Saturday, May 19, 2007

Before the 1968 Nazi-styled 'Gun Control' Act;

- People could mail order firearms.
- People could acquire handguns outside their state of residence.
- People from different states could privately sale handguns.
- Individuals under the age of 21 could purchase a handgun, and individuals under the age of 18 could buy a shotgun or rifle.
- People that had previously violated the law and whom were once again free, included ex-felons. Could purchase firearms and exercise their right to Self-Defense as intended.
- The instances of "mass shootings" were extremely rare. The only memorable one being that of Charles Whitman at the University of Texas.
Since the enactment of the un-constitutional 1968 act;
- There have been more than 100 mass shootings.
- Crime has risen dramatically, especially violent crime.
[Ref. - Which came first - the gun violence or the gun control?]


Monday, May 14, 2007

Sent the following to AZ. Governor Janet Napolitano;

Ran across an article over this last weekend on Keep and Bear Arms titled "Bill to Carry Concealed Weapons Without Permit Heads to Gov.". It kept coming into my mind that I should do something about it. However my mind was on another matter/project and I kept dismissing the recurring thought. And this hasn't been the first time this, or a very similar bill has surfaced recently in Arizona.

Another person that frequents Keep and Bear Arms had wrtten to me previously. And, advised how that the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 had specifically mentioned Concealed Carry. I remember filing it away and thinking that might be useful some day. Well, "some day" arrived at around 2:30 this morning. Had awakened after being asleep a couple of hours. And the first thought that came into my mind with extreme clarity. Was that I needed to do something about that Bill that was headed to the governor.

Remembering what the fellow 'gunnie' from KABA had advised me. I did a search on the net and came up with what follows. As it so happens, this information was on the Second Amendment Foundation website. Which I then forwarded to Gov. Janet Napolitano;

The following is excerpted from;


By Robert Dowlut

Mr. Dowlut, a member of the District of Columbia bar, received his J.D. from Howard University School of Law. He is an army veteran. His military duties included service as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division and, while doing his undergraduate work, with the 12th Special Forces.

"...Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following:

""The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

"This guarantee should be interpreted according to rules of construction established by the Arizona Supreme Court. A right explicitly guaranteed in Arizona's Declaration of Rights is deemed to be fundamental."A constitutional right must be construed liberally to carry out the purposes for which it was adopted. Every doubt about the sweep of a constitutional guarantee must be resolved in favor of a right or liberty. When the words of the constitutional guarantee are clear, judicial constructions neither required nor proper.

Courts are not at liberty to impose their views of the way things ought to be, otherwise no recorded word, no matter how explicit, could be saved from judicial tinkering. In the event of an ambiguity, records of the Arizona constitutional convention are given great weight.

"The rules are clear. Nevertheless, Arizona courts have paid no attention to these well-established rules when construing Arizona's guarantee to possess or bear arms. Despite Arizona's clear guarantee to bear arms for self-defense, the Court of Appeals held that only arms used in civilized warfare are protected.

"Theoretically, this means a person may not possess an oriental club but may possess a bazooka. The court's narrow interpretation of the term "arms" has been criticized.

"A page of history is worth more than a volume of idle speculation or even logic. The adoption of Arizona's guarantee to bear arms is well documented. The records of the 1910 Constitutional Convention [Pages 678, 679] reveal the framers intended that a ban on the concealed carrying of arms would constitute an impairment. Besides the proposal adopted, five other proposals surfaced in the convention. The alternative proposals would have allowed the state to regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime or to ban concealed carrying. They were not adopted.

"The framers specifically voted down two efforts to amend the present guarantee in such a fashion that the concealed carrying of arms could be banned. This was done in the face of impassioned pleas from a former Chief Justice of the Territorial Supreme Court (who initially wanted no guarantee to arms) and a former Speaker of the Territorial House of Representatives that six-shooters and knives should not be worn under the shirt or under the coat.

"The concealed carrying of arms was even described as a vile and pernicious practice. The arguments were not heeded. The arguments in those debates sound like a typical modern-day argument over the right to bear arms. To ignore the clear intent of the framers would be the equivalent of ignoring the Federalist and Elliott's Debates when construing the national Constitution. The records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention clearly reveal that the framers envisioned a broad right to bear arms...."

Ma'am, our Right is God-given, inherent and inalienable:

afforded Us by God & Nature

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

"the overruling law of self preservation"

'for the common defence' (?)

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"

"The Right to Self Defense"

Why are our clear rights, and wishes being ignored? Either we are free sovereign citizens or we are not. If not, please advise how this came about and why. And, what you plan on doing to rectify the matter.


