By Richard Larsen

To Americans who can still think, this week’s sensationalized gun-control presentation at the White House was all show, with little substance. The intended effect was to have us believe that the president was doing something about gun violence, but nearly all of his 23 recommendations are aimed at law-abiding citizens, rather than criminals.

You’d think that President Obama was from California, as masterfully as he stages events, complete with props, isolated talking-points, and emotional image manipulation. Perhaps it’s simply a “Chicago Way” skill acquired from “never letting a crisis go to waste.” The net result was an emotionalized response to a legitimate concern, which should’ve been approached with common sense, rather than emotionalism. This administration is perhaps the most adept ever at using fear and emotion to further its ideological agenda.

The props used in the presentation were four children who wrote to the president about gun control, and families affected by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary last month. Such blatant emotionalized exploitation of children for a political objective should be an affront to any sentient person. I couldn’t help but think of a picture I saw the next day of two adorable girls holding a sign that said, “Mr. President, we wrote to you about passing all of your debt to us. When do we get to be on TV?” Sorry, girls. That’s not an issue the president cares about; otherwise you could be similarly exploited, emotively, as child-props.

The props, staging, and presentation created the false image that if we care about those children, we must stand with the president in challenging constitutional rights and our own ability to defend ourselves. It’s a false dichotomy, for the basis of his Executive Orders is emotional, and the recommendations of no perceivable empirical value in protecting those children.

Proving that the 23 executive orders were all show and little substance, or mostly emotion and little common sense, consider the fact that had all of the president’s Executive Orders and Administrative Orders been in effect before last month, Adam Lanza would still have been able to perpetrate his crime in Newtown, Connecticut. As it is, he reportedly broke 20 laws that day. It is ludicrous to presume that a few more laws, regulations, or penalties aimed primarily at law-abiding citizens, would have prevented him from perpetrating his heinous act. What those orders will do is impede non-threatening citizens from procuring their own means of protection. The criminals will continue to break laws and regulations to get and do what they want.

At least Obama didn’t issue an Executive Order to ban certain types of weapons, or to enact what is undoubtedly his ultimate goal, the elimination of the Second Amendment altogether, and implement a complete gun ban. Had he done so, the consequences could well have turned sour for him with impeachment proceedings initiated in the House, and for the nation, as law-abiding gun owners across the country prepared to defend their rights against the tyranny of an administration that holds the Constitution, and certain of our inalienable rights, in contempt.

When we approach the issue logically versus emotionally, empirical data must be relied upon, rather than the highly emotional tugs at our heartstrings. The Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gunlocks. From their objective analysis, they “found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as ‘gun control.’”

If we want to be serious about gun violence, first, abolish gun free zones, which blatantly advertise themselves to be uncontested areas to perpetrate mass violence. They allow loonies like Lanza to be foxes in a hen house. Armed citizens, like the one in an Oregon mall last month, are the best defense against the Lanzas of the world.

Second, address the gang violence issue in America. According to the Center for Disease Control, 70% of all gun violence occurs in the 50 largest cities, some of which have outright gun bans in place, and 73% of those crimes are committed by teenagers in gangs. Address the societal breakdown in the inner cities that fosters the gang culture, and armed violence drops significantly.

Third, focus much more effort on background checks including the abolition of the barrier that prevents mental health professionals from sharing patient information with law enforcement on individuals who pose a risk to society.

Fourth, rather than focusing on guns as an ideological agenda, start looking at all violent crimes. According to the FBI, there are 50% more non-firearm homicides each year than firearm homicides, 16,799 to 11,493. And the number one weapon used in all violent crimes is the baseball bat. Neither the bat nor the gun is the problem. The problems are cultural and societal.

And the media must quit playing into the quest for celebrity status by people like Lanza, and start praising people like Nick Meli who stopped the Oregon mall shooting rampage last month.

