Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law

August 26, 2009 by  

Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law  The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed an alliance in order to advance the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), recently passed by the state’s legislature and signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, in a federal court.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal authority, and its supporters want to use the bill to mount a legal challenge to federal power under the interstate commerce clause.

The two organizations are planning to file the lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in federal court on October 1st.

"We’re excited to get the MFFA into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and states’ rights," says Gary Marbut, president of MSSA, an organization which works to advance pro-gun and pro-hunting bills in the Montana legislature.

"It’s especially encouraging that people in so many other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom train," he adds, referring to the fact that 19 other states have passed, or are planning to pass, similar legislation.

Founded in 1974, SAF is the nation’s oldest and largest education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms.

ADNFCR-1961-ID-19333387-ADNFCR

Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun-rights groups unite to challenge federal law”

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 newstips@personalliberty.com

  • eyeswideopen

    I think states have the right to regulate guns, however, don’t think that because your state licenses you to carry a concealed weapon, that you can transport that gun across state lines into my state. The Supreme Court basically stated just that.. One states rights do not give them the right to infringe or obstruct upon another states rights. Just because I am licensed in Fl. doesn’t mean, I can carry in NC.

    • James Moore

      I can certainly agree with you. I am licensed in Arkansas, but don’t believe that should give me the right to carry across state lines., I do believe that the U.S. government is over-stepping it’s boundries in this case against Montana, and I would hope that Tennessee would join with the good people of Montana in this case.

      • cr747

        James Moore, I bet if someone from another state assaulted or harmed your kids, grand kids,(if you have any) or your family, you would think different about carrying across state lines. I live 30 minutes from four different state lines, and thank God I can carry across state lines here, all except on state, and people in that state can carry period.

      • Douglas L. PANNEBAKER

        The second amendment gives me the rights to carry into another state However there are laws that state as long as that state recognizes my permit I am able to carry in that state and I do so every time.
        I carry for protection not just for myself of my family but for the innocent people that are in need of help, since the police can not be everywhere at one time.

    • Rev. EG Hopkins

      There seems to be a very real and complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution. The constitution does not guarantee anyone any rights. After all who has that authority and power. While it states that we have certain rights, it also tell us very clearly that those rights enumerated in the constitution are not meant to be an all inclusive list of our rights and not being listed as a right does not deny or disparage those rights not listed. The constitution also very clearly distinguishes between the Federal United States and the several states of the union. It distinguishes between a United States citizen and a citizen of one of the several states of the union. IN order to fully understand the nexus between the United States and the several states of the union we need to first understand that each state is a seperate Nation State and is by acceptance of the US contract a member of a union. Actually in a practical sense not unlike the current European Union. These sovereign atates do not surrender their sovereignty in order to be a member of the union. All this to say that Article II of the constitution simply declares that in order for the individual states to be able to maintain their sovereignty the people of those states need to be able to KEEP and BEAR arms and that this right shall not be infringed. the term infringed simply put means that there can be NO LAW ot the contrary. So… any law, ANY LAW that does anything to limit, inhibit, remove, postpone, prohibit, prescribe or by license, fee or restriction causes an infringement and is there for UNCONSTITUTIONAL. While you may disagree with the founders on this point, be assurred by your own reading that the founders were not unsure nor unclear of the intent of the enumeration of this right. They understood that the force of arms was the final and ultimate arbitor of law. Finally, to submit to a so-called “legitimate” license for concealed carry is to allow an unconstitutional infringement on the basic right to KEEP and Bear arms.

      • DaveH

        Rev,
        It’s interesting to me that so many Liberals have jumped on the new bandwagon that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. That is just the latest in their arsenal to impose their freedom-robbing rules on the citizens of the United States. The First Amendment clearly says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. In the Second Amendment there is no such reference to Congress. Yet, do you hear the Liberals saying the states therefore have the right to establish State Religion. Of course not, they just switch sides whenever it is to their advantage.

        • DaveH

          Sotomayor was on a panel of judges (2nd circuit court, 2009) that claimed the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal government.
          My question is, if that is so, then since the powers of the Federal Government are strictly controlled by the Constitution and gun control was not one of the powers, then why would the framers of the Constitution bother to put in the 2nd Amendment if it didn’t apply to the states?

      • Orin Loos

        What part of the 2nd amendment dont you understand. It says the right of the people to bear arms.It doesnt say the Federal Gov. or just a few special people, it says of the people shall not be infringed upon. The reason is to protect ourselves from oppressive governments. Period.

