Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Liberty Guard
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
Tag:

Gun Control

BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Remember Isaiah – Gun Grabbers Never Rest

by lgadmin April 20, 2016
written by lgadmin

The prophet Isaiah, in one of his many insights on human nature, warned us in Chapter 57, Verse 20 in the Old Testament book bearing his name, that the wicked never rest. He likened them to “the troubled sea . . . whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”

So it is with gun-control advocates in 21st Century America, who continue to stir their toxic potions formulated to undermine our constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, with so much of the nation’s media and political attention focused on matters involving convention delegate counts, primary vote results, and Donald Trump’s latest hissy-fit-of-the-day, much of what the Left is doing to weaken the 2nd Amendment receives far less attention than it should.

The latest venue in which the gun grabbers have opted to ply their trade, is a piece of real estate so small and far-removed from the mainland, that few Americans could find it on a world map even if offered a winning lottery ticket to do so.

The Northern Mariana Islands, one of only two territories designated as a “Commonwealth” for purposes of U.S. sovereignty (the only other one being Puerto Rico), is a small chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean. The territory’s last brush with mainland recognition was in August 1945, when an airstrip on the island of Tinian served as the takeoff-point for the “Enola Gay” on its bombing run to Hiroshima. Now, 71-years later, The Northern Mariana Islands are home to one of the latest assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.

Just last month, a federal judge ruled that the Commonwealth government’s strict gun ban was unconstitutional. To retaliate, the legislature mandated that a $1,000 tax be paid by any purchaser of a handgun. Governor Torres puffed out his chest and declared his hope that this confiscatory action would serve as a “role model” for other states and municipalities.

This action by the Mariana Islands is by no means the first effort by anti-Second Amendment governors and legislatures to ban or limit possession of firearms by levying excessive taxes, though it is the most severe. And, even though the tax likely will be stricken down once challenges work their way through the federal legal system, the burden on those citizens of this Pacific Ocean Commonwealth wishing to purchase a handgun is very real.

Here in the continental United States, three months ago the city of Seattle in the state of Washington reaffirmed its long-standing aversion to the Second Amendment by enacting a $25 tax on each firearm purchase, and a tax of two to five cents on every round of ammunition sold. Officials in Cook County, Illinois, another notoriously anti-gun jurisdiction, are gleefully waiting for June 1st, when a per-round tax on ammunition goes into effect there.

Meanwhile, across the continent in Connecticut, a state court judge decided last week that federal law has no applicability in that state; at least if the law in question serves to protect firearms manufacturers and retailers against lawsuits based on the unlawful use of the firearm by a purchaser or subsequent user. The fact that the federal law provides to firearms manufacturers and retailers nothing more than the same level of protection afforded manufacturers and retailers of virtually every other lawful product made or sold in the United States, mattered little to the local judge.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has long-advocated for a national, 25% sales tax on firearms purchases; and routinely takes her Socialist opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to task for not kowtowing just as strongly as she to the anti-gun agenda. For the most part, however, these and other continuing challenges to one of our most basic liberties remain under the radar in this presidential election cycle.

Fortunately, Republican candidate Ted Cruz has not taken his eye off the target even as he fends off Trump’s constant rantings that he is “stealing” delegates from the New York billionaire. Last week, for example, Cruz joined with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and introduced a Senate bill, to rein in the notorious Obama Administration initiative known as “Operation Choke Point.” The Cruz-Lee legislation would stop federal agencies from abusing their power by pressuring banks and other financial institutions to cut off credit and other financial services for businesses that deal lawfully in firearms and related products; which is precisely what the Obama Administration has been doing for years.

The sooner broader attention can be focused on these and other gun-control efforts this campaign cycle, the better the chance we can defeat them before lasting damage is done to one of most cherished and important civil liberties.

April 20, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

When It Comes To Combatting Gun Violence, the Real Empty Seat is in the Oval Office

by lgadmin January 13, 2016
written by lgadmin

At one time in the United States, when storied leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan walked the corridors of the White House, the annual State of the Union actually meant something. Whether delivered as a written report, or in person to a joint session of Congress, the ceremonial act was, as Article II of the U. S. Constitution mandates, an opportunity for the President to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union,” as well as recommend policies to fix the issues currently facing the nation. Most importantly, given the stature and respect of those delivering the remarks, State of the Union addresses were events that Americans looked to for real substance, reassurance, and even inspiration.

Today — and especially since Bill Clinton discovered that States of the Union provided an excellent opportunity to present a political laundry list for his Party’s supporters — we are lucky to get just one genuine fact that has not first been put through the ringer of highly paid speechwriters, political consultants, and Party apparatchiks. Even guests of the First Family have become political pawns, carefully chosen to serve as human exclamation points to punctuate the cause du jour featured in the President’s speech.