To solve the complex problems vexing the nation, we need much less emotionalized staging in reaction to crises, and much more common sense. Children used as props to advance an ideological agenda may provide a “feel good” moment for politicians, and even some citizens, but they solve no problems.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

“All countries of the world are coming together in New York to negotiate what is seen as the most important initiative ever regarding conventional arms regulation within the United Nations,” according to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). They’re working on a new treaty throughout the month that will provide a framework for regulating, controlling, registering, and tracking all conventional small firearms in the world. If signed by our president, it could be the most direct and overt effort to annul the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for treaties take supremacy over the Constitution, per Article VI.

In 2006, the UN passed a resolution, “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty,” with a stated objective of establishing “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” The rationale was that terrorism and gang violence could be thwarted by establishing international standards regulating small-arms proliferation.

The Bush administration did not support the 2006 resolution, maintaining that each nation is best in a position to monitor and regulate arms sales rather than a one-size-fits-all approach assumed by the UN. But in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated the U.S. was no longer opposed to such an arms treaty, and in 2010, President Obama reversed the Bush administration objection to the earlier version.

Timing of this incarnation of a small arms treaty has been accelerated by the UN in hopes it can be signed by our current president and ratified by the senate before the November election, which could significantly alter the outlook for U.S. participation.

The UNODA has published a document titled, “Disarmament: A Basic Guide,” which lays out for the public the concerns regarding small arms. On page 68, we read, “Counting such weapons is difficult, as the majority are owned by civiliansThe trade in small arms is not well regulated and is the least transparent of all weapons systems. Due to the lack of regulation and controls, in many countries it is too easy for small arms to slip from the legal into the illicit market—through theft, leakage, corruption or pilferage.” On the next page we read, “Ammunition should be a key part of any discussion on small arms control.”

The UN clearly intends to address legal gun ownership within member states along with the trade of small arms. One of their many research and statement pieces on the UNODA website, states unequivocally, that arms have been “…misused by lawful owners and recommends that arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would … minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”

Former UN ambassador John Bolton has affirmed this intent, and indicates that the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

While it’s uncertain what exact terms and provisions will be included in the new Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the archive of documents on the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs website provide ample indications. From their own documents, it’s clear that they want to accomplish the following, as published by Forbes Online last week:

“1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms.

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons.

4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5. Control distribution and availability of ammunition for small arms.”

The outcome, if adopted by the UN General Assembly, and ratified by the U.S., would result in “Overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, provide license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights,” according to Forbes.

Not only has the White House indicated support for the ATT, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vowed to push it through the Senate for ratification. Until now, the administration’s attempts to diminish 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms have been under the radar, except when botched, as in the Fast and Furious gun walking incident which can only be logically explained away as an effort to create a crisis that they would capitalize on to this end.

We’ve seen all too many times how the Obama administration bypasses congress and implements its agenda through executive orders. Don’t be surprised if the White House attempts to circumvent the Senate’s ratification of the treaty altogether, and declares the ATT “in effect” by Executive Order. After all, constitutional limitations on government, and our constitutional rights, are only valid if honored and upheld, something this administration fails at when it conflicts with their agenda.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Yes, you knew it was just a matter of time before I found a way to share my views with Idaho and the world once again! And the internet has provided the means – “Halli & Friends” is now available online at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk. The show is live at 1pm MST, weekdays, and available on-demand any time, day or night! Several great episodes are already available on the website.

It’s easy to listen on line. Just go to the website and click on today’s show. A new page will open and you’ll need to click the “play” button to listen in live. Be sure to call in with comments, too, at 917-889-3946. Or, you can “click to talk” from the page, using a microphone-headphone headset with your computer.

The show will also be carried on Minuteman Radio 1610, heard on the east side of Idaho Falls.

Listen to past episodes on-demand by clicking on the show title, and the show should begin to play.

Upcoming guests will include legislators, lobbyists, constitutional scholars, and many, many more. Be sure to call in to join the conversation!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Thomas Kime of Howe, Idaho

While listening to one of our local talk shows, I heard a question asked by a seemingly elderly gentleman. It was one of the most naive and uninformed of all the questions I have ever heard. The question was, “Do you believe that the US military would go around door to door and confiscate the guns of US citizens?” Having spent the fifties, sixties, and seventies in the military, I feel qualified to answer. It all depends upon who is the “Tyrant in Chief” in the White House at that time.