      • James

        Rev. EG H, at last, someone I can agree with! Although, by “Article II,” I think you meant the Second Amendment. (Article II created the Executive Branch of the federal government.) The only power the national government has, are those delegated to it in Article I, Section 8. The Bill of Rights is restrictive clauses the states placed upon the feds to prevent them from misconstruing those powers to affect or regulate our rights. Power over rights was reserved to the States or to the people (10th Amendment).

      • LD Joyner

        I believe from what I hear and read, we are being repressed rtght now. I don’t like what I see, I feel sorry for our children if we don’t get things back to freedom of religion, and our rights not infringed upon.

    • James

      The right to bear arms is fundamental and inalienable, it existed before the national government was created. It isn’t dependent on any constitution for its existence.
      The Bill of Rights is a restriction the states placed upon federal power. The First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” obviously applies exclusively to the federal government and so-likewise does the “shall not be infringed” of the Second Amendment.
      Art. IV, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizeens in the several States,” but that isn’t automatic. States will honor ‘concealed carry’ permits of other States, but permission must be sought before entering another state.
      The Montana Constitution Art. II, Sec. 12 reads: “The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.” There is where the right is secured for Montanans – not the Second Amendment.

  • jerry r. bolton

    I believe we should all be able to carry a gun for protection anyway,anytime,without a permit. Crooks don’t have to have a permit,why should we. We protect ourselves,less crooks on the streets.

    • Robin from Indiana

      Jerry… I agree. I also think Ted Nuggent is on to something with the 2nd amendment giving us that right. If you have a conceal to carry, it should be good as long as you have it with you while carrying your weapon. Gone are the days where the Cleavers and the good citizens of Mayberry could leave their doors unlocked and stroll the streets in the evening.

    • Jeffrey

      Amen to that!

    • Jeff

      I totally agree! It is not the gun we should be worried about. Evil people with evil intent are where the problem lies. It wouldn’t concern me much if everyone was packing a weapon. Are we going to mindlessly shoot each other to death? I doubt it. Yeah, there is going to be that one idiot who will, but….he doesn’t usually obey the law, so what dows it matter. We have every right to protect ourselves anywhere anytime. Period.

    • jane

      jerry- you can in the vast majority of states. you just need to have it holstered in plain sight.

      • DaveH

        Jane,
        Since open-carry does make a lot of people nervous, it makes a lot more sense to me that we should conceal-carry. Non-carry laws (whether conceal or open) don’t stop criminals. That’s why they’re called criminals; they don’t care about laws. Those of us who would choose to carry for protection rarely know in advance when we might be attacked, but those who would do others harm know just when they need to carry their gun. So the chances that outlawing concealed-carry would stop someone from committing a crime are pretty slim. It’s just one of those feel-good things that politicians do to make themselves look important, or another baby-step on the road to accomplish their ulterior motive of making it harder for people to use guns for protection. They know that eventually, if they keep throwing up enough road-blocks, people will give up the hassle and give up their guns.

  • http://www.tbarkcustomknives.com Tank Fisher

    I believe like Ted Nugent The 2nd Ammendment is My Right to carry permit , even though I have a CHL just for legality purposes I believe as a citizen of the USA Afforded all rights an privleges thereof the law should Have No Authority to disarm me if I am Not breaking the Standard laws of right an Wrong , haveing a Firearm Garentees My Right to not be forced into doing somthing that I shouldnt have to if I dont want to , God Bless those Who Stand for the Weak an fight for Freedom to do so ,T

    • http://socializedmedicineearthritis Eileen Barayasarra

      Mr. Fisher, you are exactly right. I was home alone in June of 2005 when a young man came running in my back door. I was 66 years old and he was 24. He resembled Mike Tyson except that he was of Mexican descent. I was certainly no match for him. Fortunately, I have a pistol. Also, my very protective Lab barked and got between us. She not only saved my life, she saved his. As I got a bead on him, she decided he was getting too close, so she shoved me, spoiling my aim. He ran to my garage and I called 911. After a 15 minute fight, the police were able to subdue and remove him. His own father told me at the courthouse that if I had not had the dog and the pistol, his son would have killed me. He was high on methamphetamine and was of low intellect to begin with. We ended up with 17 police officers in my yard but not one of them tried to take away my pistol. They knew him and knew I had just saved my own life with it. Remember! When SECONDS count, the police are just MINUTES away! I DARE anyone to try to convince me that the state or any branch of the government has any right to take away my means of self defense. All I can say about that morning is- – HE left in the ambulance and I DID NOT! I take my hidden pistol everywhere I go except for airports and courthouses. I have never had to aim it at anyone but him, but WE NEVER KNOW when a pistol can save our lives or those of other innocent people. Every criminal has one. WHY SHOULDN’T WE? Call me Granny .357!