This year, the theatrics that accompanied Barack Obama’s final State of the Union took a new twist, with one visitor’s seat left vacant as a contrived “memorial” to the victims of gun violence; used by the President to shame Congress for its supposed inaction on gun control.

The real “empty seat,” however, is the one behind the President’s Oval Office desk.

For seven years, we have been held captive as Obama periodically bloviates about the need for tighter gun control, notably after each devastating tragedy involving firearms. A perfect example of this was Obama’s firearms “town hall” last week, in which carefully screened questions served up to the President repeated opportunities to deliver long screeds about gun control, with virtually no substance, but much smoke and mirrors.

Obama, it is well-established, never has been loathe to point fingers and uses his presidential bully pulpit to try to shame supporters of the Second Amendment — often the National Rifle Association by name as a proxy for all firearms owners as a whole. The sheer paranoia of this Administration toward the NRA and its perceived omnipotence, helps Obama perpetuate the myth that the NRA’s five million, dues-paying members are but a front for a secretive and unaccountable “vast Right-wing conspiracy,” controlled by “the gun industry.”

Obama’s fantastical notions about the NRA would be laughable but for the fact that Obama’s acerbic propaganda signals just how far removed he is from the sentiment of the nation, while providing him an excuse for why he must “go it alone” in forging anti-gun policies by non-legislative Executive Actions.

In reality, the only person Obama has to blame for a lack of “meaningful action” on gun crime, is himself. And, the facts lend no support to his efforts either.

Despite the heated rhetoric about gun crime following isolated mass shootings, for example, a 2014 audit of federal prosecutions shows a dramatic decrease in federal gun-crime prosecutions under Obama. Moreover, firearms investigations by Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms also are in decline. Obama loves to explain away this drop in prosecutions of actual gun crime – such as straw man purchases, and possession of firearms by felons – as a matter of cuts to ATF funding forced on him by a hostile Republican Congress. However, it is his own Department of Justice that sets law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities for federal prosecutions — including for firearms violations — and, when it comes to taking violent criminals off the street, it simply has not been a priority for Obama.

In the words of one gun control historian at George Washington University commenting on shifting priorities at the Justice Department under Obama, “there’s more ideological cache harassing Bubba at the gun show than getting a handle on gun crime.” And, with the further confusion created by Obama’s recent Executive Actions about who needs a Federal Firearms License to sell a firearm, this harassment will only increase without any positive effect on gun violence.

It was always unlikely that, in his waning days as President, Obama would somehow come to terms with the reality about firearms ownership (up) and firearms crimes (down); or, that in the areas where he could have actually made a tangible impact on gun violence, Obama would finally take responsibility for failing because of his unwillingness to set aside politics and actually lead. So, while the Mainstream Media and the left-wing Blogosphere will gush over Obama’s “vacant seat” metaphor during his State of the Union, the only seat that reallymatters when it comes to protecting American citizens against individuals using guns with which to commit crimes, is the one behind the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 13, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Despite The Tears, Obama’s Anti-Gun Moves Are Dangerous

by lgadmin January 6, 2016
written by lgadmin

On December 31st, people gathered across America and the world to welcome the New Year with joyous festivities, hopeful resolutions, and cheerful optimism about fresh starts. Bucking the trend, President Obama opted against such new beginnings and vowed instead to do in 2016 as he has the last seven years: Whatever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution, Congress, the Courts, or the public, has to say about it.

Using his vehicle of choice, Obama this week announced – with a flood of presidential tears – several “Executive Actions” aimed at restricting gun sales and ownership in the United States. Similar to his past moves, which range from further regulating healthcare to (illegally) expanding work permits for illegal immigrants, the President justified his unilateral policy decrees on a need to bypass an “ineffectual” Congress. Rather than actually traveling a few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue to meet personally with congressional leaders, Obama chose again to chastise Congress for being held “hostage” by the “gun lobby.” Obama’s teary-eyed efforts to rally supporters to his gun-control agenda every time a publicized mass-shooting occurs, has become something of a broken record. While the latest proposals – like those unveiled three years ago following the Newtown tragedy — appear on the surface to be largely benign, we had best take them seriously. As Ross Perot cautioned us, “the devil is in the details”; there is a relevant corollary to Perot’s maxim – “it’s often not what’s on the lines count; it’s what between the lines that matters most.” Of most concern among the proposals is the Administration’s attempt to broaden the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms; a classification which requires cumbersome licensing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in addition to dramatically enhanced penalties for violating the myriad regulations and conditions attendant to being a firearms dealer (a “Federal Firearms Licensee” or “FFL”). Yet, even the Administration is not clear on who would qualify. According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, selling even one firearm could qualify an individual as a federal dealer, “depending on the circumstances” – vagueness not welcome from the person supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer.

