Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

Some quotes from the founders about the second amendment to think about in the new year

Found this on Walter E Williams site.

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

• “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
  – Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

• “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
  – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

• If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
  – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

• “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
  – Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

• “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
  –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

• “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
  –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

• “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
  –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

• “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
  –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
  –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
  – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

• “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
  – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

• “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
  – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

• “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
  – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

• ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
  – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

• ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
  – Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

• “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
  – Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

• “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
  – Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

• “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
  – Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

• “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
  – Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

• “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
  – Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

• “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
  – Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

• ” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
  – James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

• “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

• “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
  –Samuel Adams

An armed society is a polite society and here is further proof

MURDER DOWN, GUN SALES UP; PROOF
THAT GUNS DON’T CAUSE CRIME:

BELLEVUE, WA – A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The FBI released data Monday that shows murders dropped by 10 percent from the same period in 2008. Meanwhile, according to data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that during the first six months of this year, gun sales were up. January 2009 background checks rose 28.8 percent over the same month in 2008, February’s NICS checks were up 23.3 percent and in March they were up 29.9 percent over March 2008. The trend continued in April, with NICS checks up 30.3 percent, while May showed a slowdown, up only 15.5 percent, and in June they were up 18.1 percent.

“What this shows,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that gun prohibitionists are all wrong when they argue that more guns result in more crime. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anyone. Perhaps violent criminals were actually discouraged by all of those gun sales earlier this year, because the media made a point of reporting the booming gun market.

“Anti-gunners,” he continued, “have lost another one of their baseless arguments. Millions of Americans bought guns during the first six months of this year, many of them for the first time. Yet with all of those new guns in circulation, coupled with an increased demand for concealed carry licenses around the country, the streets have not been awash in blood, as gun banners repeatedly predict.

“Hard facts trump hot air,” Gottlieb concluded. “These people are consistently wrong about our rights. Millions of people bought guns, especially semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that gun grabbers want to ban because they say people aren’t safe with all of those guns in private hands. Well, the people disagree, and so does the data.”

The Supreme Court finally rules on the side of the constitution and common sense

This should be a no brainier. Apparently a lot of people have no brains. I guess you go after the big pockets.


Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Against Gun Maker


NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.


This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms — a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.


The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.


Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked, “And so ends a long legal battle — from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”


Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, applauded yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of the Brady Center’s appeal, stating, “Frivolous and unsupported lawsuits such as Adames that attempt to force manufacturers of firearms to pay for the crimes of others over whom they have no control are precisely what the PLCAA is designed to stop.”

The second amendment and the NRA ( National Riffle Association )

The Second Amendment to the constitution states as follows “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.” There nothing there that says “except” or “Unless” or even “If”. The Second Amendment is pretty plain and doesn’t really leave much to be interpreted. With that stated go look up all the federal guns laws. I hate to break it to you, every single federal gun law or law that mentions firearms, are 100% Unconstitutional. Everything from the first gun control act of 1934 all the way through the Brady bill and beyond were all in the entirety our flat out unequivocally completely unconstitutional. Let me say that again ALL and every federal law on the books in regards to firearms are flat out unconstitutional.


The biggest dog in the so called gun rights fight is the NRA. The NRA has the money, has the member’s, and the lobbying group. The problem with the NRA is simple. They do not care about the constitution, the second amendment, or even real firearm rights anymore, if ever. The NRA historically supported gun laws intended to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, while opposing new restrictions that affected law-abiding. The problem with this stance is the constitution and thus the Second Amendment applies to all citizens of The United States of America. The Second Amendment does not preclude criminal’s. In fact during the 18th and most of the 19th centuries people who committed crimes could get out of jail, and legally go purchase a firearm. So when did the constitution change? It didn’t. The NRA will support or oppose a bill coming before congress depend on which way they can get enough people to pay to sign up for the NRA; and thus make money. A lot of politicians today look at an NRA endorsement as a badge of honor. It is NOT.

PLEASE excuse the foul language in this Post. Swiss GUN laws should be America’s Law’s!

WARNING: If foul language offends you PLEASE leave an come back later for our next post! If not then scroll down to read.






All of you anti gun Nazi’s and panic creating firearm haters need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!


Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in ALL of Europe. Why? Every single swiss citizen is required BY LAW to keep their government supplied firearm and ammunition. News to you? Well it sure was to me. The reasoning? One of them is so the Swiss government can provide a military to support and protect it’s citizens and homeland. By the way in 24-48 hours the Swiss can have a standing army that will rival any in the whole of Europe.