      • Philip, from Oregon

        Kudos’ to you Eileen. There should never be any laws against firearms except those provided for in the constitution, our founding fathers were smart enough to know that the general population needs to protect themselves, be it against criminals, foreign invaders, or our own government, and the right to keep and bear arms is just one of those rights, and I’ll be damned if some government know nothing is going to take ANY of my rights away from me!!
        If you want to keep your firearms Eileen you are given that right by God and the constitution.
        I am 63 and I carry all the time, so you just keep on keeping on, and bravo for you!!!

      • Robert P

        Eileen,

        I hear your story and I totally agree with your position. However, I fear a great deal for the future of this country when our Supreme Court is now being populated with people like Sonia Sotomayor who, when asked a direct question by a Senator, “Do you believe that people have a right to defend themselves”, she could not after continous questioning, say that she believed that they did!! So I predict a case will eventually come up before the Supreme Court where this person that got arrested, or perhaps even killed, by someone such as was in your position, and they (or their family) will take this to court and you will end up in prison and/or paying emotionally and finacially for the rest of your life. This IS where this country is trying to be taken by the Liberals of this country!!! If we don’t constantly be on guard, they will succeed, and I can’t be sure even now if it’s possible to stop what they have planned for this country, the way things are going now.

        • DaveH

          Robert,
          I think the best pro-gun organization around is the Gun Owners of America. Pound for pound, they pack the biggest wallop for our freedom. You can visit their website at gunowners.org

        • uniteas1

          That is why President Obama wanted Sotomayor in the Supreme Court. Just another one of his pawns in place to take guns away from the citizens of these United States. Just as Eric Holder will and possibly Hillary Clinton (which these politicians are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States). And there is a list stating which states will allow or respect other states right to conceal permits. The only thing I disagree with is the incidences in which they allow to protect yourself in your own home. Correct me if I am wrong,but in N Carolina they have to be beating down your door. If they are already in your home the story can change on self defense.

          • eyeswideopen

            So, your saying you don’t trust the rest of the Republicans sitting on the Court?? How interesting….You think one person will be able to change the view of the rest of the majority of conservatives? Holy hell, you don’t give the rest of them much credit do you? You are aware that they are Bush appointee’s right??

      • eyeswideopen

        Eileen,
        key word HOME, You weren’t driving into my state carrying a concealed weapon.

        • LD Joyner

          The problem with Sotomayor, she has deep rooted bias convictions that I believe will come into play soon.

    • James

      Tank Fisher, you are wrong, the 2nd Amendment is not your right. All American citizens have the right to bear arms, but the right isn’t dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence. Rights are fundamental and inalienable in the United States. The sole purpose for the Second Amendment is to prevent the federal government from infringing on the right.

      • LD Joyner

        The 2nd amendment has no state lines drawn on it, the only borders is Mexico and Canada.

  • Philo Beddoe

    It all comes down in a big way to National Security. Without 2nd Amendment we have none. Do you think the Russians weren’t aware of 62 million gun owners in this country when they were seriously thinking of invading the USA in the early 60′s?

  • Brian Rawls

    Hey everyone, Obama wants death panels in the healthcare bill because the old are considerd a burden to everyone. Well does that mean that the gov will start killing all the trash thats in our jails and prisons too? These scum bags cost everyone more money than the seniors. Plus that will lower gun-related crimes.

    • Robert P

      Brian,

      On the contrary. Liberals believe that they should be let out of jail for a second chance, unless they have conservative viewpoints of course.

      • DaveH

        Right on the nail, Robert. It is all about who they think will vote for them.

    • BOE

      No Brian he will not…those are his bro`s. Hell he will most likely let them out early. Obama and Eric Holder will decide we white folks put them in jail ..oh I don`t know ..because we don`t like them.What the HELL have we got ourselves into??

  • Brian Rawls

    And yes we should be able to carry anytime anywhere without a permit. Do you think the founding fathers followed silly laws like that.

    • uniteas1

      They didn’t have silly politicians like we have now. Politicians that are more interested in bowing down or catering to money and ILLEGAL ALIEN support groups. Some of these politicians would sell this country out,if they haven’t already.