In examining Monday’s decrees, Obama’s failure to propose even harsher gun control schemes as demanded by the Left, should not be viewed as a victory for Second Amendment supporters. The eventual goal of gun control advocates is not necessarily “gun control” per se, but ultimately reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and undermining the strength and authority of the Second Amendment. By simply making firearms more expensive to manufacture, and more complicated (and legally treacherous) to own or sell, the president’s “modest” proposals are every bit as dangerous as a move to outlaw certain categories of guns or ammunition; without the fuss of more direct measures that would never actually secure congressional approval. Much like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, Obama remains chronically apathetic towards the heavy-lifting required to work with Congress in order to pass his agenda through the regular constitutional process. But unlike Clinton, Obama detests the glad-handing, negotiations, and compromises with those he sees as beneath him; and finds it is far easier to use the “stroke of the pen” to accomplish his goals, regardless of the damage thereby done to such vital principles as limited presidential power and separation of powers between the branches of government. Whereas Clinton was relatively open with his Second Amendment agenda and proposed mostly symbolic policies designed to score political points, Obama has chosen to work in the shadows via non-legislative means that strike more calculated blows to heart of gun rights. And his efforts in this regard are many. Consider the Obama Administration’s signing of the “Arms Trade Treaty” (ATT), which even without ratification by Congress, means the U.S. is “obligated” not to act “contrary to” the gun-control efforts proffered by the treaty explicitly or in ancillary documents. Or, “Operation Choke Point” in 2014, when Obama ordered the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure banks to dry up financial funding critical to firearms transactions and firearms-related companies. Or, how Obama has attempted to shoehorn the Centers for Disease Control into the gun control debate in an ongoing attempt to make gun violence a “public health” crisis; thereby subject to Food and Drug Administration regulatory control. These are but a few examples of the many calculated moves by the Obama Administration over the last seven years designed to circumvent Congress, and gut the Second Amendment without subjecting himself or his proposals to real debate. The new round of executive actions is more of the same, regardless of how “modest” the President and his allies claim them to be. Each step down this path opens the door wider for subsequent administrations to take the same approach regarding other issues. Whether this Congress, unlike its predecessors, recognizes this long-term damage and takes steps to stop the Administration, is – unfortunately – unlikely.

 

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 6, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Defund and Repeal Military Gun Free Zones Now!

by lgadmin July 22, 2015
written by lgadmin

On September 16, 2013, civilian contractor Aaron Alexis entered a building at the Washington Navy Yard, where he walked to the fourth floor bathroom and loaded a shotgun. Within six minutes of the first shots fired, Alexis had murdered 10 people; and before police killed him more than an hour later, the death toll would rise to 12. It was the second deadliest shooting on a U.S. military base in American history; occurring only four years after Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist turned radicalized Muslim terrorist, killed 13 service men and women in Ft. Hood, Texas.

When the news broke last week of another mass shooting at two “Gun Free” military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the story was all-too-familiar. “Gun Free Zones” make absolutely no sense to begin with; but mandating them at locations we know to a virtual certainty are terrorist targets, including U.S. military sites, borders on criminally negligent.

The failure of two presidents and several congresses to reverse the Clinton-era ban on firearms on military bases, in spite of the horrific attacks over the last few years, only heightens the outrage all Americans should feel; but especially our military personnel.

Yet not a single high-ranking officer in any branch of the armed forces, has dared express doubt about the policy. In fact, a major roadblock to this latest response to yet another attack against a military target is the military itself. Top brass in the military’s current leadership have simply fallen in lock-step with the Obama Administration’s politically correct world-view that firearms are too “scary” and “dangerous” to be trusted in the hands even of combat-trained military personnel.

Common sense steps such as removing the prohibition on military personnel carrying personal or military-issued firearms, or installing bulletproof glass at recruitment centers, are rebuffed by military leaders like Army recruiting spokesman Brian Lepley. In the immediate aftermath of last week’s shooting, Lepley defended the military’s “Gun Free” policy and blabbered about needing “to maintain a connection to the American people.” To these timid Obama bureaucrats, military recruitment centers should have the feel of a processing center for the Peace Corps, rather than displaying any signs of being actual military facilities.

This domestic pacification policy has not just prevented us from taking any meaningful action following recent terror attacks; it has stunted our ability to learn anything from them. For example, not a single page in the Ft. Hood post-mortem analysis contained any relevant or substantive policy recommendations to “protect the force” against future attacks. Instead, the 80-page report signed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates contained page after page of politically-correct gobbledygook designed to appease the Administration and not ruffle any feathers.

The net effect of all this is that in the five-and-a-half years since the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military instillation in American history — during which time two other major attacks and several smaller ones have been occurred — government officials are still reacting to these tragedies as if each one is the first ever. This head-in-the-sand mentality, punctuated by statements like those from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who apparently still believes such attacks are “unfathomable,” has to end if we are to have any hope of keeping our military men and women safe.

