part time. All elected offices held need to have moritoriums between political offices and political appointments, they need to have yearly public audits on their earnings and they too need their campaign contributions taxed at a 50% rate. These are things that give politicians a real purpose to want to serve the public instead of rule it as we have now, it is past time to allow this type of inconsiderate behavior to continue, we need to put a stop to it.

  • DixieConnie

    The opening statement of this article: Residents CAN own. What? CAN?
    Charley Reese writes:
    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. If politicians are against deficits, why do we have deficits? If there are against high taxes and inflation, why do we have high taxes and inflation? Where are ALL of these problems starting and ending? We all need to consider who is up in Washington and IF we want this continue. “We the People”. I don’t care what party, they all stink of Greed.

  • PAT


    • http://Personallibertys Tom


  • LOL


    • DaveH

      You would have been saying that in 1939, I’ll bet. Is ridicule your only weapon? Can’t you come up with intelligent points?

      • LOL

        I would have also said it in 1775 and took up arms to defend my country. Some people were asleep then too…or maybe afraid and willing to accept their life being dictated.

    • ROTFL

      They are not just coming –THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • LAConfidential

    Criminals LOVE gun control. It makes their work so much easier! Government and the big-banking interests love gun control too. It makes the masses much more easier to control when they decide on new ways to rape more money out of us.

    • Dortha Strobel

      Look who is making all the gun control laws, I think 90% of polititians ARE criminals!!!! Stealing with sneaky laws added on to decent laws, money, & freedoms.When are enough people going to wake up to be able to control our government, instead of letting the government try to control us???????

    • ROTFL

      “The world is full of funny men. Some will rob you with a six gun — some with a fountain pen.” — W. Guthrie

  • c c

    Well here we are FELLOW AMERICANS,did you ever dream that we would have a SOCIALIST MARKIST GROUP running our country. I can understand the ones who voted for him because he is black but all the educated people who voted for him is mind boggling. Now they want Americans like us to do there dirty work stop them from taking away there rights.It is time for a change and we better take a GOOD LOOK at where this group of idiots is taking this country, this great country was created WITH GOD,GUNS AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE

    • Robin from Indiana

      I agree! The way things are, it will take decades to undo what he and his administration have done. So many are still blinded to what is happening. WAKE UP AMERICA!

  • Al. Rebel

    The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the second amendment.It is there for a reason and not just useless words.You need to ask yourself why certain groups are out to have it removed and disarm the Anerican people.What are they afraid of ???Also remember that people that have the right to own arms are free men,those that don’t are just subjects.The choice is yours.

  • Al. Rebel

    Is this really about “gun control” or is it more like the the real intention of “people control”.

  • oneollrrp

    Nobama lied and the sheep followed. When Mclame named Sarah as his running mate is when I finally donated to the Repubs. They may be troubled but they are the only realistic chance at defeating the Demosocialists. What is this crap about registering your guns? Big mistake. Do not let the Demosocialists know what you have or how many. The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to that and its none of governments business. I didn't get my Purple Heart so almost commies can tell me what to do.

    • Guy N.

      In case you hadn’t noticed, the politicians don’t seem to give a crap about your 2nd Amendment rights or any others, for that matter. Their only concern is total control of the masses.

  • kevin

    I am a ex millitary, and it pains me to see what is happening to our country. I believed in the flag, the constitution and it’s people. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. I fear that the end times maybe upon us, and perhaps those that deserve to be punished in the end, will get their just deserts.
    Someone had once made the comment that all this stuff is happening to get a rise out of us, so the government can declare marshal law and we would then loose all our freedoms. That is one reason why the government wants to disarm us. I wonder how long things will go, before a second revolution happens. In the constitution, the government is supposed to fear and respect us, not the other way around.

    • AZqueenie

      I think I`ve heard something about veterans having to be of sound mine to own guns??? They were OK to fight & die for our country, but they were trained to fight & die, maybe the government is afraid of a populous army of trained men & women???