  • Brian Rawls

    Comment removed for offensive content

  • Wayne

    I am firmly a beleiver in “An armed society is a polite society”. The federal government should not be allowed to interfere with our constitutional right to bear arms. You have less chance of being injuered in a gun incident than you do going to the hospital. More deaths are caused by medical errors than guns. This country needs to take back our rights from the “soccer moms” who are terrified that little Johnyy is going to skin his knee on the playground.
    History has shown that gun control does not make a safer society, it just makes a weak society that allows predators and despots to prey on the people.

  • Scott

    I believe that as long as we are law abiding citizens, we should be able to carry open or concealed ANYWHERE in the country.

    • Brian Rawls

      Thats right Scott, Wayne. I feel the same way.

  • http://www.srtsupply.com LUCKIE LEVITTINO

    I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SPENDING TIME WITH Ted Nugent AT A SHOT SHOW 6 YEARS AGO. HE IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY.HAVING SERVED MANY YEARS IN THE US NAVY AND 10 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOW 77 YEARS YOUNG, I WILL FIGHT THE WASHINGTON, DC HILL MOB, AND NEVER LET THEM TAKE AWAY MY “AMERICAN RIGHT” TO OWN AND CARRY A GUN. SEEING WHO THE “MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE” RUBS SHOULDERS WITH, HAS MADE ME AND A LOT OF AMERICANS WONDER WHAT HE REALLY STANDS FOR. MY FATHER IN 1918 DID THE AMERICAN DREAM, 50 YEARS LATER HE WAS VP OF A VERY LARGE AMERICAN COMPANY.
    LUCKIE LEVITTINO, RETIRED USN

  • Right wing extremist

    I do not own a weapon due to the fact that I have uncontrollable tremors in my hands. Due to the same tremors I went from being a Expert on the M 16, and a sharp shooter on the gernade launcher; to barely being able to get a marksman on my final year in the service.

    But you can bet your bottom dollar that I support upholding and protecting our second admendment rights!

    And Lucki Levittino, thank you for your service to this great nation.

    And for the record, our ‘esteemed’ President stands for COMMUNISM, FACISM, and NAZISM.

    • The Insurgent

      Comment removed for offensive content.

  • Right wing extremist

    For the record Wayne, it wasn’t the SOCCER MOMS who were terrified of YOU being able to have weapon.

    It was Liberals, who now say they are Progressives … which means they are still Communist, and Facist radicals.

    And if you need to ask a ‘soccer mom’. You can ask me! I’m a ‘SOCCER MOM’. So please don’t lump all of US with the facist radicals!

    • DaveH

      Well said Extremist. Sorry to hear about your tremors.

  • ONTIME

    THe elitist and the libs of politick are moving into every backroom form of justice they can find in order to control the gun issues. They are making up law to force unfair burdens on those who want to legally own firearms, to carry them and to maintain or fire them, Califronia and Mark Leno is a fine example of this type action, Eric Holder is another by his consistent ulterior ways of achieving his kind of justice. The Libs are not going to do anything upfront or by concensus because they know they cannot win, like every other issue they hold dear they will be as deceptive and dishonest as always when it comes to their agenda. Vote their leadership out of office as fast as possible and guard your rights as a American.

    • DaveH

      Yes, and they certainly don’t care about whether we live or die. Witness the “Your Life, Your Choices” book posted on the VA website by the Obama administration:
      http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf

      So, it is disingenuous for them to say they want to ban guns for safety purposes.

  • jane

    Do you paranoids not read the law? The Supreme Court SAID that individuals can own guns, period. The real problem is that in a city guns are for killing people- they are weapons. In the rural and hunting worlds they are TOOLS, like saws and hammers. There is no way to write a sensible federal policy and there is no way for a state to do it either- Michigan has Detroit and the U.P. The gun nuts (pro) are always crying (untruly) that their guns will be taken away. Please. If “they” were going to, “they” would have. The other gun nuts (anti) are convinced (supreme idiocy) that regulation of guns will stop something (they don’t even know what). Reasonable gun regulation will do one thing and one thing only- it will keep the guy who is insanely furious from running into a store, buying a gun, and killing someone. It will not keep criminals from using them. It will not keep the mentally ill from getting them. It would carry a hell of a lot more weight if you people would stop catastrophizing and make rational arguments against regulation instead of fairly childish rants about getting your toys taken away. And yes, I am a lifetime member of the NRA.

    • eyeswideopen

      Jane,
      well said, but I’m afraid it fell on deaf ears.I’m also NRA member, however after reading most of these blogs, I fear many people are equiped with guns who have no respect for them or others and many un-necessary deaths will be the outcome. I see road rage everyday with cars and am silently thankful that more people don’t carry.

    • Philip, from Oregon

      Obamas’ admin. and the libs. in general, has been trying to get some legislation passed in favor of gun control for a long time now. I am sure that the Germans, Italians, French, And Russians, believed that just “a little gun control” wouldn’t hurt anything. The people need to exercise their rights or they will loose them, there just like your body, you loose what you don’t use. And I don’t think that people, like myself, are paranoid, we’re just being realist and expecting the worst from an already corrupt government.

    • DaveH

      Paranoid, my rear. Did you think a year ago that the government would take over GM? Did you think they would be trying to ram a nationalized health care bill down our throats a year ago? Did you think a year ago that an avowed Communist would be appointed as a “Green Jobs” czar? Or that an FCC diversity advisor would be appointed who has made the statement that “In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.”?

      • DaveH

        Please Liberals, don’t attack me on my spelling and sentence structure. That quote was taken verbatim from a Mark Lloyd speech.

      • RobertP

        It’s really incredible how it now seems all the true socialists, fascists, and communists are now coming out of the woodwork and showing their true colors. Here’s another recent example on Aug 27th, at a town hall meeting where Rep. Diane Watson (D-LA) praises Fidel Castro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN8xPJyAkEE&NR=1). She seems quite in awe of this man!! Apparently, Mrs. Watson dreams of a day when this country will follow in his footsteps.

        Has anyone really thought about how this administration refused to condemn the Iranian government (saying they did not want to appear as “meddlers”) while its people were protesting and dying for their courage to speak out against the police state that is now Iran, and the likely fraudulent elections that maintained the status quo of a ruthless dictator?

        And compare this to how the Obama regime has taken the exact opposite tact when the Democratic country of Honduras kicked out a would-be dictator in a recent attempt by their current President to side step their constitution and make his term unlimited (http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1383819.html). In this case, our worldly government leader Obama believes that the would-be dictator should be re-installed, and this attitude is inconceivably right in lock-step with the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez!!! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what is behind these actions on both cases!! The writing is on the wall but those that put him in power either want to believe that this can’t be true, or they actually want this country to go the way of Cuba or Venezuela. People had better wake up and take this country back before it’s too late!!

    • James

      Jane, right on! However your “Supreme Court SAID individuals can own guns,” isn’t quite correct. In D.C. v. Heller (2008) the Court said individuals ‘have’ the right to own handguns. That decision affected a gun law in the District of Columbia (and possibly other federal territories) but not the States. Citizens in States have always possessed handguns.

      • eyeswideopen

        Could you speak louder please, they are screaming so loud they can’t hear you, or don’t want to hear you, they want to be mad and upset.

  • Devaron

    I find it interesting that most people do not understand the full meaning of the First and Second Amendment to Constitution as noted in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment outlines your basic freedoms (Freedom of Speech, freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion etc)… and the Next Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is the freedom to bear arms (to own and carry weapons). The point is, the founders and creators of the Constitution and this nation tied these two amendments together for a very specific reason… the first talks about your freedom and the second talks about your ability to keep your freedom.
    Those institutes and people who attempt to create laws or input negative propaganda against the 2nd Amendment are not interested in YOUR freedom, only their own. This includes State and Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment was deliberately created for the very purposes you now see in this nation… to defend yourself against those who would take your freedom from you, including the federal government itself.

    • Brian Rawls

      Bravo!!!

    • James

      Devaron, You do not understand the purpose for the Bill of Rights. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
      The Bill of Rights starts with “Congress shall make no law respecting…prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein. Then “the right…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” etc. The 9th Amendment says this restrictive theme applies to all rights whether enumerated therein or not. And the 10th Amendment reminds Congress that powers not delegated to them are reserved to the States or to the people.
      The Bill of Rights is all one document it does not grant or secure rights, its sole purpose is to prevent the federal government from exercising any power over rights. And every Supreme Court decision, including last year’s D.C. v. Heller, has held the Second Amendment’s restriction does not apply to state law, only federal.
      Rights are secured (and regulated) by state constitutions and laws.

      • eyeswideopen

        Hot damn James, finally!!!! thank you, but they won’t believe you.

    • Smilee

      Devaron

      The first ten amendments came into being by the amendment clause process in the constitution and was not added as you say (see below), and it leaves your analysis suspect as well as it is based partly on that premise.