The below video proves all this out. I am so sick of the whinny week kneed pussies who are saying guns cauise crime or whatever BOLD FACE LIE they come up with. We got the proof. So tell the anti gunners to go shove it up their ASS.

Some Kentucky state representatives are working on adding Kentucky to the growing list of states that tell the ATFE and the feds to kiss off in 2010

Three Kentucky lawmakers have pre-filed legislation to be considered in the 2010 regular session that would strengthen the gun rights of Kentucky citizens.

Kentucky State Rep. Stan Lee (R-Lexington) pre-filed a bill in the House on Nov. 6 that would exempt firearms and ammunition made and used in Kentucky from federal law.

BR348, (HB87 when the session begins) named the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, would, “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law; provide that the exemption does not include machine guns, silencers, exploding ammunition, or firearms with a bore over one and one-half inches.”

The bill builds upon the foundation of state’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The first section of BR348 opens:

The General Assembly declares that the authority for Sections 1 to 6 of this Act is the following:
(1) The tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Kentucky certain powers as they were understood at the time that Kentucky was admitted to statehood on June 1, 1792. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the Commonwealth and people of Kentucky and the United States as of the time that the Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792;
(2) The ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Kentucky certain rights as they were understood at the time Kentucky was admitted as a state of the United States on June 1, 1792.

The legislation makes up part of a national movement known as the Firearms Freedom Act. Montana was the first state to propose this type of legislation, declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its Constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The Montana legislature passed its bill Oct. 1, 2009.

The Tennessee legislature passed a similar bill in July of 2009. The Tennessee Senate passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act by a 22-7 vote. The House approved the bill 87-1. The legislation became law without Gov. Phil Bredesen’s signature.

Lawmakers in Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida have introduced similar legislation.

Two other Kentucky representatives have proposed a bill reaffirming gun rights.

Last August, Rep. Bill Farmer (R-Lexington) and Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown) pre-filed a Concurrent Resolution that affirms Kentucky citizens’ gun rights under the Second Amendment.

BR124 urges support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and urges Congress not to enact any law that would infringe on the right to bear arms under the Constitution of Kentucky.

If you live in Indiana and have a gun permit, You had better Lock and Load. You are now being watched like sex offenders

On November 30, 2009, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement:

“This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You’ll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street.”

The Herald-Times has begun receiving calls and emails, and their response is a defiant defense of their online gun permit database.

Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper’s website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database.

It is NRA’s firm belief that there is no public good served by the publishing or cataloguing private citizens’ gun ownership information, and that more harm is done by such an action. Law-abiding Hoosiers should not be subjected to the same treatment as sex offenders, and if the newspaper won’t listen to their constituents and customers, then NRA Members and Indiana gun owners should send a financial message by cancelling their subscriptions to the Bloomington Herald-Times.

Please contact the Bloomington Herald-Times to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action the newspaper has made.

Scott Schurz, Sunday Hoosier Times/Editor-in-Chief
(812) 331-4250
Sschurz@heraldt.com

E. Mayer Maloney Jr., Publisher
(812) 331-4251
Mmaloney@heraldt.com

Bob Zaltsberg, Editor
(812) 331-4364
rzaltsberg@heraldt.com

Winchester Ammunition Announces New Personal Defense Ammunition in 12 and 410 Gauge for Release in 2010

Winchester® Ammunition launches the most innovative line of personal defense shotshell ammunition in 2010 with two new products: the Supreme Elite® PDX1™ shotshells in 410 and 12 gauge. Both loads deliver threat-stopping power and offer customers more ammunition choices for personal defense.

“Winchester is a leader in technology and these two new personal defense rounds are the most innovative shotshell products available today,” said Brett Flaugher, Winchester Ammunition vice president of sales and marketing. “Both shotshell loads achieved excellent results in our test facility and we are extremely excited to offer them to our customers.”

PDX1 in 410 Gauge
Highly effective in both shotguns and 410 compatible handguns, the PDX1 in 410 gauge features a distinctive black hull and black oxide high-base head and combines three plated Defense Disc™ projectiles and 12 pellets of plated BB shot. The result is the ideal personal protection load for short range engagement with the performance needed to stop threats. This load is also suitable for varmint hunting and pest control. Designed for use in the Taurus Judge, this new personal defense round provides maximum protection at close range.