    • DaveH

      They don’t respect us because most people are too lazy to investigate what the issues are all about. Those people vote for candidates based on their color or attractiveness, and usually make little effort to find out how their chosen candidates have voted in the past. For instance, Obama has voted consistantly anti-gun and all he had to do was say he wasn’t anti-gun and his followers were gaga.
      Also, the sheep have to wake up and realize that there is no free-lunch. After the economy has been trashed by the vote-buyers the lesser-skilled people will probably be the ones who suffer most as they are usually the least capable of taking care of themselves.
      There are terrific resources on the web to find out who your legislators are and how they voted on various issues, but it does take a little effort.

      • DixieConnie

        I call, I write, I fax and still they pass the bills that it appears no ONE wants to have passed, i.e. Cap & Trade. So Now What? I don’t know what else we can do if we continue to say no and they continue to say yes.

        • DaveH

          I don’t know what state you live in Dixie, but if it’s in the Northeast, there is a good chance that your voice is drowned out by the brainwashed liberal masses. With respect to Cap and Trade, it was passed narrowly (219 to 212) by the house, and many believe that it won’t stand a chance in the Senate (hopefully). “” has excellent resources for easily contacting your representatives and senators, and not just about guns.
          Just yesterday I contacted my senators (John Kyl and John McCain) to ask them to vote no on Cap and Trade. I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears with John McCain who actually sponsored a Global Warming bill a few years back. I used to think that the real proof of the politicians getting out of control would be when they thought they could control the weather. And now, here they are, unbelievable.
          There is little doubt in my mind what this is all about. In the late 70s, early 80s, the liberals were pushing hard for their uneconomical energy schemes. I am pretty sure that Global Warming is just their excuse to ram their way down our throats like they couldn’t do back then.

        • DixieConnie

          Dave H: I live in Texas, thank God. I want to thank the person that wrote where to go to find who voted what on the Cap & Trade. A list of Republicans that voted YES on this: Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Reichert, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Smith (NJ). 8 Republicans voted YES, I hope if this rep belongs in your state you let them know if you are not happy with them. And I hope you are right about it not passing in Congress.

  • Joe

    I think it is time to vote out all of the incumbents all parties and vote in someone who will actually support the rights of the citizens. These clowns have been stripping away the rights of our citizens for years. Also put in term limits for Congress.

  • Al. Rebel

    Thomas Jefferson voiced these words and they still ring true.”The people should not fear the government but the government needs to have fear of the people.Remember,the government should be for the people,by the people..not for the government to strip out the constitution to meet their own agenda in order to control and force their will on us.We also need to limit terms in office for congress. No more free rides at taxpayers expense while they pick our pockets.

    • Robin from Indiana

      There is so much truth in what you say. I do seriously doubt that Congress will vote in term limits for themselves. They know they got a good thing going. We the people need to make them more accountable for their actions. So many of them are greedy and not following the will of the people. I am sure there are a few left with morals and values. It’s just hard to sort through all the crap!

  • Mary

    I am a 72 year old woman. I currently live alone. After serious reflection and soul searching, I’ve finally decided to purchase a gun for self-protection as well as to protect my children and grandchildren, friends and neighbors, if necessary. God willing, I will never have to use it, but I will if I must. I will seek complete training in how to use it, take care of it, and how to prevent any accidents or tragedies through responsible ownership as well as safe, locked and probably secret storage, until, God forbid, I need it at my side. Ours is a government established for the people, by the people and of the people. It’s time for “the people” to let our congresspersons, senators and president know that they work for us! And they each need to re-read our Bill of Rights and our Constitution… do some of our “off-the-wall” judges!

  • larry

    they only want our guns so we can’t rebell against them over this cap and trade bill they are fixing to pass .. everything will double . power, gas , food , and we will have to pay this expence also .. doesn’t obama remember saying the united states is BROKE ?? ..

    • DaveH

      Speaking of “Cap and Trade”, here is a web address to see how your representative voted on that bill:
      We need to let our representatives know that they have lost our vote if they voted ‘aye’ on it.

      • larry

        why are we letting someone who isn’t even an american citizen tell us what we have to do ? i heard that they have a copy of his birth certicate on e-bay .. it says that he was born in kenya not in america .. i think we need to take him and all of his bunch and through them out along with some republicans and lets start over with a whole knew group or maybe try it for 4 years without anyone in office .. don’t think we could be any worse off .

