Posted by TravisWhite on 02/12/09

http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/wi-case-update.htm

Wisconsin (West Allis) Update

Gun Rights? Any Rights? What Rights?

2/11/09

It's less than a week until the Constitution gets another court hearing. To recap what happened, in August 2008 Brad Krause was arrested at gunpoint in West Allis, Wisconsin while planting trees in his yard. The reason: he lawfully possessed a holstered weapon. (Full story at: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20081212b.htm )  

His first hearing was December 16, where the story started to unfold under oath. The prosecution admitted into evidence a small semi-automatic handgun, positive retention holster, and self-defense ammunition, each item being the type of equipment police officers are known to use for their own protection, not the sort of thing criminals tend to carry.  

The first witness was the man who had called the police. Normally this person is the victim of a robbery, mugging, or other violent attack, but in this case the man testified he called the police to find out if a person could legally carry a handgun within city limits. He went on to say that although he thinks only police officers should carry weapons for self defense, it was never his intention "for Brad, excuse me, I mean Mr. Krause, to end up in court." He testified that "Mr. Krause" is a nice guy, they get along fine, and the first time they met was when "Mr. Krause" came over to help him dig his car out of the snow. There was no sign of animosity between the neighbors who apparently are still on a first-name basis.  

The next witness was the first officer to respond, who said he saw a man with a gun and immediately called for backup. A back-and-forth line of questioning ensued:

Attorney: "Officer, you were the first person to see Mr. Krause in his yard, correct?"
Officer: "Correct."  

Attorney: "What was he doing when you saw him in his yard?"
Officer: "I believe he was planting a tree."  

Attorney: "Was he in any way handling the gun?"
Officer: "No."  

Attorney: "Was the gun plainly and openly carried?"
Officer: "Yes."  

Attorney: "You had no question that was a handgun on his hip?"
Officer: "Yes, I knew it was a handgun on his hip in a holster."  

Attorney: "And he was not handling it, waving it, doing anything with it?"
Officer: "No. I believe he had a shovel in his hand and was in the process of planting a tree."  

The questioning continued, eventually with the officer testifying Mr. Krause was cooperative the entire time, and never used any profanity or even raised his voice.   The second officer testified what happened when they approached:  

Officer 2: "...we approached the person that was in the side yard of that residence."  

Attorney: "And how did you approach him? Was there any special precautions that you took?
Officer 2: "Yes, I drew my gun and pointed it at him."  

Attorney: "And why is that?"
Officer 2: "Because he was armed."

He continued to testify that by Mr. Krause wearing a gun visible to the public, that created a disturbance, and that was disorderly, so Mr. Krause was therefore arrested for Disorderly Conduct While Armed.

Wisconsin has a unique set of laws pertaining to guns:

• The WI Constitution has an amendment for individual citizens to keep and bear arms in Article I Section 25.
• Concealed carry is illegal under WI Statute 941.23, but openly carrying a handgun is legal without any sort of permit or training, according to several WI Supreme Court cases.
• The state does not allow local governments to create laws more restrictive than state laws (WI Stat. 66.0409).
• The WI Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that laws can't be applied to restrict Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Confused yet? The end result is that almost anyone can carry a gun in public if others are able to see it -- no training or permit required, but stick it in your pocket and you're a criminal.

What makes this case unusual is that most cases in Wisconsin are about people concealing a weapon and therefore breaking a law, but claiming they had a right under the WI Constitution due to need. This is the first case where no law was broken, but the person is being prosecuted anyway.

If no law was broken and another law is being misapplied in order to prosecute the case, what happened to property rights and the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure? Apparently, like the rest of your rights, they don't exist when the government says they don't.

The judge questioned the prosecutor at length about the right to expression, unfortunately using the Nazi flag as his example. Does the judge's neighbor have the right to fly the Nazi flag? "It depends," was the prosecution's answer. The judge tried to repeatedly narrow the question, and eventually the answer came down to the city claiming to have the ability to make the decision. What happens if it's just the German flag? Or the Swiss flag? Depending on who doesn't like it, the outcome might not be so good.

The next hearing is Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 8:00 AM. It is open to the public, and you are encouraged to attend.

West Allis Courthouse
11301 West Lincoln Avenue
West Allis, WI 53227

 http://www.ci.west-allis.wi.us/about/city_maps.htm

Posted by TravisWhite on 02/12/09

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663/page/1

We Are All Socialists Now

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

By Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK

Published Feb 7, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is . the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already-under a conservative Republican administration-effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not-and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not-the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways-particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism-but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not-or even whether many people have thought much about it or not-the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone-a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone-a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.

Posted by TravisWhite on 02/09/09

http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/states-stand-firm.htm

State Sovereignty is Starting to Steamroll
From The Constitution Party

States Tell Feds: "Back Off!"

Legislatures Cite 10th Amendment In Strong Reminder To D.C.