Fortunately, some state governors are not waiting around for another vacuous Department of Defense “report,” and are actually leading the charge to protect at least some members of the military from the threat of domestic terror attacks. Governors in Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas have ordered personnel at National Guard facilities, which are controlled by the states, to arm themselves. As Texas Governor Greg Abbott explained, “it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil.” This is precisely the point that Congress, the Department of Defense, and presidential administrations of both parties have yet to grasp.

In justifying its power to surreptitiously surveil American citizens on U.S. soil, the federal government routinely emphasizes that the fight against terrorism must be waged both domestically and abroad. Why, then, do we strip members of the U.S. military of their ability to defend themselves against terrorists, simply because they are on U.S. soil rather than in a warzone in the Middle East — especially when these are becoming the preferred targets of terrorists?

That is the question Republicans must be forced to answer now that they are in control of both the House and Senate. The time for excuses and inaction is long past. With the 2016 election cycle in full swing, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to prove to members of the military that their right to defend themselves does not start at the water’s edge.

It’s time to defund and repeal military Gun Free Zones!

Originally published here on townhall.com

July 22, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Charleston May Be In The “Low Country,” But It Demonstrates “High Values”

by lgadmin June 24, 2015
written by lgadmin

After even a few minutes walking the historic streets of Charleston, South Carolina, it becomes clear why the city is revered by so many. Charleston’s rich history, world-class culinary offerings, and a community of people recognized as being among the friendliest in the nation, account for its consistent ranking high on the list of vacation destinations for Americans and foreigners alike.

Many Charlestonians refer to their home as the “Holy City” because of the large number of churches — including some of the oldest in the nation — within its borders. These all are reasons why the news of the cold-blooded murder of nine members of Emanuel A.M.E. Church in downtown Charleston last week is so difficult to comprehend. Charleston simply is not a place where one expects to find such evil.

Yet, amidst the grief and tragedy, Charleston proved, once again, how special it is. At the bond hearing for the shooter, who had hoped his attack would spark a “race war,” the victims’ families one-by-one addressed the killer — not with hate or anger, but with a display of genuine love and forgiveness that comes only from a truly “holy” people. In that moment, it became clear Charleston would not descend into the same violence and chaos that manifested itself in Ferguson and Baltimore. Rather, Charleston would present itself as a lesson to the world about the power of love, faith and forgiveness.

If only national politicians had gotten the message.

Less than 24 hours after the shooting, and just minutes after the suspect was arrested, President Obama stood in front of the nation on TV and issued a politically-charged message, blaming guns and America itself for the actions of this young lunatic: “Once again innocent people were killed because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.” Our Gun-Controller in Chief went on to claim that, “At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” (which, of course, it does).

Hillary Clinton, not wanting to miss an opportunity to look similarly “presidential,” provided another nonsensical explanation for Dylann Roof’s murderous acts — blaming “hate speech,” and making the fantastical jump to referencing a recent speech by Donald Trump to support her thesis.

The urge to irrationally blame guns and the Second Amendment for the acts of a deranged 21-year old even manifested itself among some Republicans. Bush-family advisor Karl Rove opined that until someone has the “oomph” (whatever that means) to repeal the Second Amendment, we will continue to witness acts of gun violence.

These political rants represent a problem far beyond merely showing how out of touch Washington elites have become with the world outside the Beltway. When the President of the United States, and another who is a front-runner for the job, stand before the nation issuing the same, tired talking points, and reduce a complex situation to sound bites about “guns” and “negative speech,” any meaningful debate over the true causes of such tragedies is short-circuited. Rather than being offered real options based on sound reasoning, we are offered only a broken record of recycled sound bites that have no legal or factual basis.

Instead of trotting out the same gun control proposals that already have been struck down by the courts – and which consistently have failed to staunch gun violence in cities like Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C. – perhaps the Congress and our state legislatures could fund meaningful research into the role mental illness, and the possible impact SSRI drugs play in mass shootings. Or, instead of treading on First Amendment rights by targeting “hate speech” as a cure-all for “racism,” might our political leaders address aspects of our criminal justice system that disproportionally impact minority communities, and work to pass meaningful reforms such as the Smarter Sentencing Act?

Such measures might actually find far more support among the citizens of Charleston and other places outside the Washington Beltway, than Sunday talk-show sound bites or slogans that festoon presidential campaign paraphernalia.

Last Saturday, thousands of people joined hands and walked together across the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston — demonstrating the city’s solidarity and commitment to peace, rather than showing the world a city using a tragedy as an excuse to vent anger and spew hatred. The citizens of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, and especially those who work in Washington, D.C., could learn a lot from the people of Charleston, South Carolina.

Charleston may be geographically in the “Low Country,” but its citizens display far higher values and understanding than do people in many other cities.

