As Obama moves forward on gun control, States move to strengthen gun rights

09 Nov
As Obama moves forward on gun control, States move to strengthen gun rights

Even before the Obama administration pulled back the curtain to reveal its anti-gun agenda to the naked light of day, individual states won victories and made moves in regards to the strengthening of gun rights.

First, and probably most importantly, is the constitutional amendment that passed overwhelmingly on election day in Louisiana.  Constitutional Amendment 2 was a ballot measure to amend the state constitution, thereby strengthening it against against legislative infringements and activist judges who would seek undermine the inalienable right.

A quick breakdown of the Amendment is as follows:

PROPOSED CHANGE: The proposed amendment would add language to the Constitution that says the right to possess a weapon is a fundamental right in Louisiana and any restriction must pass a “strict scrutiny” judicial review. The amendment also would remove language from the Constitution that explicitly gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws restricting the right to carry a concealed weapon.

A VOTE FOR would require that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms be subject to the highest level of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. Also, the amendment would say that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental one in Louisiana. It would delete a line in the constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. The deletion of that language does not mean the legislature would lose its right to pass concealed carry laws.

A VOTE AGAINST would retain the existing language in the Constitution which affirms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged but does not require strict scrutiny of arms laws and expressly allows the Legislature to regulate concealed weapons.
I added emphasis on the two main factors in the proposed change.  Highlighting that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right elevates the right to the auspices of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  As it stood before, one could make the argument (and gun control zealots had) in Louisiana that bearing arms was akin to driving and could be granted and denied on a whim and regulated at the discretion of the legislature.

But now, the classification of the right as fundamental invokes specific legal tests used by courts to determine the carefully constrained conditions under which the Louisiana government can restrain such a right.  That is where strict scrutiny comes into play.  Strict scrutiny demands that any gun control measure that passes the legislature must be so narrow in its scope and so crucial the the welfare of the State of Louisiana that it is trumps the right in which it limits.  As it stood before, the level of scrutiny in Louisiana was “rational review”.

Rational review is the level in which activist judges get to most easily ignore the Constitution and rule by personal bias.  If a judge can rationalize their ruling (and really, a person can pretty much rationalize anything in their own mind), then they can rule based on that.  Strict scrutiny puts an end to that.

With the Constitutional Amendment 2 passing by a final vote percentage of 73.5% to 26.5%, Louisiana has the strongest most pro gun state Constitution in America.  It is also a blueprint for other states to follow in securing the right for its citizens against the coming wave of Federal infringements on the Second Amendment.

But it wasn’t only Louisiana that was on the move strengthening gun rights.  In Oklahoma, beginning on Nov. 1st of this year, the Open Carrying of firearms with a license was made legal throughout the state.  Didn’t hear about it?  I’m not surprised, the streets didn’t run red with blood, drunken shootouts didn’t take place in saloons,  panic and pandemonium didn’t run rampant and therefore the press didn’t really make mention of it.

Now, while I myself am an open carry supporter,  in truth I prefer constitutional carry.  Oklahoma, as part of a compromise when framing this bill, requires a license to carry openly or concealed.  On the bright side, Oklahoma will recognize the permits from all the states that issue them.

Speaking of open carry, the Texas legislature will pick up in January where they left off in 2011 (they meet every other year for 140 days) with House Bill 2756 that would allow Texans the right to open carry as well.

These are important developments because it means that while the Federal government and the Obama administration will be the most anti gun threat since 1994, the states are beginning to assert their own sovereignty in this matter.

Don’t believe me about 1994?  If I can direct your attention to the left coast, perpetual gun grabbing zealot Dianne Feinstein has declared that with an Obama victory she is going to move forward with another assualt weapons ban.  This one even more extreme than in 1994 as it would offer no grandfather clause so ALL platform weapons with a pistol grip and other arbitrary features would be confiscated outright.

Will it go anywhere?  Not with Republicans controlling the House.  But since when has that stopped Executive Order Obama from just doing what he wanted anyways because “it needs to be done now”?

My prediction for the next four years is a battle in Washington to hold ground in regards to the Second Amendment, but a battle in the State Capitols around the country for the strengthening of the right to keep and bear arms.

We’re not even a fortnight into November and the battle has been joined.  Tally-ho.


Posted by on November 9, 2012 in Uncategorized


9 responses to “As Obama moves forward on gun control, States move to strengthen gun rights

  1. Julie

    November 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Reblogged this on carlsonsblog.

  2. Rich

    November 9, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    It’s as if the government doesn’t realize passing such a thing would cause a mutiny. Malitias would form and all hell would break loose nationwide for taking away our rights. First this, then what’s next??

  3. Jason Griest (@JasonGriest)

    November 9, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    The overthrow of our Government will be a reality soon. It will not be slow but sudden and bloody.

  4. Rwolf

    November 9, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?

    Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

    Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

    Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

    The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

    During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

    NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

    You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

    Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

    Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

  5. Lin

    November 10, 2012 at 8:16 am

    What to do?

  6. William S. Cleek Jr.

    November 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Not just Revolt I Say IMPEACH the prez!!!!

  7. jon

    November 14, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Any change to this amendment is unlawful. The amendment states “shall not be infringed.”
    To change the wording of this amendment would be an infringement to the right and therefor unlawful. Obama’s constant U.S Constitution changes are all unlawful and must be stopped. Do not let your rights be taken from you!! Honestly the only thing keeping the Gov’t from taking all of your rights away is the fact that we aren’t at a national disaster. Obama passed a bill that takes away all of our constitutional rights if we are at a National Disaster. This includes Martial Law everywhere, Guns will be taken by the military. Food and water will be taken by the military for solders. We the people let this happen and we must stop it. We can start by impeaching this president. The people are the gov’t bosses, It is OUR job to make sure that the President follows the constitution, Not change it for how they want it. Do not let one person in office destroy our country.

    • Michael J. Salzbrenner

      November 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      I agree. However, these things are apparently what the people are asking for. Obama is still in office, and was voted in by the very people that asked for these invasions on our rights. They asked for them simply by condoning his actions. They condone his actions by providing him their support. These people only see what they WANT to see. If someone offers them free cool-aid then they are going to take it. They don’t care whether it was taken from someone else. They don’t care where it came from at all. They just know they got themselves some free cool-aid, and that is all they want to know. These people ARE the problem. The majority of the population has taken the opinion that stupidity, ignorance, and self proclaimed entitlement are the tools of success. The only option the rest of us have at this point is to hope the “transition” is as quick and destructive as possible. Those of us who have not accepted self inflicted ignorance will be the ones to survive, those that have decided to be ignorant will be eliminated through natural selection. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to realize that when the “source” of your survival is eliminated then you will be eliminated as well. The natural resolution to this dilemma is “BE YOUR OWN SOURCE OF YOUR OWN SURVIVAL!”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: