Can You Guess The Source Of The Below Quotation?

Read the following, and tell me source of it.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

If you do not know the source of the above quotation, well you just might be amazed to find out that it comes from the New York Civil Rights Law, Section 4, Article 2. I wonder does it look or sound familiar to you? Yes of course it does! Here it is with a single word changed:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yep that is the second Amendment to the United States Constitution found in the Bill of Rights. The NY Law looks awfully similar to it, does it not? Yet New York is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to firearms possession. I can only hope the NRA will ram it up their snouts in Albany until they realize that the people have the right to keep and bear arms even here in New York.

Reference:

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYSL.pdf

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/CVR04_4.html

All the best,
Glenn B

Firearms Ignorance Personified - Carolyn McCarthy Congressional Representative For My District

Below is a video I found at the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association website. The video is dated, it sounds as if it was made back near February 2007. Over a year old or not, it is worth the watch if you have not seen it before. In essence the video shows a reporter from MSNBC as he interviews the Congresswoman about a gun ban she introduced which would ban firearms with barrel shrouds. He logically asks her what is a barrel shroud and why should a firearm with one be banned. Listen to McCarthy's laughable attempt at sidestepping the question. Besides being laughable, this video plainly shows something important about the anti-gun crowd, but later for that - watch the video first.



So what did it show that was important to learn about the anti-gun crowd. It showed their ignorance. This Congresswoman, the politician who won her first election I suspect based upon sympathy, this ignorant crusader who would ban assault weapons, this horse's ass anti-gun person who would leave us defenseless, does not even know what is one of the features which she finds evil or bad enough to take advantage of in order to ban a weapon that has that feature. She is just absolutely ignorant of what is a barrel shroud, yet it is apparent from the interviewer's questioning that weapons with barrel shrouds were to be included in the gun ban this woman was sponsoring.

Had she even had enough sense to have paused for a moment, then actually used her gray cells to have thought about the two words and their individual meanings - barrel and shroud - my guess is she may have been able to give a good answer as to what was a barrel shroud. As it turned out, she was just too much a ranting anti-gun advocate to give an honest answer right away. She just kept trying to push the party line that guns are in essence bad, and she did so by trying to evade the question and mouth off balderdash instead of an honest answer. Yet the reporter was dogged in his pursuit of an honest answer and pretty much forced her to answer the question truthfully. When she finally did so she had to admit she had no idea about that particular firearms accessory for which she had proposed anti-gun legislation.

How assholes candidates like her get elected and then reelected is beyond me.
This video should be shown again and again to people who are on the fence about gun control. If they saw the ignorance of anti-gun politicians such as is displayed in this video, it might just persuade them to come down off the fence on our side of it. If you know someone who is a fence sitter when it comes to guns rights versus gun control, why not show that person this video, or at least email them a link to it.

Safe shooting,
Glenn B

Allow Me To Gloat...

...and to say (and pardon me if you are sensitive):

Hey Bloomberg, hey Lautenberg, hey Schumer, hey Daley, hey Brady, hey McCarthy, hey Obama, hey all you other anti-Constitutional, anti-Gun Rights nut jobs - we won - you lost; our right to keep and bear arms was affirmed. Now do the right thing and live by the law, or get your asses out of government.

With Pride In America,
Glenn B

The MUST ISSUE Clause

Last night, I read some Heller Decision, and the thing that popped out at me, and that really sank in, was that Justice Scalia said this:

"Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

I had been concerned, in fact worried, about the Supreme Court saying the right to keep and bear arms was subject to licensing regulations. Now I am not all that worried. Sure states, and localities, apparently can and will require licensing. Many like my home state likely will continue to try to make the licensing process difficult; but I am thrilled that it now seems the states will by law have to fall under the 'must issue' provision of the court's decision. Those two words, MUST ISSUE, are big indeed. They are not the words: 'May Issue' which imply it is up to the licensing venue to decide if they will issue or not. They are not the words 'Shall Issue' which imply it is a thing of the future. No they are not either set of words that were used by so many states before the decision. The court has made it plain and simple - there is no way around it - it is now Constitutional law - now a right of each person (and always has been) - that if a license is required by a government, and if the person is not disqualified from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights - the government MUST ISSUE the license. Of course the states will argue that the decision only applies to the District of Columbia; but that will be fought against and defeated, in the courts in short order if it goes that far.

Besides the fact that the Supreme Court decided the right to keep and bear arms is a right of each individual, in other words that they confirmed the term "...the people..." in the Second Amendment means each person as opposed to the government, the two words 'Must Issue' are the biggest news in the case. I believe that the section of the decision in which those words are seen will become known as the Must Issue Clause, or the Must Issue Decision. Those two words and the context in which they were used are a virtual powder keg that put power back into the hands of We The People.

My thanks to the Justices; but most of all my thanks to Mr. Heller for going through with this!

All the best,
Glenn B