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.

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.

“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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

A Little History

The last time the SCOTUS confronted the 2nd Amendment directly was U.S. v. Miller in 1939. The Court’s decision was ambiguous at best and each side of the gun control debate claims the decision supports their position.

The first federal law regulating firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934 which levied a $200 tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns (with a barrel length of less than 18 inches). The feds claimed that such guns were the weapons of choice for the gangs that developed during prohibition. Jack Miller and his buddy Frank Layton fit the profile of unsavory characters. Miller was a bank robber and moonshiner with serious enemies due to his ratting out of cohorts in a bank robbery. So he needed his sawed off shotgun. Both Miller and Layton were arrested by federal agents in June of 1938 for transporting his shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas in violation of the 1934 Act.

The Court’s decision was rendered in May of 1939, however Miller had died in April from multiple bullet wounds. His .45 was by his side with four rounds fired. It seems he needed that sawed off shotgun.

So the Court made its decision without hearing any arguments or examining any evidence presented by Jack Miller that a sawed off shotgun was a suitable militia arm and that his rights under the 2nd Amendment were violated. Thus, without any opposition the Justice Department won its case by default.

In its decision the Court concluded “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” (emphasis added)

But the Court also noted “And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (emphasis added) In 1939 the kind of arms in common use were bolt action rifles. We had the 1903 Springfield, the Brits had their Enfields, the Germans had their Mausers, etc., The Garand was issued on an experimental basis in 1936 and was not in common use. So when called for service the men were expected to appear with some kind of bolt action rifle (as well as sidearms). Such rifles were abundant due to military surplus sales (starting with Krags after the Spanish-American War) and from commercial production. Today however the arm in common use is the M-16, which is capable of fully automatic fire. It is classified as a sub-machine gun. So, according to Miller, when called for service men are expected to appear bearing M-16s supplied by themselves?

Be sure to read Part II, The Shelly Parker Case.

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

The mission of the Idaho Values Alliance is to make Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family. One of our four goals in pursuit of that mission is to promote judicial restraint, since so many traditional values in our culture have been trashed by a hyperactive judiciary which is increasingly inclined to legislate from the bench.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder will retire from the Idaho Supreme Court this summer, before his term is up, which means that Governor Butch Otter will appoint his replacement from a list of two to four names given to him by the Idaho Judicial Council (IJC). Since our state Supreme Court consists of only five justices, this is a decision of immense importance for every Idaho family, since the Court issues rulings that affect the life of every citizen in the state.

Unfortunately, the process by which Justice Schroeder’s replacement is selected virtually excludes the public from meaningful participation and information. The IJC is a seven-member committee which is appointed rather than elected, meaning that critical decisions will be made by officials who are political appointees and have no direct accountability to the public.

One of the seven members of the IJC is district judge Ronald Wilper, the activist judge who denied the Keep the Commandments Coalition its right to a vote on a duly qualified petition in 2004. His legally flawed ruling was overturned by the state Supreme Court 4-1, and yet he is now in a position to influence the choice of our next justice.

For all we know, genuine conservatives may be in a distinct minority on the IJC, yet it will have the authority to deny 15-17 of the applicants the opportunity to sit on the bench.

To give the citizens of Idaho some idea of the judicial philosophy of the candidates who have applied for this vacancy, the Idaho Values Alliance has produced a non-partisan questionnaire which has been mailed to all nineteen candidates. Responses will be posted on our website after May 14, the deadline for the return of the questionnaires.

I’ve included the questions from this “Citizen Information Guide” below for your perusal. As you will see, the questions give every candidate an opportunity to inform the public about the judicial philosophy he (generic use) will bring to the bench if selected.

Judicial candidates routinely refuse to return questionnaires such as this, but there really is no good reason for a candidate with a clear judicial philosophy to hesitate to answer any of these questions.

In 2000, when Dan Eismann decisively defeated a sitting justice for a seat on the Supreme Court, he answered a detailed non-partisan questionnaire while his opponent did not, so a precedent has been set that a candidate who is unafraid to divulge his judicial philosophy need have no hesitation letting the public know something about that philosophy.

IDAHO SUPREME COURT CITIZEN INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE:

1. The Founders of the state of Idaho were grateful to God for our freedom.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

2. All men have an inalienable right to enjoy and defend both life and liberty.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

3. All men have an inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

4. All political power is inherent in the people, not the courts.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

5. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship should be forever

guaranteed.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

6. Liberty of conscience should not be construed to excuse acts of

licentiousness.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

7. Bigamy and polygamy should be forever prohibited in the state of Idaho.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

8. Idahoans should have the right to freely speak, write and publish on all

subjects, but are responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

9. Idaho’s constitution permits capital punishment.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

10. The people, not just the militia, should have the right to keep and

bear arms.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

11. Idaho law should not impose licensure, registration or special taxes on the

ownership of firearms or ammunition.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

12. Idaho law should not permit the confiscation of firearms, except those

actually used in the commission of a felony.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

13. The right of eminent domain should be permitted for any use necessary

to the complete development of the material resources of the state.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

14. Property qualifications should be allowed for school elections and elections

creating indebtedness.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

15. Unless the constitution expressly directs or permits, the judicial department

should not exercise the powers properly belonging to the legislative and

executive departments.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

16. Casino gambling is contrary to public policy and should be strictly prohibited,

including electronic and electromechanical imitation and simulation of all

forms of casino gambling.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

17. The first concern of all good government should be the virtue and sobriety of

the people, and the purity of the home.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

18. The legislature should further all well directed efforts to promote temperance

and morality.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

19. All political subdivisions in Idaho should be prohibited from recognizing any

domestic legal union other than a marriage between a man and a

woman.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

20. The governor should have the power to disapprove of any item or items of

any bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

21. Which one of the current or recent U.S. Supreme Court Justices most reflects your judicial philosophy?

___ Ginsburg

___ O’Connor

­­___ Kennedy

___ Scalia

___ Other ___________________________

22. Rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1-10 when approaching the constitution, with “living document” being a 1 and “strict constructionist” being a 10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

23. Which of the following former U.S. Presidents best represents your political philosophy?

___ Jimmy Carter

___ Ronald Reagan

___ Bill Clinton

___ George W. Bush

___ Other ___________________________

Read The Idaho Supreme Court: Appointment vs. Election, Part I and Part II

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