Lancaster, PA (February 7, 2009) A growing number of state legislatures across the country have put the federal government on notice that the United States Constitution gives states the authority to say: "Thus far and no farther!"

Bills introduced in states, including Washington, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Arizona, defend state sovereignty as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: .... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution Party supports and encourages the effort of individual states to re-affirm that the U.S. Constitution explicitly guarantees certain rights cannot be usurped by the federal government. "The state sovereignty movement is picking up steam," noted Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. "The duopoly that controls our federal government has gotten out of hand. Republicans and Democrats alike have been guilty of trampling states' rights for generations. Finally, elected officials in state legislatures across the country are pushing back," Clymer added.

D.C.'s blatant disregard for the Constitution has raised the hackles of responsible elected state officials. The effort to restore State Sovereignty is gaining momentum.

Several states have tied their State Sovereignty bills to other constitutionally-protected rights including 2nd Amendment gun owners' rights and the 14th Amendment right to Life. The Montana State Sovereignty bill , authored by Republican State Representative Joel Boniek, sets the stage for a showdown with the federal government over gun owners' rights.

It invokes the 9th Amendment as well: .... The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

The bill adds a stronger caveat: .... A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

In Oklahoma, Republican State Representative Charles Key authored his second state sovereignty bill, HJR 1089 (reintroduced as HJR 1003) using words like "cease and desist." Key has been a vocal opponent of such overreaching federal dictates as the No Child Left Behind and Real ID Acts for being unconstitutional, state sovereignty-stealing mandates from D.C.. The bill has been referred to the Oklahoma House Rules Committee.

In Missouri, Republican State Representative Cynthia Davis brought the issue of abortion into the State Sovereignty issue with HR 294. The bill (formerly HR 212), states: Missouri's sovereignty (exists) under the Tenth Amendment and (the state) urges the United States Congress to reject the passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act which prohibits regulations on abortion.

Michigan Republican State Representative Paul Opsommer authored State Sovereignty bill HCR 4 which aims to: . (A)ffirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

The State Sovereignty statement in Arizona's HCR 2034 bares its teeth calling for dissolution of the federal government in the event: .(The) President of the United States, the Congress of the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States as the charter for the formation of a new federal government, to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President

Washington, and New Hampshire similarly put the feds on notice that the United States Constitution and all its amendments are there for a reason - to keep a centralized government from overstepping its bounds and to protect the rights of American citizens.

The Constitution Party encourages Americans across the political spectrum to contact their state representatives and tell them to uphold the Constitution with a 10th Amendment bill for their state!

Copyright © 2009 Constitution Party, JPFO.org

Posted 02/09/09 Mike in Virginia Fredericksburg, VA

I've said it in several blogs before: the best chance for liberty to prevail is for enough states to tell the central government to back off. Our influence over Congress is nil; they do what they want no matter how much public opinion is against them. But if the states put up enough resistance, we can bring the central government under control.

Posted by TravisWhite on 02/06/09

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/tarp-firms-spent-more-than-114m-on-2008-lobb
ying-2009-02-05.html  

TARP firms spent more than $114M lobbying

By Reid Wilson

Companies that have received help through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) spent more than $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions in 2008, according to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The companies, including American International Group (AIG), Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bancorp, dished out about $77 million to lobbyists and $37 million on campaign contributions, the report found. Members of the Senate Banking Committee alone received $5.2 million in campaign contributions during the 2008 cycle.

Not every company that received TARP funding, though, spent a massive amount on lobbying. Just 25 of the 300 companies that have received money paid lobbyists.

AIG, which turned over almost 80 percent of its equity to the Federal Reserve Bank in September in exchange for an $85 billion bailout, spent $9.7 million on lobbying in 2008, while employees donated about $930,000 to federal candidates.

Bank of America employees gave $5.7 million to federal candidates during the 2008 election cycle and spent about $8.8 million lobbying Congress. During the recent economic tumult, the company - which is the world's largest financial institution - acquired Countrywide Financial and investment brokerage Merrill Lynch and received $45 billion in TARP funding.

The Center for Responsive Politics used the report to call for TARP funding to be more transparent. 

"Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been handed out with little more than a one-line announcement," said Sheila Krumholz, the organization's executive director. 

"What qualified these companies for the money they're getting? What disqualified other companies? What contact has there been between members of Congress and the Treasury? What contact have lobbyists had with Congress and Treasury? These are reasonable questions, and taxpayers deserve answers."

In a climate in which public perception matters, several companies could take heat for the lobbying expenses. Wells Fargo was criticized for planning a lavish trip to Las Vegas, while Citigroup came under attack for moving to buy a new corporate jet.

Posted by TravisWhite on 02/05/09

The Utopia Theory
By Chris Belle

© JPFO.org 2009

Many people crave a Utopia, which in essence is perhaps understandable as there is so much in life that can be deemed as undesirable. However, if realism is employed it will be seen that a true Utopia is an impossibility - something the pursuers of everything peace and love seem to overlook. The human animal has traits which can include many undesirable characteristics - some are minor and in the category of every-day nuisance - but there are others which go far beyond and into the realms of pure evil.

Why mention this at all? Well, there seems to be an element of the Utopia seeker within the ranks of gun grabbers, apart that is from a lust for pure control. Maybe it can simply be called naivety too although that is probably being way too generous. They propound this "simple" (sic) approach which suggests that "getting guns off the streets" will solve everything and suddenly turn society into a realm of peace and tranquility, but conveniently forgetting the basics of human behavior. Bad guys will still, rob and kill. There are many with zero regard for property and the sanctity of life.

Would a gun ban suddenly eradicate those with evil intent - the criminals? No. Would a gun ban stop those very criminals from acquiring firearms? No. The potential cache of guns available even after a ban would more than satisfy their needs, and let us not forget the "prohibition syndrome" - the predictable increase in an unlawful mob controlled black market. Would a gun ban leave law abiding people vulnerable to armed attack? Most certainly. Figures in disarmed UK and Australia tend to bear this out.

We are into the realms of logic versus Utopia. The simple application of a common sense assessment of society and how its essential structure cannot be radically changed, let alone totally controlled. Sadly, the vast majority of those who would seek to disarm the citizen of the right to self defence, have for the most part little to fear themselves. They live a very protected existence all but free of encountering the situations the commoner might well have to face - not likely to be waiting at a 7/11 to buy groceries when an armed attack is made. Not likely to have their home's door broken down by an armed home invasion.

One factor which is so often and conveniently omitted is the protection ability (or lack of) with regard to law enforcement. "To Protect and Serve" is a noble cause but as most people fail to realize, not a duty toward the individual. It should take little or no effort to imagine a situation where an armed attack is made, speed being the criminal's best bet to avoid being caught. Within a mere 60 seconds a mugging attack can be complete and the victim/victims possibly shot to avoid any witnesses, and the best law enforcement can do is appear after the event, gather forensic evidence and call the hospital or coroner. How often are we told by high office law enforcement "do what the nice bad guy tells you" - as if that negates any chance of being injured or killed - no that does not wash; everyone has an innate right of self defense - the "now" factor. Read the book "Dial 911 and Die" - and discover the impotence of the system, which incorrectly assumes someone is able to ask an attacker, "please wait while I dial 911"!

Big home security companies such as ADT and Brinks etc offer some very reasonable and sometimes exotic systems for protecting the home. Their advertising however has to give some cause for concern as the emphasis is geared toward an alarm that somehow magically produces an instant response - "we are sending someone right away"!! How does this prevent a homicide, when the only logical solution really is to be able to meet an armed threat on equal terms, by the armed citizen. Sure these systems may help if a house is being burglarized but for protection of the individual, no sorry - they cannot help that a whole lot.

Another blatant brick wall to anything remotely Utopian is the gang culture - nothing new but certainly thriving more and more. Apart from gangs sometimes terrorising whole neighborhoods, much of their violence is within those organisations, resulting in high homicide levels which greatly influence overall figures that are quoted, ignoring the obvious bias. It is those guns that need to be off the streets - not those belonging to good people, but more important it is the gang culture itself that requires the control. They will always find and procure guns so, why should the 99% of good gun owners be pilloried and disarmed thus rendering them defenceless. What about the 20,000 gun laws already on the books - use those against criminal guns.

The Second Amendment saw no Utopia - instead it laid out that the right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed, knowing that not only was self defence a right but also that the common man should have a means to resist tyranny. The message within the writing is clear, not that you would think so when hearing the anti gun faction which keeps insisting that there is no individual right. The Heller Case only just helped prop that up but within that judgement was the inclusion of the very broad term "reasonable" with regard to controls, and it takes little imagination to see where that could go. Watch the JPFO movie "2A Today for The USA" - and make sure the content, explaining with great clarity what the Second Amendment really means, is thoroughly understood and passed on widely. There are many who need educating.

We cannot and never will achieve a Utopia. The gun grabbers should look hard at reality and see that society is far from perfect and that attempts to control it by disarmament will not work - only leaving the law abiding defenceless in all respects. It is worth reminding people that globally there have been millions who have suffered genocide (see the JPFO genocide chart) following their impotence brought about by gun control. Read "Death by Gun Control" - and watch the movie "Innocents Betrayed" - to see the full picture.

Sorry if bubbles have been burst for there being no Utopia, but to all the actual and would be gun grabbers out there - try and find some logic and common sense, although so far it appears this will still remain in the realm of the miracle.

Posted 02/06/09 sunshine Washington, NH

Thank you for the posting. Libertarians are labeled as Utopians because we think that cause and effect are logical and can take care of many of the problems we see today. Interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.