        • DaveH

          There is an organization (Institute for Justice) that is litigating the birth certificate issue. I think as people become more and more tired of Obama’s efforts to ram socialism down our throats they will start lending more support to the IJ for this effort.
          As far as our current elected officials, those of us who want to get this country back to its roots need to start working vigorously to support those candidates who want to do the same. We need to start boycotting the major-media that are silencing the conservative candidates by not carrying news about their platforms — people such as Ron Paul (Republican presidential primary candidate) who had strong grass-roots support but got very little media-attention.
          The Libertarian Party has long stood for getting us back to our roots of freedom, but many people don’t vote for them because they feel they are throwing away their vote. But the Libertarians can’t get the kind of mass exposure they need until they start getting media attention. And also consider this: If we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils than all we will get is lesser. That, in my opinion, is really “throwing away our votes”.

        • James

          Larry, I agree with DaveH, removing President Obama from office, for his lack of American citizenship, would take a giant step toward ending his FDR style socialism, and what I believe will be another Great Depression.

        • Robin from Indiana

          If we could remove the entire administration, that would be fine, but if Obama is deemed unqualified to serve because of being born in Kenya, wouldn’t that put Joe Biden in as President? Very scary!

    • http://COX Edward Lucas

      Obama said we are out of money and broke. He laughed,smiled and said that why it’s good to be a socialist, you never run out of money. Over 12 Trillion dollar deficist, for our next generations inheritance, and he laughs and keeps printing money.

  • Debbie

    U.S. House considers repealing 22nd Amendment that limits number of Presidents’ terms served…

    Well, folks, you have not heard of this on the mainstream media, but that doesn’t surprise America’s right-thinking people.

    The Bill, H.J. Res. 5, was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary in early January 2009 and then to the subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties on 2/9/09. This pending Bill proposes to REPEAL the law that limits the U.S. President’s terms in office to only two.

    Personally, we don’t want to see a change where any President has unlimited terms….

    Let your Senators & Representatives know how you feel about this….

    This Bill has been introduced and is quietly working its way through channels… is anyone surprised?

    If this were to be ratified, any person eligible to hold the office of President of the United States could hold it for as many terms as they were elected to….with the majority of the media still madly in love and refusing to admit any mistake on their part,20you could see how they could continue to destroy anyone who dares to challenge Obama’s “rule” over our Nation, just as they attacked Hillary, McCain, Palin, “Joe The Plumber” and everyone else who stood in his way during the campaign.

    How it happened: earlier this year, Rep. Jose Serrano, (D-NY) introduced H. J. Res. 5, a Bill that would cancel our Constitution’s 22nd Amendment which prohibits a U.S. President from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama the President for life.

    Not surprisingly, the corporate media currently caught up in Obamamania has not covered this story.

    Questions: “Will George W. Bush end up being the last true U.S. President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple occasions prior to the November 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization ACORN nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment limiting his time in office.”

    In addition to the obvious reasons that no one should tie up the office of President indefinitely, in the case of the present occupant this country can’t afford him!

    See proof on any of these links:

    Or simply go to Google and do your own search by typing in H. J. Res. 5.

    What’s next, a resolution to allow Naturalized citizens to serve as our President?

    ALERT EVERYONE YOU KNOW.. this cannot go forward, especially unchallenged!

  • Ken

    Today, where I live in the Soviet state of N.J., they just passed a law to limit the amount of guns one can purchase in a month to one. What you just read is correct, a law abiding citizen can now only buy 1 gun a month once our so called governer signs it into law. I think it will fall if challenged to the Supreme court but we will have to wait for that to happen.

    I agree with all of your pro gun statements.


    • debra

      Ken..if you are from NJ PLEASE explain to me why you folks keep putting that querr Barney Frank in office?? He is sooo gross I can`t even watch him or listen to him re;news …and he is just so stupid . He could never hold a job in the real world. Why??

      • Bob in Beijing

        Dear Debra,

        Don’t blame Jersey for Barney Frank, (D) Mass.

        • debra

          Oh ..I am sorry Jersey .I thought he was D NJ. Then that means Ma has Dodd and Frank??!! OMG .Mass is really a rucked up place!!!

        • Bob in Beijing

          Debbie, you must have death wish slamming Jersey again.

          Dodd is a Democrat Senator from Conneticut.