      YOU WROTE:
      The point is, the founders and creators of the Constitution and this nation tied these two amendments together for a very specific reason…

  • Scott A Johnson

    I am a God fearing Christian and I do my best to follow the 10 Commandments. One being, Thou Shal Not Committ Murder, often mistranslated into Thou Shal Not Kill. I believe that it is my right as an American lawabiding citizen to carry a loaded firearm when I feel I need to protect my self or my family. If our government weren’t so full of criminals then I guess they wouldn’t be so afraid of us owning and carrying a gun. As a believer I would never purposely harm anyone unless fearing for the lives of any of my family, friends, or myself. I would gladly defend my country as well.

  • WILDDOG

    We have lost almost all freedoms in this country. How many of you nay sayers know what the articles of the CONSTITUTION say. Or the way it was framed and what it pertained to. We the PEOPLE are the ones that the goverment is supposed to fear. But with all the LIBERAL ANAL POSIONING that has gone on.The Gov is not fearing its PEOPLE. GUN RIGHTS ARE A MUST.IF ONE wants a FREE COUNTRY. If the PEOPLE give in and let there guns be confiscated. Well then its all over. The Federal Gov has run amuck and totally out of control. It needs to get back to the WE THE PEOPLE. Not we the GOV and the sickness of the LIBERAL mind set.

  • Rod

    athere are states that have reciprocal laws with other states. If you
    have a concealed carry in one state, there are other states that honor
    that states concealed carry permits. It is up to you to know which
    states have those laws and don’t forget, there may be states between
    those states that do not have reciprocal laws.

    To those people who do not understand why concealed carry is so very
    important for everyone, when you get into a life and death struggle
    with some felon the good old Government has let out of the GRAY BAR,
    and the Cops aren’t there to help, PLEASE let out a big scream telling
    us you don’t want our help!

  • Rod

    The people that have concealed carry permits are people that respect
    the law. I have had mine for 11 years and have never had to use that
    permit because of an act that required me to use it. I will continue
    to carry concealed and will not hesitate to use it if circumstances
    require it!
    The problem is, the lefties don’t get it (until it’s to late).

  • christine

    Once you start any regulation, the operative word here is start, then,the piles of paperwork mount. Soon you begin to see the loss of accountability. For me, the fact is no gun regulation is acceptable. Rather, deal with those crimes committed using any weapon as a violent act and should the victim die, then he/she is a murderer. If the victim is raped, whether male or female, young or old, that is a act of violence and strict housing would be in order. Not 3 sqwares with dental coverage– a strict environment. Should the perpetrator be mentally challenged, then what? I haven’t seen or heard all the answers, but I haven’t seen these “perfect” answers either. Wish I could find one. Violence must be dealt with swiftly and permanently.I wish it were not so but having a liberal attitude is intolerable in a violent environment. They do not mix. Nor does the idea that regulations mixes with accountability. But then, human life is not repected by all either. Consequently, these issues of violence would assuredly not be paramount on everyone’s agenda. Sad but true…

  • Rod

    The responsible use of firearms is well understood by people who have
    concealed carry permits It.s people who do not respect the law and the
    rights of others who all you lefties need to worry about. The criminals would be very happy if “WE THE PEOPLE” were unarmed. I might
    add, so would the present people who have come into power in our
    government! BUT, WE ARE ARMED!

  • Bender

    Let’s remember that the people who are likely to threaten your life, your body, or anyone you are responsible for don’t obey laws. They take any gun they want to any place and use it for any reason they may have. They are “outlaws” and normal citizens must be prepared to defend themselves and those they are responsible for at a moments notice. You will not get a notice of an upcoming assault. You can be prepared or you can be a statistic. That choice is the one we must fight for if necessary. I am very encouraged by these actions.

  • Dickie

    We, Have the best military in the world, So would someone explain to me why,Hussein Obama,Started with 30,000. Troops & added 50,000 more for special training for economic’s in GEORGIA,A special camp for America Home Security, And the way Holder,& Obama,In trying to Destory The CIA,Like pelosi did when she lied on them,And called American People nazi’s,reid calling American’s Anti-Americans,Franks said,I QUOTE[The U.S.Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper to hold congress back that's all]. And if congress can sneek in some kind of law for gun control,These tryants will!.All you have to do is open your eyes,Look at how they have already broke the law,Look at the deck hussein has stacked,Instead of building America,They are tearing down America,Spending more of our tax dollars,Trying to destory the past adminstration,What good is this going to do,NOTHING, But tell terroist we are not going to do anything to you,If they try to take our guns,Them we WILL BE,at the mercy to the goverment,& The rest of the terroist in the world.They even want us to rat on each other if we disagree with them,These thugs dont care about us or our rights,They still will not answer people’s questions at the town hall meetings,If you think they care about the CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,And the good of the people,You better open your eyes.