Let’s go back to 1859…General Joe Johnston was ordered to Utah to disarm the Mormon people and to arrest and try the leadership of the church for the Mountain Meadows massacre. (The reason that this didn’t happen is that Lincoln declared war on the South and recalled the general.)

In 1956, then President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama and removed from office duly elected officials and confiscated guns from the civil authorities. More recently, there were federal troops at Ruby Ridge, Idaho trying to disarm Randy Weaver. Same scenario at Waco, Texas.

If there are still folks out there who believe the US Military won’t make war on you if the right tyrant is in office, just read the history of the US Army under Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman. They didn’t kick the doors down; they burned down the house down murdering the women and children and stole anything they wanted by order of the Tyrant in Chief!

Written by Thomas Kime of Howe.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Idaho Congressman Bill Sali voted today in support of a bipartisan bill, containing language which he cosponsored, that reaffirms the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents and, thereby, all Americans. The measure passed the House 266-152 and now moves to the Senate for further action.

“This is a victory not only for the law-abiding citizens of the nation’s capital but for all Americans,” Sali said. “An injustice for the residents of D.C. truly is an injustice for our whole country, and today’s vote sends a strong message that the Congress of the United States will take action to uphold the Second Amendment of our Constitution. And it is especially fitting that on Constitution Day, Congress has taken a step to defend the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by that great document 221 years ago.

“At the same time, it is a shame it literally takes an act of Congress to get the Washington, D.C. City Council to do the right thing and follow the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the clear meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The District of Columbia’s continued ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment and disregards the court’s ruling,” said Sali.

The House passed a rewritten version of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act. The text of that bill was replaced with the text of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, a bill Sali cosponsored.

Provisions in H.R. 6691 include:
Repeal D.C. ban on semiautomatic pistols
Restore right of self-defense at home by repealing the draconian trigger lock requirements
Reform registration requirements
Allow D.C. residents to purchase handguns

“After 30 years, it’s time for Washington, D.C. residents to have the same rights that Idahoans enjoy – the ability to protect their families, homes and property, as well to participate in hunting and other recreational shooting activities,” Sali concluded.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Count Dave Ferdinand as another victim of the grinding maw of the Boise City Attorney’s office. Ferdinand happens, perhaps not coincidentally, to be a conservative Republican as well as a Canyon County commissioner.

With at least 31 full-time attorneys and a $490 million budget, the city has the resources to create considerable mischief and pervert justice in the process.

Ferdinand was prosecuted by the city for having a hand-gun in his carry-on luggage. His first trial, recently concluded, ended in a hung jury. The jury was hung by a lone hero juror – Kisha Majors – who, after listening to testimony, was convinced that charges should never have been brought in the first place.

Ferdinand had placed the gun, which he carried for self-protection, in an inside pocket of his luggage for a trip to McCall the previous week, placing it in a rarely-used pocket to prevent his grandchildren from inadvertently finding it. He simply forgot it was there.

But the legal bureaucrats in Boise’s city hall trudge on, and will spend who knows how many more thousands of taxpayer dollars to prosecute Ferdinand again. The new trial has been scheduled for Dec. 12.

Ferdinand has already been forced to spend north of $10,000 to defend himself against a bogus misdemeanor charge. His only other option was to plead guilty to something he did not do – “knowingly” trying to sneak a gun onto a plane -, accept one year of probation and forfeit his Second Amendment rights in the meantime.

The law under which Ferdinand was prosecuted explicitly requires that the defendant “knowingly” try to bring a hand-gun into a secure area of the airport. But according to Ms. Majors, in actuality not one of the six jurors believed that Ferdinand intended to sneak a gun on the plane; all of them believed it was a simple oversight on his part and that he had not done it on purpose.

They were talked into a “guilty” vote by the city prosecutor who somehow convinced them he was guilty just because he owned the gun and that his intent was irrelevant. The prosecutor even tried to keep the judge from giving the jury any instructions regarding the issue of intent.