Originally published here on townhall.com

June 24, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Time for Congress to Stop D.C.’s Anti-Gun Shenanigans

by Liberty Guard Author May 20, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author

Since the landmark 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia case, which Second-Amendment lawyer Alan Gura argued before the Supreme Court, anti-gun officials in the nation’s capital have spent every waking hour trying to avoid doing what the high Court ordered be done: allow District residents to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Gura has been fighting them every step of the way; and on Monday, was victorious once again, as a United States District Court granted his injunction to stop the city from requiring concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.”

“The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime,” wrote District Judge Frederick Scullin in slapping down D.C.’s latest effort to undermine the Heller mandate. It was Scullin who, last year, struck down D.C.’s de facto ban on guns through regulations that failed to provide a system to obtain concealed carry permits, despite requiring them for carry in public. In echoing his earlier opinion, Scullin remarked in his most recent directive that the city’s specious new “good reason”/“proper reason” requirement, “makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

The outrageous conduct of the D.C. government to evade its duty to uphold the Second Amendment ever since it was first handed a defeat in Heller, is a case study for how many local and state governments react to an increasing number of rulings in favor of gun rights. Rather than accept the now well-established fact that citizens possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, many local and state governments employ all manner of procedural maneuvers and regulatory tricks, to inhibit this right while falsely claiming to be following the judicial rulings.

Their plan is to buy time and wear down pro-Second Amendment forces; and at some point perhaps to find a sympathetic liberal judge to support their dilatory actions. Fortunately, there are pugnacious lawyers like Gura, and courageous judges like Scullin, who will not be intimidated or worn down.

But fighting the anti-firearm forces is expensive and time-consuming – including the cost to taxpayers. For example, the District of Columbia was required to pay Gura and his legal team $1.1 million for the Heller case, and even this amount was stiffing Gura for what he was actually owed for his many years of work on the case — close to $3.6 million.

Also often overlooked, is the double standard anti-gun Democrats apply when inventing new ways to stymie the Second Amendment, contrasted to their hysterics when they perceive Republicans to be even remotely challenging the rights and privileges they so highly cherish.

Consider voter ID laws. States that have dared to assert the right to protect the integrity of their elections with voter ID laws were threatened and intimidated by Democrats, all the way up to the Department of Justice under Eric Holder, for the negligible impact the cost of a government-issued ID required for voting, might have on minority groups. Meanwhile, the cost of acquiring a concealed carry license in Illinois, driven up by regulatory burdens, created a racial disparity so great that only 10 percent of licensees are non-white.

Yet, only in the case of voter ID laws did Holder describe the actions of government to be “political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.”

The net effect of these shenanigans, if D.C. is to be any example, is an endless series of lawsuits, appeals, rulings, and dodging that keeps Second Amendment attorneys like Gura constantly in the courtroom, taxpayers on the hook, and the Bill of Rights hostage.

If D.C. citizens had any sense, they would use Monday’s ruling as the final straw to put pressure on Mayor Muriel Bowser to fire Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who seems utterly deaf to understanding basic orders from now multiple courts, that the right of the people in “her” city to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It appears time for the Congress, which has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia, to step in and force these scofflaws to follow the Constitution and court rulings, even if they don’t like it.

 

Originally published here via townhall.com

May 20, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Bizarro-World View Of Self-Defense On Display In Ferguson

by Liberty Guard Author December 3, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Last week, residents of Ferguson, Missouri might have noticed a strange sight amidst the scenes of burning buildings, overturned cars, crazed rioters, and police in full military dress. Standing stoically on the rooftops of buildings in areas threatened by prolonged rioting were men dressed in masks and camouflage, armed with buckets of water, fire extinguishers, and occasionally AR-15 rifles.

These men were not members of the Ferguson Police Department or the Missouri National Guard. They were members of the Oath Keepers, a nationwide collective of military veterans, former law enforcement officers, first responders and other concerned citizens who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They were drawn to Ferguson to help protect the people and property of the town from the rioters and criminals, who largely had avoided being stopped by the police and National Guard troops.

While the appearance of the Oath Keepers came as a relief to citizens and small business owners affected by the riots, to the authorities they posed a threat. That’s right. Within just days of arriving, rather than being thanked by the police for volunteering to help protect lives and property, these law-abiding volunteers were ordered to get out of town, apparently for “operating without a license.”

Absurd as it is that a person would need a “license” to do nothing more than protect private property from wanton destruction — especially when the police force’s apparent “best efforts” to do so were woefully deficient — that is exactly how government views the right to self-defense in the Bizarro World of 21st Century America.

While the government’s assault on the principle of self-defense underlying the Second Amendment is nothing new, the degree to which federal and state officials misunderstand or simply choose to ignore the fundamental principle of self-defense, is truly disheartening.