  • Paul

    As we were fighting for in the 1860′s States rights vs federal intrusion , Especially if the goverment of obama and cohorts have in mind for us that would take all our basic rights and freedoms from us
    this law is one of the first tests to determine if judges will aplly the law oe the obama law We all must be careful our rights have already been misused and violated and Changed we must be one to over come the down fall of THE GREAT REPUBLIC

  • Jim Kizer

    I am 75 years old, and have carried a weapon for hunting or protection whenever I felt the need for one. I was putting meat on our table at the age of 6 with a single shot 22 in Alaska.This was during the depression, and was necessary for my family’s subsistence. I have never held a permit carry in any state, but have lived in many. The constitution guaranties my right to bear arms. I carry mine openly as needed. If it offends gun control advocates, so be it. My constitution states I have this Right, and do not need any other justification for doing so. If I carry a weapon openly those that wish to attack my family or me know there will be consequences. Therefor this suppresses any desire for them to commit a crime against us. If I carry concealed, criminals will not know there is danger for them and then they will have a greater chance of being killed or wounded. If you want to carry a weapon do it in the open and your rights are guaranteed. Laws passed by states and cities that state anything other than that, are a violation of your rights. States cities, counties,or any other bureaucratic entities do not have the right to abridge the constitution. Jim Kizer, Alamogordo NM

    • James

      Jim Kizer, well said! Your New Mexico Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 6 reads: “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
      Thus, your last statement: “States cities, counties, or any other bureaucratic entities do not have the right to abridge the constitution,” is mostly true but see my above comment, earlier today.

  • http://none Dale

    It simple, BO (Barrack Obama) is a true dictator want-to-be.
    BO has the right idea to get what he wants, control the guns and you control the people.
    Bo is a disgrace to every man, woman, and child that has stood up for their right to freedom.
    BO is a slap in the face to every person that is and has served in the military protecting our freedom.
    BO openly displays disrespect to the flag and what it stands for.

    Remember to replace the electoral delegates when you vote. They are the ones that elected BO as their dictator.

    NEVER GIVE UP YOU GUNS!

  • Nestor

    I am mostly concerned with gun ownership itself, with the current administrations veiws on the recent elections in Iran and Honduras, I believe if the peoples votes are disreguarded in 2012, there could be trouble. I pray not, but do we risk it?

    • DaveH

      There is little doubt in my mind that the far-left would like to end our voting privileges if they could. Right now, I think they are too outnumbered to get away with it. But when the baby-boomers die off, I fear that the younger products of government-run public schools will have been sufficiently brainwashed to accomplish that feat.
      The fact that the government has been impoverishing our nation for the last decade (both Democrats and Republicans) is a giant step in the direction of totalitarianism.

      • eyeswideopen

        Dave you really take the cake,,, in here with a bunch of angry gun toting macho men, and you are spreading lies about taking voting rights away…. go ahead stir the fire, but remember violence cannot be controlled and someone in your own family may fall victim…

  • DaveH

    We don’t need to worry about our benevolent leaders taking our freedoms away do we (sarcasm)?
    http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/08/28/fox-news-poll-majority-think-swine-flu-vaccine-deadlier-than-virus/

  • DaveH

    Who’s on your side? Obviously not CNN.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmi-bBhWG8

  • DaveH

    UnF’nBelievable. Now the government wants to regulate the Internet. Who could possibly believe that these Know-Nothings are going to bring efficiency and protection to the Internet? They are undoubtedly aiming at censorship. We need to contact our Representatives and let them know now that we won’t tolerate government involvement with the Internet:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text

  • keith lawhorn

    i am gratified to see so many people who believe in the constitution. the 2nd admendment is there to make sure the other 9 can exist. the NRA should become a political party for the conservatives to believe in. Charlston Heston said it better than i, they will take my guns “from my cold dead hands”.

  • http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin531.htm Timothy Baldwin

    THE MARBURY v. MADISON MANTRA

    By Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin
    September 1, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com

    [Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America's foremost defenders of State sovereignty.]

    The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall’s opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of “laws, not men,” we must establish that Marshall’s opinion does not equate to the “supreme law of the land” which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves.

    Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the “midnight” hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall’s nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed “one nation, indivisible” and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology.

    Concerning Marshall’s philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, “John Marshall and the Constitution” (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: “[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES.” (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall’s political belief regarding the US as a “nationalistic creed.”

    So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall’s own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: “The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.” So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, “Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!” I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway.

    Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall’s declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT’s interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes “settled law” and the states are completely bound–of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall’s opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, “State’s Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.” McDonald states, “Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress.” (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case.

    Perhaps most telling about Marshall’s silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State’s ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall’s opinion was mostly dicta anyway–meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand–why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison.

    Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!–even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall’s opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are.

    What’s more, Marshall’s opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows:

    “The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: ‘(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.’ Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS.” “John Marshall and the Constitution,” pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.)

    Corwin admits that all of Marshall’s opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)?

    This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall’s presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims:

    “[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

    “That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (Emphasis added.)

    Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85:

    “To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis added.)

    Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall’s premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise.

    An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, “questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.” (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign–the people–and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.

    *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

    © 2009 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

    • Smilee

      Timothy

      Thanks in the last paragraph of your post you admit your post is nothing more that an editorial opinion and one I firmly believe is almost totally erroneous as Marbury v Madison was and still is settled law today and your interpretation of the constitution is also I believe, erroneous. You appear to be one of those radicals that believe the civil war should be re-fought and to that end you have fabricated a false post above designed to incite those radicals of the same or similar beliefs as you expose. Below is a summary of this case, I will not subject those here to the total document but you can google it and read it online if you so choose.

      Marbury v. Madison

      Citation: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Concepts: Judicial v. Executive Power/Judicial Review

      Facts

      In his last few hours in office, President John Adams made a series of “midnight appointments” to fill as many government posts as possible with Federalists. One of these appointments was William Marbury as a federal justice of the peace. However, Thomas Jefferson took over as President before the appointment was officially given to Marbury. Jefferson, a Republican, instructed Secretary of State James Madison to not deliver the appointment. Marbury sued Madison to get the appointment he felt he deserved. He asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the appointment. The Judiciary Act, passed by Congress in 1789, permitted the Supreme Court of the United States to issue such a writ.

      Issue

      Whether the Supreme Court of the United States has the power, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute passed by Congress.

      Opinion

      The Court decided that Marbury’s request for a writ of mandamus was based on a law passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional. The Court decided unanimously that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through this case, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review: the power of the Court not only to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute but also to carry out the process and enforce its decision.

      This case is the Court’s first elaborate statement of its power of judicial review. In language which remains relevant today, Chief Justice Marshall said, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Nowhere in the Constitution does the Court have the power that Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed. Despite there being no mention of such power in the Constitution, since 1803, our Nation has assumed the two chief principles of this case: that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and a federal or state law, the Constitution is supreme; and that it is the job of the Court to interpret the laws of the United States.

      • eyeswideopen

        Smilee, they don’t get it that the Constitution is protected and will stop people like them from hijacking it. They think that states who want to control their own gun laws are violating their own rights. I don’t understand how they think that they have the right to over- ride state rights and pretend that the Constitution gives them all encompassing freedom to flip off any laws that protect the states. I believe in states rights and if they don’t like my states laws, then stay the hell out of it. The states didn’t want bands of roving gun toting zealots running through it causing havoc. STATES RIGHTS RULE!!!

  • keith

    here are some quotes to ponder from the founding fathers and a couple of others….
    .does the government fear us!or do we fear the government?when the people fear the government,tyranny has found victory.the federal government is our servant,not our master-THOMAS JEFFERSON.
    .give me liberty or give me death-PATRICK HENRY
    .governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE,JULY 4TH,1776.
    .it is neccessary for every american,with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled.it must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this,and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny,which may appear under any mode or form of government.-MERCY WARREN,HISTORY OF THE RISE,PROGRESS,AND TERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION,1805.
    .a man with a gun is a citizen,a man without a gun is a subject-
    .”gun control”is a job-safty program for criminals-JOHN R LOTT
    .gun control:the theory that a women found dead in a alley,raped and strangled with her panty hose,is somehow morally superior to a women explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound-L.NEIL SMITH

    • eyeswideopen

      To quote Trent Lott and Neil Smith with our founding fathers is ludicrous.

  • http://google raymond

    I just hope that all i have read her is not talk ,What will we do to stop this crazy goverment I hope we have plan

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
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.