The live stream will begin on March 6th at 2:30 ET!!
|
Today, the Senate, with the help of sixteen Republican Senators, voted to proceed on new proposed gun control legislation. Two of these sixteen were my senators from Tennessee: Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. Instead of standing with Paul, Cruz, Rubio and Lee, they stood with Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer. Oh they had their reasons for voting this way. You see, their vote was actually pro-second Amendment! Alexander's office released a statement today after the vote. Laughably, the statement lead with the statement "Alexander: “Always Ready to Defend” Tennesseans’ Second Amendment Rights in U.S. Senate." “I’m always ready to defend and debate the Second Amendment constitutional rights of Tennesseans. In fact, I look forward to sponsoring and voting for amendments that strengthen those rights. To be unwilling to defend and debate Second Amendment rights on the Senate floor would be like joining the Grand Ole Really Senator Alexander? Really? If you truly believed this you would have killed this thing today. If voting the way Alexander did was "defending" the Second Amendment, then why did known gun grabbers vote the same way Alexander did? Was their vote a defense of the Second Amendment? Not to be outdone, Senator Corker released a one sentence statement on the vote: “I don’t understand why any senator wouldn’t want to debate these issues, but in the end, I will not support any legislation that violates our Second Amendment rights.” You see what these two are doing? They vote to allow gun control legislation to proceed so they can vote against it later on. Then they'll run back to Tennessee and talk about how much of a Second Amendment defender they are. This is politics over principle folks, plain and simple and I for one am sick of it. This bill should have been killed today. Period.
Alexander is up for re-election next year. This will not be forgotten. Here are the top Tweets of the week that have been retweeted by Rampart Media followers: Michelle Antoinette Obama: The WH Is NO LONGER The ‘Peoples House’ It Is ONLY Our Invited Guests “House” - via Ironicsurrealism.com At a “workshop” for the film 42 in the State Dining Room of the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama told the assembled guests that “this is your house, too”. ....... The White House is currently not allowing the public to tour or access the White House. Only invited guests are allowed inside. Army Training Instructor Lists Evangelism, Catholicism, US Christian Identity, Islamophobia As Religious Extremism [Image] - via Ironicsurrealism.com A U.S. Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Fox News has learned. Activist Demands Other Publications Drop 'Illegal Immigrant' After AP - via Breitbart.com After the Associated Press on Tuesday decided to drop the term "illegal immigrant" and expunge it from its style guide (used by nearly every journalist), activists then immediately began to demand other publications follow suit. Jose Antonio Vargas, the illegal immigrant who has gained publicity in recent years after he revealed that he did not have citizenship or legal status, tweeted, "You're next, @nytimes, @latimes, @washingtonpost, @WSJ. No human being is illegal." Report: Authorities stop less than half of all illegal border crossings - via TheBlaze.com A sophisticated airborne radar system developed to track Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs in Afghanistan has found a new use along the U.S. border withMexico, where it has revealed gaps in security. Operated from a Predator surveillance drone, the radar system has collected evidence that Border Patrol agents apprehended fewer than half of the foreign migrants and smugglers who had illegally crossed into a 150-square-mile stretch of southern Arizona. [...] Slate Features Duck Genitals Scientist Defending Her Study - via NewsBusters.org Most Americans would agree that a federal study -- burning through hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars by the way -- on duck penises is not exactly a high priority when we need to get our fiscal house in order. But Patricia Brennan would disagree with you, and she took to the liberal online journal Slate to do so last Tuesday. Wait, did I mention that Brennan has a vested interest in defending the study of duck dongs? She's a research professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst receiving federal money for the study? And Now the video: Would it surprise you to know that the Democrats lie when it comes to what constitutes an "assault rifle?" Yeah, I didn't think so.... Joe Carr has introduced HB0042 in the Tennessee General Assembly. This bill would make it a Class A Misdemeanor for any federal agent to enforce any new regulation, executive order, etc. that seeks to:
(1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi automatic firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition; or (2) Require any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to be registered in any manner. It also requires the Attorney General to represent any Tennessean who is prosecuted by the federal government for violating 1 or 2. Naturally, Tennessee Democrats (who support the President's gun plans) were apoplectic. The party's chairman, Dip Forrester, called Carr an "extreme politician" and said it was "disgraceful." I for one, would love to see this bill become law in Tennessee not only for the individual liberty it would protect but as an added bonus, we would get to see Dip Forrester's bow tie pop off in a fit of rage..... Anyway......if it did pass, it would no doubt face a court challenge. The challengers would no doubt base their arguments on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Section 2) which states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Maybe I'm a purist, but the first sentence of this is the most important; This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof. So, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the law itself is constitutional. If it isn't then the Supremacy Clause does not apply. I'm not the only one who has this interpretation. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 33, has this to say: "But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing........... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such......... It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution" How then, does this apply to Joe Carr's legislation and the Supremacy Clause argument against it if it is taken to court? First, the easy one. If Carr's legislation is applied to protecting Tennesseans from an Executive Order, then there is no way the Supremacy Clause can be used as a shield. The reason is that the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws. Does the President have lawmaking authority? Obama might think he does, but he does not. Second, what about new laws passed by Congress? This will be a little trickier and I'm not really sure how it would play out. Would the new law have to be declared constitutional before Carr's legislation would be declared unconstitutional? What if the new law never made it up to the Supreme Court? What would happen in the meantime? Could Carr's legislation be declared unconstitutional even if there are no new federal laws? It will be an interesting fight and it's one that I think will be a good one to have. The enemies of liberty are on the move.
Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein will introduce major gun control legislation on January 22nd. Here are some of the lowlights: Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines. Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons. Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Contact your member of Congress today and demand that they reject Feinstein's legislation. |
AuthorConstitutional conservative and free-market defender blogging about national and Tennessee politics Blogroll
|
RSS Feed