Swamp Wars and Illegal Immigration....

I enjoy watching Swamp Wars, featuring the Venom 1 team of the Miami-Dade fire department.  One of the re-runs shown over the weekend documented the rescue of a large iguana that had gotten stuck in a chain link fence.  The officer successfully freed the animal from the fence, then put it into a pet carrier for transport.  As she did so, a neighbor asked to see the iguana, wondering aloud why it was necessary to remove it from the area.  The officer explained that, since the iguana was an invasive species, it would have been illegal to release it back into the wild.  The neighbor protested that such iguanas were seen all the time in the neighborhood; she didn't think that they represented a problem.  Then she made this statement:

"I don't think it's fair that an animal, just because it's not native of this territory, should be, you know, removed because of that. Being American equals to being an immigrant."

Wow.  Open borders logic applied not only to illegal immigration, but now to invasive species as well.  A person or an animal is American by virtue of migrating (as opposed to immigrating) here - regardless of the method of entry or the damage that might be caused.  I am 100% in favor of legal immigration; my own family came to be in this country that way four generations ago. But LEGAL is the operative word.  Anything else is invasive.

SB59 Being Debated In MI State Senate Now - Contact Your Senator NOW!!!

This bill will provide for concealed carry in pistol free zones (among other things).

"Under the legislation, permit holders would be allowed to carry guns in the so-called “pistol-free zones” if they undergo an extra nine hours of training beyond the current eight.
They also would have to fire an extra 94 rounds at the range beyond the 98 the legislation requires for a basic permit. Just 30 rounds are required now."

Gun on his hip, state Sen. Arlan Meekhof demonstrates his support for allowing concealed handguns in schools and other public places | MLive.com

I am urging everyone to contact their Michigan State Senator to urge them to vote for an amended version of SB 59.  As you can see above, this bill would permit CPL holders to concealed carry (CC) in a "pistol free" zone if they take additional class hours, fire nearly three more boxes of ammo, and then REQUEST an exception to "pistol free" zones.  Someone with a CPL who chooses to open carry (OP) in a "pistol free" zone, however, may do so without any additional class hours or anything else required in this bill.  This is fundamentally discriminatory under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, places an undue burden on those who have a Constitutional Right to CC in these areas, and is a violation of the recent federal district court (Maryland) ruling which states that the mere existence of the right in the Second Amendment (also stated in the Michigan Constitution) is all the justification we need to exercise our right to carry; legislation adding requirements to this right amounts to "rationing" of the right (Judge Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan, 2012).


We need to flood the offices of our state senators (Michigan legislature) with calls/emails/faxes urging them to amend SB 59 to eliminate the additional requirements and to establish OC/CC parity with regard to the right to carry in so-called "gun free" zones in Michigan.  Links to the Michigan State Legislative Directory can be found in the right column of this blog.


There is no time to lose.

MI House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger and Second Amendment Rights.....

He claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.  And yet, when faced with the possibility that Michigan Senate Bill 59 (SB 59), a bill that will, among other things, eliminate gun free zones for holders of concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) who have gone through an ADDITIONAL 9 hours of training (over and above the 8 hours required now to receive a CPL) and REQUEST an exemption from the zones, might actually pass, he gave the following warning to the Michigan House of Representatives (read this statement carefully):

"I support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as Michigan’s Constitution as they both protect our citizen’s right to bear arms.  Therefore, I support allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons.
 Unfortunately, we have many horrific cases that show that banning concealed weapons in certain places does not deter those who would harm innocent people.

However, this legislation will require significant discussion in the House. This is an emotional issue and I understand and respect that there is significant disagreement among our residents. If it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to undergo its own fact finding, testimony from the public, and the bill will receive full and careful deliberation."

SB 59 spent over a year in the Senate Judiciary Committee being studied, deliberated, and testified to before it was finally passed out of committee to the full senate for a vote (scheduled at this time for the week of April 20).  But not satisfied with this level of due diligence, the Speaker has put the House on notice that he expects them to spend even more time, money, and energy debating an issue that has already been put to rest by the Federal District Court of Maryland.  His reasoning?  "This is an emotional issue..."


The statement above first appeared in an interview with West Michigan reporters on March 27, 2012.  Following that interview, I sent Speaker Bolger a letter detailing the case to move expeditiously when SB 59 passes in the Senate, and asking him on the basis of the evidence to reconsider his instructions to the House to study this issue to death.  In an emailed response, he sent me the same statement he gave to the press, containing the same rationale shown above.


In response, I emailed Speaker Bolger the following letter, which I now post as an open letter to Rep. Bolger, once again asking him to reconsider his instructions to the Michigan House.  I ask all like-minded individuals to take the time to contact his office to voice your displeasure as well.

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate your reply.  However, I cannot be in stronger disagreement with your position.

With all due respect, we do not decide the exercise of Constitutional Rights based upon the anticipated "emotional" response that might be engendered by the exercise of the protected right.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of speech based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of religion based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of press, or association, or due process or protection from illegal search and seizure based upon emotional considerations.

As Judge Legg opined in his recent U.S. District Court decision, we decide the exercise of these rights based upon the fact that the rights EXIST.  Period.  That is all the justification we need.

I can point to dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents throughout our history that would support the case for limiting the exercise of the freedom of speech or press or religion - the exercise of each of these rights engender emotional responses that have led to all manner of emotional outcry by detractors.  And yet, we not only protect the exercise of these rights, we celebrate their exercise!

The same must be true with regard to the RIGHT protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.  Does the issue of firearms carry engender an emotional response?  Absolutely.  But just as it is true that this is not a consideration that hampers the free exercise of all of our other Constitutionally protected RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, so you cannot base your decision to continue limiting what federal courts have declared to be a basic right, the exercise thereof requiring no justification other than the existence of the right - the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in our own defense - on the argument that "[T]his is an emotional issue."

Sir, with all due respect, your continued reticence to implement the FULL EXERCISE of our Second Amendment right flies in the face of the oath that you took upon entering the Michigan legislature:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative according to the best of my ability."

Your duty is to protect and support the exercise of all of the rights prescribed in both Constitutions - regardless of the emotional response they might engender from detractors.

Respectfully,

Speaker Bolger can be reached at the following:

House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger 1-877-BOLGER-1 (office) 517-373-9119 (fax) JamesBolger@house.mi.gov

The Forgotten Amendment....

As we work to stem the continuing erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, we hear all manner of reference to the First and Second Amendments, predominately.  The ground covered in those amendments to the Constitution seems to be where most of the war is taking place these days.


But as important as those amendments are, along with the other six amendments that initially comprised the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment is the article that explicitly protects our rights from infringement by the federal government.


The Ninth Amendment reads as follows: 

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The rights granted to the general (federal) government comprised a very limited, discrete package of powers.  James Madison put it this way:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

Simply stated, Madison argued that, contrary to the political doctrine we see exercised by the federal government today, the only powers granted to the general government were those that were explicitly granted.  The assumption underlying the Ninth Amendment, therefore, is that all other powers, even those not explicitly stated, were reserved to THE PEOPLE.  In his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, during which he also addressed objections to the creation of such a document, Madison emphasized the idea of "the great residuum" of powers that were reserved to the People:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people;"

As we continue the fight to bring the federal government back into line with the principles stated in the Constitution, one thought stands out from the rest: if at any time the powers of the federal government come into conflict with the rights of the people, the Ninth Amendment declares which set of powers is to take preeminence - and those powers don't belong to the federal government.

Gov. Snyder's Belief That More Immigration Will Make Michigan Prosperous Again....

Michigan's Gov. Snyder made a speech in Grand Rapids, MI, on March 8, 2012, in which he stated, yet again, his belief that immigration is the key to turning Michigan around, essentially stating that Michigan residents do not possess the skills needed to get the job done.

If by immigration he means that process by which people become productive legal residents and citizens of this country via the processes that have been established by our laws, then by all means, Welcome!

If by immigration he means that process by which people sneak across our borders or deliberately stay in the country long after their visas expire, having children who automatically acquire American citizenship, thus providing a safeguard against being deported and making their children (and, by extension, the parents) eligible for all manner of public assistance, then, Governor, you need to seriously re-consider who you are in Lansing to represent. Our state spends nearly $1 BILLION ($928,800,000) annually providing assistance to the families of illegals. But instead of doing something about that, you placed the blame for Michigan's financial problems on teachers and other public employees, cutting the wages and benefits of TAXPAYERS - people who truly contribute to the income of this state - while making the case to increase access to Michigan jobs by "immigrants."

Mr. Governor, you are in office to represent the needs of the CITIZENS and LEGAL RESIDENTS of this state - not to make a case for yet another back door amnesty program. I am aware that our immigration system is in need of work, but that hardly serves as justification to simply throw open the door to people who are taking jobs that are needed by out-of-work citizens and legal residents of this state. Those jobs in the agricultural and hospitality industries used to be the staples of American high school and college students. And don't get me started on the jobs in the construction and other industries that are now being filled by illegals instead of citizens - high paying jobs, not the minimal wage jobs that the open border crowd always like to point to. These are all jobs that can, should and would be filled by CITIZENS if they didn't have to deal with an employment deck that is stacked in favor of illegals.

A number of bills have been submitted that would A) severely penalize employers who hire illegals, B) require verification of legal residency for employment and business transactions, and (C) make the practice of using ITINs or matricula consular as substitutes for social security numbers or passports a state felony. THOSE are the initiatives you need to be supporting - not paving the way for yet another round of amnesties.

"Federal Judge Declares Maryland's Concealed Carry Requirement Unconstitutional..."

That was the headline of an article posted on guns.com today.  A federal judge found Maryland's requirement that an applicant for a concealed carry license provide a "good and substantial reason" to carry unconstitutional.  With this ruling in mind, I sent the following letter to my Michigan state legislators:

Gentlemen,

I have contacted your offices several times regarding our Second Amendment right to carry firearms with reference to businesses and places of public accommodation, both for employees and customers/clients.  While the recent federal ruling does not specifically address this issue, the judge's opinion includes statements that have direct bearing on it.
First, that this is a civil rights issue.  To allow a business or place of public accommodation to prohibit the carry of firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is discrimination.  The judge ruled that we do not need to provide justification for carry; "…the right's existence is all the reason [he] needs."  Laws that permit such limitations "…impermissibly infringe[s] the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Second, that "…self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be."  That right does not stop at the entrance of a business or place of public accommodation, and, as is true of the civil rights of religion, speech, due process, etc., cannot be abridged by anyone. The one exception that has survived legal challenges is the ability to openly practice these rights in a place of employment.  Laws allow employers to limit open display of religious/ political symbols or personal items such as jewelry in certain circumstances, but they cannot enact complete prohibition of these rights; the argument can therefore be made that such latitude would apply to employers with regard to open carry of a firearm by an employee, but, similarly, that it does not give them the latitude to completely prohibit the right to concealed carry.

This ruling, as it applies to this issue, provides for consistency and predictability with regard to our civil/legal right to carry firearms; our current system, under which any business and most places of public accommodation can arbitrarily impose their own limitations on the right to carry, has created a hodge-podge of gun-free zones that makes it nearly impossible for conscientious carriers to exercise their right.

As a final thought, I would suggest that, since the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution make no distinction between concealed and open carry, the judge's decision also applies to the need to apply for a CPL, as, to use the judge's reasoning, this amounts to a "rationing system" that requires a citizen "…to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights."  The elimination of the CPL system therefore not only makes sense for Constitutional reasons, but for financial reasons as well, as this would do away with the costs associated with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of what is, in the light of this decision, arguably an unconstitutional system.

Sincerely,

The Second Amendment and Business Owners....

The Bill of Rights protects certain - wait for it -  RIGHTS.  Non-negotiable, so-called inalienable rights.  Natural rights, not legislated privileges.  They are:

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; right to petition.

Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops in peacetime.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Fifth Amendment – Due process, protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

Sixth Amendment – Criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically delegated to Congress in the Constitution.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

In today's political climate, however, all too many politicians and citizens have taken the attitude expressed by Capt. Barbosa in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie:  "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.”

This attitude is nowhere as evident as when discussing the rights of business owners and the rights of those who carry firearms - employees and clients - in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.

We frequently see and hear remarks like the following: "I would be upset if the government tried to tell me how to run my business..." 

The fact of the matter is that the government ALREADY tells one how to run their business - in ways that are at-odds with the Constitutional protections afforded private citizens on property that is truly private. It requires business entities to construct bathrooms a certain way. It specifies how many handicap parking spaces one must provide. It requires one to allow service animals (even in a restaurant), and prohibits one from discriminating in hiring - meaning that one can be forced in some instances to hire people with whom one might not normally associate in a truly private setting where the Constitutional right of association (First Amendment) is protected. Additionally, business entities may not discriminate against customers based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - people with whom a private citizen might not choose to associate in the privacy of their home.  These laws serve to protect the civil rights of employees and clients. 

In short, civil rights, which the Bill of Rights establishes (including the civil right to bear arms), have been legally elevated above the rights of business entities. 

Of all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to insure that other rights - including property rights - are secure. One must be able to defend that which belongs to one's self.  Without a means of defense, all other rights - including property rights - are vulnerable.  In other words, the right to own property exists only insofar as one is able to DEFEND that property.  This includes the right to defend that property which is most precious to every person, their own body.  As was observed by Bastiat in his work, The Law:

"Man can only derive life and enjoyment from a perpetual search and appropriation; that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. But also he may live and enjoy, by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men. This is the origin of plunder. When does plunder cease, then? When it becomes more burdensome and more dangerous than labor.....God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?...every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property."

The right to protect one’s body does not end at the doorway of a business, whether entering as an employee or a client.

The absolute necessity of the Second Amendment is found in the terminology contained therein.

The Second Amendment states, “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.”  As used in a legal context, as is the case in the Second Amendment, the phrase "shall not" indicates that the provision is non-negotiable; absolute; mandatory. When legislators wish to convey the unconditional, mandatory nature of a law, they insert the phrases "shall" or "shall not". NO ONE has the authority to abridge the practice of the right delineated in the Second Amendment - "...shall not be abridged." This is an absolute statement. Congressional acts restricting the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (using the Constitution against itself) are in violation of protections explicitly stated in the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [i.e. congressional authority], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Second Amendment right to bear arms is one of the rights "retained by the people." And there is that pesky legal phrase again: "shall not". The Bill of Rights is not a smorgasbord from which we choose which rights we will protect.   One may choose not to practice a right, but that choice not to practice rights guaranteed in the Constitution in no way infringes on or negates the practice of Constitutionally-protected rights by others.