          But in regards to your reference, MA has it’s problems. Senators Kennedy and Kerry in addition to Barney Frank as a Congressman

        • debra

          Bob..thats what I meant to say "kennedy". No sooner than I hit send I was Like ..oops..this guy must think I am wacked. No no no death wish anywhere or to anyone. What is going on with our country right now is very concerning. With 40% of the population not paying taxes,all the spending the dems are creating,and now with health care being shoved like the cap and trade bill that shows up at 3am..well sleepless nights. I am an RN and I see where most of the cost is comming from.."the knife and gun clubs'. I have seen guys coming in 10-12 times over and over(cant kill the suckers) shot up,high or drunk. Those people are not going to buy insurance if it`s only $1.00. The violence for gangs,illegals is high dollar.DeBra

    • James

      Ken, the U.S. Supreme Court has no judicial power (see Art. III, Sec. 2, U.S. Const.) to hear cases between a state and its own citizens. The N.J. Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 1) only states: “All pesons…have certain unalienable rights, among which are…defending life and liberty…” Without a change in your state constitution, or a more like-minded governor, there is little chance of overturning that one-per-month state gun law.

  • James

    I would remind all that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights restrictions that the Founders placed upon the just-created federal government. Just as the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law,” so the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies exclusively to the U.S. congress. That is, only Congress can violate the Second Amendment.

    • DaveH

      Strange read of the constitution, James. The 2nd amendment, states “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.” Nothing is said about Congress. The Constitution of the US overrides the member states laws. The liberals have tried everything in their power to nullify the provisions of the Constitution and I’m sure they will continue to ignore the provisions in the future. But if they had a legitimate beef with it, then there are ways to change it legally. They know they probably wouldn’t be able to muster the necessary votes, so they instead keep trying to make bogus end-runs around the rules of the Constitution.
      When the states sign on to the union they agree to abide by the Constitution of the United States. If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution then they may change it by 2/3 majority of the US legislature, and by 3/4 of the legislatures of the member states.

      • James

        DaveH, you are certainly not alone in your viewpoint. The Bill of Rights Preamble states its purpose: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.” Viewing the Second Amendment out of that context is what makes it appear as a proclamation to all governments. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to rule on the Second Amendment was U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), wherein at p. 553, the Court held: “The second amendment declares that it [the right] shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…” Cruikshank has been upheld by later High Court cases, and just last year all of these cases were re-affirmed and cited as precedent in D.C. v. Helller. The powers granted to Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8) certainly take precedent over state law, but power over rights was not included therein (see Amendment 10).

        • DaveH

          Read the 14th Amendment. Also, does the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” escape you?
          I am guessing that you are anti-gun. It has been my experience that anti-gunners are very adept at coming up with all sorts of ways to twist the constitution to their favor. Maybe, if you are close to power, it will work for you. But the vast majority of citizens suffer at the hands of gun grabbers. The first thing that any tyrannical leader does is to ban ownership of guns by private citizens.

        • James

          DaveH, you guessed wrong, I’m pro-gun. My guess: You believe the Second Amendment is the right and protects it against all comers. Not true. 44 state constitutions have sections that prohibit infringement, and the other 6 states (Calif. included) all respect the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a fundamental, inalienable right that is inherent in everyone born in America. Thus, the right is not dependent, in any way, upon the Second Amendment for its existence. The 14th Amendment only prohibits states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” With due process of law, they may deprive citizens of rights. The Second Amendment states “the right…shall not be infringed,” with no ‘due process’ exception, and it applies exclusively to the national government. Ignoring the Bill of Rights Preamble, and High Court rulings on the Second Amendment, indicates one’s view of the amendment is incorrect.

        • DaveH

          I disagree, but am glad to hear you are pro-gun. Unfortunately, the wording of the Constitution is not perfect, nor is the English language, so I can only hope that the Supreme Court settles that issue some day.

        • DaveH

          Upon further reading of the Constitution, I came upon this passage from Article. VI:
          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to Contrary notwithstanding.”
          And High Court rulings are often overturned by the Supreme Court, so my disagreement of them does not indicate that I am incorrect.