Many people consider that the modern era of gun control began in the late 1960s following the assassination of Robert Kennedy; but it actually dates to 1934 when the Congress passed the 1934 National Firearms Act. Since that seminal event, a distinct anti-firearms philosophy has taken hold in large segments of society; one that considers personal ownership of a firearm not as an exercise of a God-given right to defend oneself, but rather as a direct threat to “public safety.” Adherents of this group-centric philosophy consider the right to defend oneself with a firearm as something separate from — indeed, inferior to — the collective responsibility of government to protect society. In this world view, “public safety” trumps both individual responsibility and individual liberty.

Employing footholds gained through advocacy in the legislative, judicial and executive branches at all levels of government, these anti-gun forces have worked steadily to transmogrify the Second Amendment into a public-policy commodity, subject to the at-will regulation of government officials. The ultimate goal of this movement is to empower government as the exclusive owner of the means to personal defense; thus relegating citizens to a position of absolute reliance on the government for their personal and property protection. It is all about Control.

The historically-sound notion that citizens possess primary responsibility for protection of their persons and property, is reflected not only in the clear intent of the Second Amendment, but as well in federal court decisions. For example, in 1981, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted inWarren v. District of Columbia, that “. . . government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” This assertion was reiterated a year later by the Seventh Circuit, in Bowers v. DeVito, when that Court held “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state.”

Government, of course, wants to have it both ways. While accepting it is under no absolute obligation to protect citizens from harm (thereby avoiding liability for failing to protect against criminal actions), government officials constantly seek to acquire and maintain a monopoly of the means by which individuals are able to exercise their responsibility to protect themselves – that is, by remaining free to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Thus the bizarre spectacle of police in Ferguson rejecting efforts by citizens to protect lives and property when most critical to do so.

Unfortunately, the reaction by state and local authorities in Ferguson to citizen-based self-defense represents not the exception, but the prevalent view of “public safety”; and not only in the United States but throughout western society generally. It is, however, particularly discouraging that such a fundamentally flawed understanding of individual rights and constitutional history are run amuck here, in what Ronald Reagan correctly described as “the last best hope of man on earth.”

December 3, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

UN Gun Grab Enters New And Dangerous Phase

by Liberty Guard Author October 15, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Those wild and crazy bureaucrats on the banks of the East River are at it again. The United Nations – a bureaucracy so bloated and byzantine that it makes the United States Senate appear efficient by comparison – is poised to begin tossing legal monkey wrenches into international firearms transactions; and indirectly affecting firearms policies in the United States.

This new phase in international gun control began September 25th when the 50th country ratified the infamous Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that was adopted formally by the United Nations a year and a half ago (and signed by our own Secretary of State Kerry in September 2013). The process itself began more than a decade ago – in the summer of 2001 – when the UN began formally debating a “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.”

Since the UN officially launched that piously-named, multi-year and costly “programme” shortly before the world was turned upside on September 11, 2001, the international anti-gun cartel led by the United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico and other “allies” of the United States, have waited patiently for this day. With the ratification by the governments of at least 50 supporting nations, the deeply anti-Second Amendment ATT now will be subject to implementing conferences and actions with very real consequences.

Those of us in this country who understand and support the concept of “the right to keep and bear arms,” might defer any concern because the Senate has not and likely will not “advise and consent” to the ratification of this thoroughly rotten document. Problem is, the mere fact that John Kerry lent his John Hancock to the ATT makes the United States a “signatory” to it, and is cause for real concern.

The problem is two-fold.

First, virtually all of the ATT-ratifying countries (a number that already has grown to 53, and which will continue to increase as more countries succumb to the siren song of “security through gun control”) engage in trade with the United States; many receive military assistance from us and purchase armaments. Others are countries in which American hunters travel for their sport. Still, other countries in this group might at some point serve as a base in which individuals or groups hostile to the United States hide, and against which we might legitimately seek to take action. Our options in all these circumstances might be severely limited if the ratifying countries comply fully with the myriad terms of the ATT.

American firearms and ammunition manufacturers could in many instances be barred from exporting to, or importing from such countries. American hunters might no longer be able to bring firearms into those countries. And, future administrations might find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide defensive armaments to freedom fighters with such countries.

Secondly, because John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, according to its terms we are obligated not to “act contrary to” its terms and its referenced and underlying documents. These foundational materials include some of the most blatantly anti-Second Amendment screeds available. Those provisions include numerous detailed gun control measures, including a mandate that all civilian-owned firearms be registered with the national government, severe restrictions on who could possess firearms and what types, and many other deeply anti-freedom restrictions.

The danger is obvious. An anti-Second Amendment administration, such as the current one led by President Barack Obama, could cite such interpretation of the ATT as a pretext for quietly ordering various gun control measures to be undertaken by agencies under its control (such as the State Department and ATF). We all are painfully familiar with the Obama Administration’s penchant for taking substantive actions without benefit of, or in actual contravention to, lawful authority. In its tortured view of executive power, citing an international treaty such as the Arms trade Treaty as justification for limiting Second Amendment rights would be easy.

Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Senators already are on record committing that they would never vote to ratify the ATT, they and their colleagues in the House of Representatives must take proactive steps to ensure that this Administration – and any future administration – be stopped from implementing any provisions of or supported by the ATT. Our congressional committees must be far more vigilant than they have in the past to monitor ATF, the State Department, and all other federal agencies to ensure they do not take any steps through regulations or other means to implement or enforce any provisions lurking in the ATT. Failure to do so runs the very real risk of surrendering many aspects of our precious Second Amendment-guaranteed rights to a cadre of faceless bureaucrats at the United Nations and in far-flung capital cities around the globe.

October 15, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Voter ID Vs. Concealed Carry – Liberal Hypocrisy Unmasked

by Liberty Guard Author October 8, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

“Let me be clear,” Attorney General Eric Holder emphatically declared in a 2012 speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “we will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.” Holder’s remarks were a call to arms against efforts by Republicans to require that voters show identification when they go to vote. His words reflect a belief that the right to vote is so “precious” that requiring individuals to show an ID before casting a vote is tantamount to being “disenfranchised.”

However, when it comes to protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” – which, unlike the right to vote, is a right expressly guaranteed in the Constitution itself – the Attorney General of the United States is nowhere to be found. Apparently our Second Amendment rights are just not “precious” enough to worry about when governments engage in actions expressly designed to “disenfranchise” individuals from exercising those rights.

The hypocrisy is so blatant it is painful.

Currently 32 states have implemented some variation of voter ID laws to curb election fraud. Nevertheless, these reasonable requirements — well within states’ Tenth Amendment rights to implement — have been the targets of repeated Justice Department threats and legal challenges. The Department argues that simply requiring a valid ID in order to vote — the same that is required for purchasing alcohol, or attending Obama fundraisers — places an unfair, racially-biased burden that threatens the constitutional rights of minorities.

If alleged racial discrimination is the catalyst for such intimidation by the Justice Department, the Department’s silence is deafening in the face of very real efforts by state and local governments to deny and limit the right to keep and bear arms. As noted in a recent report by theWashington Times, some states — notably Illinois, for example — are effectively denying citizens their right to carry concealed firearms by placing a number of costly and time-consuming obstacles in their way; and doing it in such manner as clearly to disproportionately impact minorities and lower-income individuals.

The double standard reflected in the Justice Department’s selective assertion of concern for minority rights is deeply disturbing. Even a ruling in one case earlier this year by U.S. District Court Judge Edmond Chang concluding that “certain fundamental rights,” such as those protected by the Second Amendment, should be “outside government’s reach” and not entrusted to government stewards to protect, has not awakened Holder from his selective slumber.

The findings by the Washington Times illustrate the point convincingly. The newspaper’s research found that burdens such as expensive training and permitting procedures, coupled with lengthy bureaucratic delays in issuing concealed carry permits, hit minority and lower income citizens especially hard. In Illinois, a favored playground for gun control public officials, wealthy white residents hold 90 percent of concealed carry permits.

“There are a lot of systematic and economic barriers that make it difficult for South Side of Chicago residents, many of whom are African-American, to obtain concealed carry permits,” NAACP Illinois State Conference President George Mitchell told the Washington Times. “Some of the barriers include the high costs, time commitment, bureaucracy and the community’s distrust of the police.” The effect of these racially biased restrictions are compounded by gun control regulations that enable local law enforcement officials to deny gun permits for any reason, including many completely unrelated to an individual’s competency to own, possess or use a firearm.

Imagine if voter ID laws were as rigorous as gun regulations found in many of America’s major cities. In order to vote in such a scenario, citizens would be forced to take a day-long class (at a cost of $100 or more) about the basics of the U.S. government and electoral process. They then would be required to take a competency test (only available at inconvenient locations during normal working hours) on the current election’s issues. Finally, after paying a non-refundable processing fee of $100 to score the results, they would then be forced to wait months for the actual voter registration card — which could be rejected for any reason — to arrive in the mail. If a voter decided to seek the help of a tutor to help ensure his non-refundable processing fee was not wasted by a possibly failing grade, he would have to be prepared to shell out another $100.

The obvious solution is to immediately reform the concealed carry licensing procedures, including the power by government officials to deny permits arbitrarily. Should the stringent and financially taxing gun regulations remain in place, as no doubt liberals will argue in spite of the overwhelming evidence about the racial disparity they create, then immediate action should be taken to reduce the costs of obtaining a concealed carry license, which routinely amounts to hundreds of dollars after the costs of safety classes and processing fees that are intentionally inflated to deter applications.

Were this any other issue, the level of bias against the poor and minorities in concealed-carry permitting would have Leftist bloggers, government lawyers, and liberal politicians marching in the streets, and calling for the heads of “racist” Republicans and NRA Members. The fact that this President and his Attorney General remain deaf, dumb and indifferent to the blatantly discriminatory anti-Second Amendment actions by liberal state and local governments, even as they rail against voter ID laws, is testimony to the constitutional hypocrisy that is at the very core of this presidency.