E. David Quammen


Monday, May 07, 2007

Re: "Ban Assault Rifles"

A regular poster on Keep and Bear Arms who goes by the handle "Phat Chantz" sent me a reply to one of the articles posted. The article appeared on 5/07/2007 at CourierPostOnline (New Jersey) and was by JACQUELIN AGOSTINI. Enjoy the commentary that "Phat" usually makes, so asked his permission to share it;

I'm batting just about 1000. Here's another letter that I submitted to the Courier Post Online in response to a letter that KABA.COM listed on its links today. Ban Assault Rifles takes the pedantic and old saw that since today's arms weren't available at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, that assualt and all other terrible weapons we use today should be prohibited.

So I'll just share it with you. I hope the audience-of-one enjoys it.


Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand why this wasn't printed: it is the truth and the Courier Post Online counts itself as past of my cowardly enemy.

The Founding Fathers wanted to assure that any man could obtain and bear the most lethal and terrible weapons of the time. Only in this way could mere citizens assure that their government always feared the real power in a Representative Republic -- the people.

Many casual readers of the Constitution and its amendments read their own biases into the interpretation. It serves the interested student to read the correspondence of the time as well as the Federalist Papers, written publicly as an ongoing discussion of issues such as the power of the federal and the rights of the individual.

Most importantly, the Second Amendment enumerates the RIGHT (to keep and bear arms) and not the OBJECT of the right (which arms, how many arms, kept where, how). It was just as common at the time that the cannon used in a battle
would be privately owned as held by the Continental Army. Using such logic, by extension I should be able to own my own Bradley or Howitzer; or even an old F-14.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Country, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment. This is the most important thing that the Second Amendment codifies: that government is not the author of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It, therefore, cannot be the gatekeeper to decide who is granted that right and who is denied. Neither is the federal or state government the author of the right to self-expression, faith, or private property.

But only one right guarantees that the federal government should reconsider any violation of the others, and that is the right to keep and bear arms that are so deadly, so terrible, that even a standing army would be loathe to fight the mere citizen.

The current battle over the right to keep and bear arms seems mired in the trivial disagreement of whether a citizen should be able to keep and bear arms in defense of his personal property, his life, or the lives of his loved ones should a petty criminal or felon descend and attack. If interpreted correctly according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, this question pales into insignificance if it can be understood that I already have the right to keep and bear a Howitzer in defense against my government. If I can bear a cannon, I can certainly conceal and bear a lowly .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

Today's cowardly citizen desperately wants to dismiss the burden and obligation to bear that arm in defense of his life, his property, his family, and his nation. Whether cowardly or not, the burden exists and will be tried. If the coward chooses to be disarmed for the coming fight, he shall lose his possessions, his family, his nation, and most certainly his life.

Should the citizen patriot choose to bear that burden, as well as the obligation to keep and bear arms in defense of himself, his possessions, his family, and his nation, he may yet lose his life. But where enough patriots rise in their own defense and in defense of their neighbors, the family and the nation will stand.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is a litmus test of honor, courage, and patriotism. Those who cower behind the vain hope of peace shall see chains, at the very least. Those who are prepared to stand against the petty criminal, the petty tyrant, or any such world-wide threat to peace and independence (anyone know of one, off-hand?) will be the only hope of peace and the only authors of tomorrow's independent nation.

Shall we legislate against the right to keep and bear arms or even the "common sense" ownership of assault weapons and such ugly things? If so, we shall telegraph our cowardice and fear to the whole world.

And the whole world is watching -- and waiting for the next chance to turn us to their slaves.

Don't think that I can add anything to that one. Good job, "Phat"! If you want to contact "Phat Chantz" you can do so here.


Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Re: "Parliaments around the world urged to act on gun control"...

Found this article while looking for news on Guns on an internet search;

Parliaments around the world urged to act on gun control

JAKARTA: Parliamentarians around the world should press for urgent action on gun control, particularly in view of recent tragedies, the head of a global body representing lawmakers said yesterday.

Anders Johnsson, secretary general of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, was speaking after the launch of a handbook aimed at guiding legislators in the area of gun control.

“We are pushing parliamentarians to act on this,” he said by telephone from the resort island of Bali where the IPU, which claims 148 affiliated national parliaments, is meeting.

The handbook has been jointly launched by the IPU and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, a Geneva-based think tank....

...The statement said small arms and light weapons took between 200,000 and 270,000 lives a year in countries that were at peace, through homicide and suicide.

The gun control issue was thrown into the spotlight again in April by the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech in the US by lone gunman Cho Seung-Hui.

The Democrat-led US Congress has ignited fresh talk about tightening gun laws, but many politicians are reluctant to take on the nation’s numerous gun owners or the powerful gun lobby....

Based upon the number of foreign posters I've seen on various Gun related forums. There seems to be a coordinated effort at undermining We The People's "inalienable right". These attacks are becoming more frequent, and come across as "common sense" and "feel good" remedies. The foreigners are then backed by a group of domestic posters that seemingly nod their heads in agreement to the 'speil' spewed forth.

Given the fact that there is an apparent worldwide effort at diminishing our God-given, Natural right. It would seem wise for all those concerned to confront those attacking our right with the FACTS. We must not take it for granted that there are 'others' that will protect our right for us....