Ms. Majors agrees with Boise police, and with Ferdinand himself, that he was “neglectful,” but correctly said “that’s not what we were there to decide. There wasn’t any evidence that he knew.”

Since the law requires intent for there to be a violation, Ferdinand plainly was not guilty of violating this law.

Even the Boise police report called it “an honest mistake” and let Ferdinand board the plane after taking possession of his gun.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ferdinand, justice does not seem to be high on the list of priorities for the attorneys who work for the city of Boise.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Gun Owners of America

(Springfield, VA) – Gun Owners of America applauds Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID) for his efforts to protect Second Amendment rights on National Park Service land.

Rep. Sali offered and amendment during a hearing of the National Resources Committee on H.R. 5853, a bill to expand the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include Barrett’s Farm.

Minutemen stashed arms and ammunition at Colonel James Barrett’s farm and turned back, and then used them to turn back Redcoat troops in the first victory for America in the Revolutionary War. It turns out our own National Park Service is also against firearms at the site.
Carrying firearms on land controlled by the NPS is currently prohibited, even if the state in which the land is located allows firearms. The Interior Department recently proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, but they have not yet taken effect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still not be allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problems with the rule, open carry would remain prohibited.

Rep. Sali’s amendment simply would require that state and local law govern firearms possession on the new land to be controlled by the NPS.

“The Founding Fathers fought and died for the freedoms we still enjoy today,” said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. “One of the foremost of those freedoms was the rights to keep and bear arms. It is sadly ironic that the NPS would disarm citizens at a site where firearms played such an important role in our nation’s history. We applaud Congressman Sali’s effort to defend the Second Amendment against the anti-self defense regulations of the National Park Service,” Pratt said.

Rep. Sali offered similar amendments today on three additional NPS bills, dealing with: the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River; the National Trails System Act; and the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail. The Sali amendments did not prevail in Committee. Rep. Sali has not ruled out bringing these amendments up again if there is an opportunity when the bill reaches the House floor.

Larry Pratt is the Executive Director for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A federal agency has halted a controversial program giving agents engraved Leatherman tool kits reminding them to focus on the seizure of private property, after Congressman Bill Sali, (R-Idaho), raised objections.
Sali said he will pursue legislation to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from restarting the marketing program.

The ATF had ordered Leatherman tool kits, engraved with the words “Always Think Forfeiture.” Sali learned of the issue after a constituent brought the purchase to his attention. ATF said the tools were to be used as part of its Asset Forfeiture Program, which provides training to federal, state and local law enforcement. But Sali said the “Always Think Forfeiture” motto engraved on agent tools sent the wrong message to law-abiding citizens.

“Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to private property. But ATF, through its engraved motto, sends a message that these rights are secondary to the government’s apparent goal to ‘always’ seek forfeit of private property. Of course, we all want our law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute criminals fully. But I have a problem with a federal agency sending a message, even an unintended one, that law abiding citizens will apparently ‘always’ be treated the same as criminals.” said Sali.

In an email to Sali’s office, the ATF said after hearing the Congressman’s objections, the agency had “halted the distribution” of “Always Think Forfeiture” engraved items.

The ATF email said, “As part of training for ATF special agents and state and local task force officers, ATF purchased a number of Leatherman tool kits engraved with the words ‘ATF – Asset Forfeiture’ and ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ for distribution to the participants. These training aids were designed to increase awareness of the asset forfeiture concept so that persons who do not regularly employ the strategy as part of a criminal investigation might be reminded to consider it. We regret that ATF’s training initiative created a misperception. However, be assured that ATF’s Asset Forfeiture Program complies with Federal law and Department of Justice guidelines. As a result of the concerns brought to ATF’s attention by your constituents, we have halted the distribution of the training aids at issue.”

Because ATF said the program complies with U.S. Department of Justice standards and federal law, Sali said he’s drafting legislation that would prevent ATF from launching similar marketing program.

Related post links here.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The President of BSU’s Faculty Senate, Dr. David Saunders, has just issued his Spring 2008 report, and it’s not encouraging if you are a parent looking for a quality and safe college education for your student.