        • DaveH

          So James, Let me get this straight, our freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from unwarrented searches and seizures, are all subject to anullment by the individual states?
          It is obvious to me that you are anti-gun and your pro-gun proclamation is just a smoke-screen to give you credance on this board.
          And I don’t care how many anti-gun cases were cited as precedent in DC vs. Heller, as, of course, both sides cite precedent. There will always be those judges who believe in “judicial activism”, i.e. the right of the judge to rule based on what he or she believes is best for society. If that is allowed by the American people than it will effectively nullify the rule of law, and we will no longer have a democracy.

      • James

        DaveH, I’ll answer your replies in reverse order. The 5 rights in the First Amendment are protected against federal prohibition and abridgement by “Congress shall make no law respecting…” etc. Obviously, only Congress can violate that. And the case-law cited in Heller were all pro-gun (not “anti-”) they were used as precedents to justify the Court’s decision that a D.C. ordinance, which banned possession of handguns in the District, had violated the Second Amendment’s restriction. (All of those cited precedents were after the 14th Amendment of 1868.) As to Article VI, laws “in pursuance thereof,” that are within the powers that were granted in Article I, Section 8 (in 1789) are binding on the states. (The Bill of Rights restriction on those powers was added in 1791.) From 1789 until 1934 Congress had enacted no firearms laws, when they passed the National Firearms Act. (In your opinion, did that violate the Second Amendment?) The U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and D.C. v. Heller (2008) decisions are all pro-gun. I find it mindboggling that you disagree with them, unless you favor federal infringement. And yes, rights are subject to annuling by state and federal governments, haven’t they been? The Second Amendment was supposed to protect the right to bear arms from federal infringement, did it? State constitutions were supposed to protect our rights from state encroachments, did they? In the end, inalienable rights must be defended by those who possess them, wasn’t that what the Revolutionary War was about?

        • DaveH

          Don’t put words in my mouth. Your statement: “I find it mindboggling that you disagree with them, unless you favor federal infringement.” I didn’t say that. I think that you are trying to spread misinformation on this board. Read Article VI again. “This Constitution……shall be the supreme Law of the Land….Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”. And Section 1 of the 14th amendment backs that up.
          Plain and simple, the liberals (and I think you are probably one of them) are working every angle they can to destroy the Constitution and our freedoms especially our gun rights. And yes, there are liberal judges. That business about the Second Amendment not applying to the States is just another one of those angles.
          Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will probably hear one of the cases about whether or not the 2nd Amendment applys to the states within a year. Then one of us will be crowing and the other eating crow. Lol, I hope it is you eating the crow.

      • James

        DaveH, when the U.S. Constitution was adopted (in 1789) there was no Bill of Rights. I was making the point, that Art. VI then only applied to the granted laws in Art. I, Sec. 8. The 14th Amendment, Section 1′s “without due process of law” refers to state law – not federal. If I might ask: Do you believe the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies to the federal government? Thank you. (Incidentally, the so-called ‘incorporation’ of the Second Amendment into state law has already occurred, in California. Alameda County had banned gunshows at their fair grounds, and the gunshow sponsor sued on Second Amendment grounds. Have the info if your interested.)

        • DaveH

          I believe that the Constitution applys to all levels of government in the United States.
          Governments rarely condone willingly an armed citizenry. We all need to stand up and insist that government obey the law, just as we private citizens are expected to obey the law.
          I must say that I think guns are scary, but even scarier is not having any reasonable means of defending ourselves against predators. A government that would disarm its citizens is a government in contempt of its citizens. I am a big guy and in reasonably good condition. And still I prefer the safety of having a gun nearby. I can’t even imagine how scary it would be for the women and others of small stature to be without the safety of a gun. It amazes me that many people are afraid of their fellow citizen being armed, but think nothing of the government being heavily armed. Many governments throughout history have subjugated their citizens, and ours is certainly capable of the same if left unfettered.