October 8, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Federal Judge Raps DC Government In Gun Control Case

by Liberty Guard Author July 30, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Alexander Herzen, an 18th century writer from Russia, once quipped, “There is nothing in the world more stubborn than a corpse: you can hit it, you can knock it to pieces, but you cannot convince it.” Today, such a description could apply to unconstitutional gun control laws, which received what should have been a death sentence in 2008 with the Heller decision, only to languish on despite being knocked to pieces in court in the half dozen years since that seminal decision.

In Heller, one if the most important rulings for liberty in recent American history, attorney Alan Gura successfully sued the D.C. government; in the process overturning its blatantly unconstitutional, 1970s-era ban on firearms. Heller clearly affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment; as contrasted to the mushy, collective right interpretation long-favored by gun-grabbers like Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emmanuel. Gura then successfully sued the city of Chicago, which resulted in the High Court’s 2010 McDonald decision, thus extending Heller’s ruling to local governments across the country.

Following these two landmark Supreme Court rulings, other lawsuits picked apart the anti-gun apparatus in federal court. Yet, as stubborn as a corpse can be, anti-gun state and local government officials immediately began fashioning new ways to undermine the restoration of gun rights in their jurisdictions. Officials in Washington, D.C. — ground zero for the modern day resurgence of the Second Amendment – refused to comply with the letter and intent of those Supreme Court decisions.

For example, the District forces its residents to obtain a permit to carry a firearm outside of the home; but the City steadfastly has refused to institute a process enabling citizens seeking to so defend themselves, to obtain permits. In essence, the city created a de facto ban on carrying firearms in public, all the while claiming to comply with the intent of the Heller decision. One can see why Gura has been so busy.

Fortunately, half a decade worth of post-Heller litigation paid off last week, when federal district court Judge Frederick Scullin ruled D.C.’s permitting scheme to be unconstitutional. “In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny,” wrote Scullin, “there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

Scullin’s refreshingly clear ruling follows one in December 2012 by federal Court of Appeals Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Richard Posner. In that ruling Posner noted that “to confine the right to be armed to the home” — as Illinois’ then-blanket ban on the private carry of firearms did — “is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.” Posner noted pointedly that residents of Chicago, a notoriously dangerous city despite years of aggressive gun control laws, had a far greater claim to self-defense outside the home than in it.

As Scullin and Posner’s rulings suggest, it is only logical that law-abiding citizens protecting themselves from violence outside the home is a natural and logical focus of the Second Amendment, especially given the legal clarity on the issue from two recent Supreme Court battles. Unfortunately, logic is not an attribute favored by gun-control zealots such as those controlling the levers of power in the District of Columbia; which is precisely why the fight for the Second Amendment continues long after a majority of Supreme Court justices might have thought they resolved the issue in 2008 and 2010.

And, the anti-gun grandstanding in the courts is not without financial costs to taxpayers, who are forced to pay the legal fees of both parties after each government defeat. The six years D.C. officials dragged Dick Heller through the legal system, only to be told what the language of and history behind the Second Amendments clearly proclaims to the world (that “the right of the people to keep and bear [a]rms shall not be infringed”), cost taxpayers more than one million dollars in attorney fees, just for Heller’s team.

That is why some members of Congress are starting to use the power of the purse strings to rein in D.C. officials who continue to violate the clear directive of the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, for example, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) successfully passed an appropriations amendment that prohibits the District of Columbia from using federal tax dollars to enforce its unconstitutional gun control laws. While the fate of such a common-sense measure remains unclear in the Senate, the fact that many Democratic incumbents facing reelection in November hail from states whose voters are strong Second Amendment supporters, raises the legislation’s odds considerably.

July 30, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram

Search Archives

Recent Posts

  • Inflation Hits The Corporate Shakedown Market

    March 28, 2023
  • Bob Barr Joins Lars Larson

    March 23, 2023
  • ‘Climate Change’ Now Top Priority for US Navy

    March 23, 2023
  • Republicans Again Being Pulled Into the Mud With Support For Trump’s Fight Against Possible Indictment

    March 21, 2023
  • Plans, Reports, and Lies—Biden’s Latest Gun Control Gambit

    March 16, 2023

About Us

  • Liberty Guard
    2120 Powers Ferry Road
    Suite 125
    Atlanta, Georgia 30339
  • Email: [email protected]

From The Desk of Bob Barr

Inflation Hits The Corporate Shakedown Market
‘Climate Change’ Now Top Priority for US Navy
Republicans Again Being Pulled Into the Mud With Support For Trump’s Fight Against Possible Indictment

Latest Videos

Not My Fingerprints
Idiots In Full View
Biden Administration Champions Stupid Idea

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates




©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.

Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram
  • Policies
  • State Disclosures
  • Join
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join