To begin with, the Faculty Senate adopted two recommendations which will dilute the quality of education BSU offers, especially to its undergrads. The recommendations come in connection with the University’s move to become more of a research-centered school.

The first, dealing with “Faculty Tenure,” eliminates the policy “requiring evidence of outstanding performance in teaching” and weakens it to “meeting the college criteria,” whatever those are. Bottom line: BSU will now offer tenure to instructors who no longer have to demonstrate excellence in actually educating the students in their charge.

The second, dealing with “Faculty Promotion,” eliminates the policy that “teaching is the single most important role of faculty” at BSU and replaces that policy with one that says teaching merely plays “a critical role” in consideration for advancement. Bottom line: average-to-poor instructors will now be eligible for academic promotions at one of the state’s premiere institutions of higher education.

The Faculty Senate also took the time to declare that BSU must continue to be a gun-free zone, resolving unanimously that the “Administration is most vehemently urged” to oppose legislation that would permit adults with concealed weapons permits to carry on campus. Not just “urged,” you will note, but “vehemently urged.” And “using all resources available.”

Thus BSU’s faculty, in all its wisdom, has decided that only certain parts of the Constitution should be honored on campus. As with most on the left, the template among BSU faculty is simple: First Amendment, good (unless proponents of Intelligent Design try to use it), Second Amendment, bad.

Firearms are currently prohibited on the BSU campus, turning the student body into helpless shooting-gallery targets for the kind of deranged gunman who killed 32 students a Virginia Tech just a year ago. Guns, you will remember, were absolutely banned from the Virginia Tech campus, illustrating just how useless such bans are in preventing campus violence.

The “Resolution on SB 1381 – Concealed Weapons Law” says that “Faculty at Boise State University cannot be expected to academically evaluate students who carry weapons,” apparently afraid that the average student may demand a higher grade at gunpoint.

Nor can students “be expected to feel comfortable being instructed by Faculty if Faculty are in possession of firearms.” Apparently they worry that students will live in mortal fear that a professor will suddenly being firing at them randomly as they sit peacefully in his classroom.

Further, the resolution warns that allowing qualified students (concealed weapons permits are only issued to those over the age of 21) and professors to protect themselves will damage recruitment of both instructors and students. No, they wouldn’t want to be anywhere law-abiding citizens could defend themselves against violent attacks. Who would?

Visiting athletic teams, the resolution warns, may not want to play at BSU, apparently for fear they will be ambushed by gun-toting redneck students, and those who lecture on subjects “that are controversial in nature” may be intimidated into silence, in evident fear that a disgruntled student will blow them away if they say something the student happens to disagree with.

The reality is that the mere possibility that students or professors may in fact be in a position to defend themselves and others is the most powerful deterrent against homicidal behavior. (How many shootings take place in police stations?) Someone thinking about shooting the place up will simply have no idea who might be in a position to stop him in his tracks.

One of the questions on the Gem State Voter Guide will deal specifically with this issue, whether a candidate supports or opposes the right of adults with concealed carry permits to carry on Idaho’s college campuses.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Be sure to read Part I, A Little History

The Shelly Parker Case

By George A. Reimann

The case of Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia is certainly more clear-cut.

The counsel for the District’s collective right theorists argued that the Second Amendment protects only a right of the various state governments to preserve and arm their militias. Since the “well regulated Militia” of the founding era no longer exists, application of the Second Amendment depends upon a non-existent institution. The District’s counsel even asserted in oral argument that it would be constitutional to ban all firearms outright.

The opinion for the United States District Court was filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. This opinion demolished the District’s argument when he concluded “…that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia.

In contrast to Miller, there is no ambiguity here. The opposing positions are clearly stated. Further, an abundance of scholarship was developed in recent decades supporting the individual rights position. Even some university scholars (Sanford Levinson, Yale, and Laurence Tribe, Harvard) who are considered to be Liberals support the individual rights view. So it should be an interesting election year, especially if the SCOTUS decides to take this case when it reconvenes in the Fall.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.