      • James

        DaveH, that’s an interesting concept. But the sovereign states existed before the U.S. Constitution which created the federal government. Article I created the federal legislative branch (Congress); Art. II created the federal executive branch; and Art. III created the federal judicial branch. Art. I, Sec. 8 states: “The Congress shall have power To…” which is then followed by specific enumerated powers that the new Congress was granted. Art. III, Sec. 2 limits the type of cases to which “The judicial power shall extend.” Then, concerned that the federal government might abuse its powers, the Founders added the Bill of Rights which begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting…” which was then followed by enumerated rights. The 9th Amendment says that the foregoing enumeration does not include “others retained by the people,” and the 10th Amendment reminds Congress that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states…or to the people.” No court (state or federal) has ever held that that applies to all U.S. governments. No court (state or federal) has ever held a state law in violation of the Second Amendment. The only law ever held violative of the Second Amendment (by the U.S. Supreme Court) was the D.C. handgun-ban ordinance, in D.C. v. Heller (2008). No federal firearms Act has ever been struck down. Why? Senate committees ask prospective federal judges and justices: How do you feel about assault rifles? Why?

        • DaveH

          Because the Federal Government ignores a law, and because people don’t challenge that law (which takes tremendous financial resources), doesn’t mean the government is not breaking that law. Take the freedom of speech. Many liberals have argued that the Constitution only guarantees political speech. But then the Federal Government turns around and puts limits on campaign contributions (sponsored by my state senator, the liberal Republican John McCain). If people campaining for political offices isn’t political speech what is?
          You know, I am reminded of an episode when my daughter was taking Political Science in High School. She was told by the teacher that police could search our cars at will without infringing on the 4th Amendment (except the locked trunk), also, that the 2nd Amendment was created back when things were wild and guns were necessary, and that it no longer applied in this modern day. I told her that her teacher was wrong, and of course she was skeptical. Who am I to dispute her knowledgeable teacher. Just a year or so later, the Supreme Court coincidentally ruled that police couldn’t just search our cars at will. The gun issue is still pending.
          I guess the bottom line is that the wording is somewhat vague and subject to interpretation, much like the Bible. And when governments don’t want to be constrained by law they will do their best to make excuses for why it is okay to break those laws.
          I am sure you have a vested interest in this issue. Otherwise, you wouldn’t spend so much time debating with me about it. So, what is it James? Are you a politician, a teacher, a Hollywood actor, or a burgler who wants his victims to be unarmed?

      • James

        DaveH, we all have a vested interest in protecting our rights. But, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t ‘guarantee’ free speech, it simply forbids “Congress” from “abridging” it. There’s a difference between “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” and guaranteeing it – think about it. I’ll leave you with this. The Texas Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 23, reads: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state; but the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” That’s where and how the right is protected in Texas. I suggest you do a computer search on your state’s constitution and see what it says. The Second Amendment states: “the right…shall not be infringed,” it is simply a restriction the states placed exclusively on the federal government. Dave, have a great life!

  • Josey Wales

    They probably want are guns because they have been up to no good and fear the people that put them there.

  • Spencer Adams

    Never register your guns.
    Never take the offer of a “free” gun lock because then officials will have your name, address, etc.
    If possible, have a long gun and learn to make your own reloads.
    Pay CASH for ammo, and if you do not have the cash, save the money until you can. If clerk asks you for personal information – WALK out, and find another gun shop.
    Regardless of the laws, never give up your weapons.
    A gun safe or cabinet only telegraphs to officials and others that you have weapons. Build somewhere in your house a false cabinet. Only a metal detector will show that there is “metal” there, but you can also line it with lead sheets.
    To practice shooting, go as “guest” of a member of a gun club, if you cannot find an isolated place to practice.
    If you live somewhere where you cannot get the gun you want, find a place where you can and return with it.
    Better yet, if possible, MOVE to a state where people have 2nd Amendment Rights.

    No matter what the “Govt” does, most of the good ole boys and girls in the hills and hollows of Applachia and states such as Texas, and the Mountain States will NOT give up their guns. The movie “Red Dawn” could happen in America someday, but it might NOT be foreign invaders. That movie is being remade.

  • http://yahoo Bruce

    The article is about handguns. Why is there a picture of a lever action rifle in it?

  • DixieConnie

    The reason we have democracy is because we don’t have righteous-rule monarchy. We need some kind of checks & balances, which is why our gov is established as it is. When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago. He said ” A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of governement. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed throught the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

  • Funpics

    Simply want to say your article is awesome. The lucidity in your post is simply striking and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with succeeding post. Thanks a million and please keep up the good work.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.