• 410 ga. 2 1/2”, 3 Defense Disc™ projectiles with 12 BBs
• 10 rd box
• Availability: February 2010

PDX1 in 12 Gauge
The 12-gauge Supreme Elite® PDX1 features a distinctive black hull, black oxide high-base head and 3 pellets of Grex® buffered 00 plated buckshot nested on top of a 1 oz rifled slug.

The result is the ideal, tight patterning personal defense load. The slug/buckshot combination provides optimum performance at short and longer ranges while compensating for aim error.

• 12 ga. Slug/Buck combo
• Load: 12 gauge 2-3/4” 1 oz rifled slug with 3 pellets 00 Buck- buffered
• 10 rd box
• Availability: March 2010

For more information about Winchester and its complete line of products, visit www.winchester.com.

Idaho State lawmakers to introduce bill to ATF and the federal government to go stick it

Idaho has been a strong supporter of the right to bear arms — even attracting firearms manufacturers from other states to spur its economy.

But is it willing to take on the federal government to defend that right?

Rep. R.J. “Dick” Harwood, R-St. Maries, will ask that question when he introduces a bill to the Idaho Legislature in January that could make it cheaper and easier to buy a firearm that’s made and sold in Idaho.

The bill, which is circulating among a small group of Republican lawmakers, will mirror the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — the now famous bill that pit Montana against the federal government in a pending legal battle.

Harwood said the bill is a shot across the bow of the federal government.

“This is a way that we can tell the federal government that they can’t take away states’ rights,”he said. “I know the feds are going to have a problem with it — they already say we would be superceding their authority.”

He said the bill would mirror one that was passed in Montana in 2009.

Montana was the first state to pass a bill that slapped the federal government’s hands off of in-state firearms sales.

Montana House Bill 426 — also dubbed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act — says all firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold within Montana is exempt from federal regulation.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a complaint against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in federal court in October to validate the bill’s passage.

The case is pending in court and officials say they don’t know how long — or how costly — the case may be.

But there is more behind the act than its title conveys. And it has more to do with dollars and cents than states’ rights.

Manufacturers and state lawmakers say Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act is also a valuable tool to attract gun makers from states that are imposing more rigid gun laws.

Something that hasn’t been lost on Idaho lawmakers.

“This is an opportunity to create jobs and help spur the economy by bringing manufactures to Idaho,” said Representative Marc Gibbs, a Republican legislator from Grace. “I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but right now our state’s economy is my biggest concern.”

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter announced an initiative earlier this year that markets Idaho to firearms manufacturers in other states that are looking to move or expand.

The initiative, known as Project 60, has already seen some success when Advanced Precision, which makes shotguns for Legacy Sports, opened manufacturing facility in Meridian.

However, Gibbs said Idaho should wait to see what the outcome will be of the case between Montana and the federal government.

Even firearms manufacturers in Idaho — those who would benefit the most from the bill — say it’s not a fight they want to pick right now.

“As a freedom loving American, I think the bill is a great idea,” said Jay Quilligan, who manufactures firearm accessories in south-central Idaho. “But as a business owner, it doesn’t really change anything.”

Quilligan said he would still be required to pay all federal taxes and fees because he is licensed by the federal government — something he needs to continue doing business with military and law enforcement.

“Most manufacturers in Idaho and other states are not going to take that risk of losing their business,” said Matt Dogali, Idaho liaison with the National Rifle Association. “The bill sounds good, but in practice these guys would be spending a ton of capital just to make a statement.”

And some Idaho lawmakers aren’t willing to put the state’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers in the federal government’s crosshairs.

Idaho is home to ATK CCISpears, one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition for law enforcement and civilian use. The state also fosters small businesses such as Tactical Solutions, Primary Weapons Systems, CheyTac and several others that build high-grade firearms and accessories for military and civilians.

Representative Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said the cost and risk would be placed primarily on the manufacturers.

“The state can pass the Firearms Freedom Act, but ultimately it will have to be tested in court,”he said. “That means one of (the manufacturers) would have to be the guinea pig.”

Harwood said he still plans to submit the bill in January, and lawmakers appear poised to support it.

However, whether it will receive support from those who would have to risk their businesses to test the validity of the bill remains to be seen.