While business owners (this author has been in that position himself) might wish to argue that their business is private property in the same way as their home, there are an overwhelming variety of laws governing business entities that say otherwise.  As has been observed previously, those laws exist to protect the civil rights - the rights preserved in the Bill of Rights - of employees and clients.  Business entities, places of public accommodation, do not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as that afforded to individual citizens. While that may be hard for some to swallow, even a cursory look at US business and civil rights law will bear this out.

The Second Amendment and the Legislator.....

In 1764, Cesare Bonesana, the Marquise of Beccaria, published a book entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments.  As its name implies, it is a treatise on crimes and appropriate punishments, the reasons underlying crimes, and the rights of citizens to protect themselves as a deterrent to crime.  Remember that date of publication.  1764.


On pages 83-84, Bonesana made the following observation in a section entitled, "Of false ideas of utility":

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?

It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons. (ephasis added)

Translation:  it is when legislators try to protect us from every conceivable evil that they cause the most damage.  It is then that they begin to enslave the populace by building fences against imaginary ills, rather than empowering the citizenry to exercise their own judgements in their own defense.  It is those kinds of laws that require the citizen to rely solely on the government for their protection, disarming them, and, therefore, empowering the criminal - the law of unintended consequences.  As a result, the governed are deprived of their liberties, while the criminal is given free-reign to terrorize those who have been so enslaved.


The Second Amendment exists for this very reason.  Our freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, press, due process,  protection from illegal search and seizure, all are based on our ability as individual citizens to prosecute those rights - by force of arms if necessary.  Our Bill of Rights is the only document of its kind that gives the ordinary citizen the right to take the defense of those rights into his or her own hands, to protect those rights from ALL who threaten them, whether from enemies foreign or domestic, private or public.


Think about the following statements made by past leaders of our great republic:

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on 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

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"[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, Federalist, No. 46.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the 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," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

Those who downplay the critical importance of the Second Amendment, as we hear with such increasing frequency these days from legislators, the media, and even our fellow citizens, truly misunderstand what is at stake. In the words of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Why Mitt Romney Cannot Represent ALL Americans - And Why Christians Cannot Support Him.

A Response to Rep. Justin Amash's Call to Eliminate the TSA.....

As most have already heard, Sen. Paul was recently inconvenienced at a TSA checkpoint, and had to undergo a pat-down screening.  He has called for the elimination of the TSA for some time, and in the aftermath of the inconvenience he suffered, Rep. Amash has begun publicly calling for the same thing.  Congressman Amash went so far as to claim that Sen. Paul should have been exempt from secondary screening because his status as a senator provides him, under certain circumstances, with immunity from arrest.  While others continue to debate whether the protections afforded in the Constitution apply in this particular instance, I wish to address the bigger issue - one about which I have communicated with ALL of my legislators in D.C. on numerous occasions.


Here is the brief note I posted on Rep. Amash's FaceBook page in response to his call to "Free Rand Paul":

Now that we have your attention, I will ask the question again. I have written to your office about this before (as I have written to all of my legislators), and received a response detailing your concern about the potential for racial profiling.

When is the government finally going to let airport security (I don't care if it is the TSA or a private security company) begin working from known criminal/terrorist profiles (which happen to reference ethnicity), as is the case with all other law enforcement agencies, so that they can begin a more effective, more targeted approach to airport security? As Sen. Paul said himself, "We have to bring some sense to what we're doing in this country ... we treat everybody equally as a terrorist suspect." This is proof that, contrary to our public statements, the terrorists HAVE won, and our way of life, with its Constitutional protections, HAS been changed as a result of 9/11. It is one more example of how we have turned our backs on the Constitution as a result of public hysteria.

But as is true in so many cases, until a legislator or other ranking official is inconvenienced by the very processes they put in place, legislators will consider no alternatives. And if history is any indicator, the only change that will come as a result of this incident is that a bill will be passed exempting legislators and other select government officials from the screening process, while the rest of their constituents continue to slog through the process and innocent American Citizens continue to be treated as potential terrorists.

This is not a TSA issue.

This is the result of decisions by government officials, beginning with former Secretary Norman Mineta, not to do the sensible thing and look most closely at those who, according to the criminal profiles (from which airport security officers are not permitted to work) are the most likely to perpetrate the kinds of crimes the TSA was intended to prevent.

Maybe now we can begin to have a real discussion about what really needs to take place with airport security.