This flag proudly flies in a field overlooking a rural Maine farmhouse! Hope you Independence Day if a great one!

You got to love Ray Charles singing “America the Beautiful”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Since I arrived here at my camp in the wet woods of Maine, it has been my intention to broadcast some live video/audio shows for your viewing pleasure. The problem? It won’t stop raining! I can easily count on one hand the days it has not rained in a month that I have been here.

I wanted to do the streaming outside beside the fire pit, complete with Deep Woods Off, but the rain has dampened my attempts. I could do it inside but as it is, I don’t have a lot of room in here.

Either way, if I can get a show off I will. It may be a spur of the moment thing but if I do, I will be sure to record it and put it up here so you can have access.

Today’s forecast? Heavy rain and thundershowers through the night. Tomorrow sounds drier and the the next week calls for….you guessed it rain!

Last night my wife told me I looked pale. My comment back to her was, “Well, no &%$#! The sun hasn’t shone for a month and my damned car is back in the garage for major repairs! Maybe the blood has all drained from my body!”

My camp drive is mostly impassable now as the persistent rain has turned it into something akin to a mud wrestling pit. Hey, now there’s an idea. Only problem, I don’t think I could find any participants willing to do battle with the mosquitoes. We also have a growing pond between camp and the main road. I think I’ll call the fish and game and see if they will stock it.

So, here’s looking at a sunnier day and a chance to dry things out. I guess I’ll put on my walking shoes and walk to the post office. It’s only a mile and a half into town.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tomorrow, July 4th, we celebrate Independence Day, the day we signed the Declaration of Independence to set us free from the rule of England. We actually made that declaration on July 2nd but signed the actual document on the Fourth.

Many, particularly our young people, don’t know what Independence Day means. They simply state it as our birthday. Independence Day was the beginning of our freedom and set forth over the course of many years a series of battles, in many venues, to keep and preserve that freedom - some of those events costing the lives of brave Americans. For this, understanding patriots are grateful.

For me, this year is a special birthday for America. The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced and defined one of our basic and necessary rights - the right to keep and bear arms. This is a bright day for Americans, even the ones who disagreed with the ruling, for this ruling will prolong the rights and freedoms we all enjoy to disagree without fear of reprisals.

Too much of society attempts to focus on violence, utilizing fear tactics to convince us that guns are evil and need to be outlawed. Lost from debate is why the framers of the Constitution thought it necessary to create the Second Amendment - “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

To help readers understand this, Larry Elder of Town Hall has Part 1 of “Why Do We Keep and Bear Arms?’ Mr. Elder takes us from the beginning to modern day times in what leaders of the world, including Hitler, had to say about an armed citizenry.

Elder reminds us what Thomas Paine said in 1775 about what happens when we take guns away from lawful citizens and the effect it has on criminals.

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. … (Weakness) allures the ruffian (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. … Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of them. … The weak will become a prey to the strong.”

But perhaps a more telltale indication of the movement of our society is revealed by Elder when he quotes a 20th century political leader about gun ownership - a leader who happened to be a democrat.

On this Independence Day, I hope you will take an extra moment to reflect back on the true meaning of this day, the day we declared our independence, our freedom and what it has cost us to keep that which is so precious.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Boston Globe has a typical article today that shows the media’s desire to disregard hunting in favor of wildlife watching at the expense of hunters. It really kind of irks me, the ignorance that exists and then the arrogance from the wildlife watching community as they are continually told they outnumber hunters and are gaining the upper hand politically to have things their way.

And it appears that the Maine Office of Tourism isn’t exactly jumping up and down in support of the state’s thousands of hunters.

“It’s a challenge,” said Phil Savignano, senior tourism official for the Maine Office of Tourism. “Maine is changing . . . There is clearly a decline in hunting and a growth in wildlife viewing. But we want both to exist.”

According to officials at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, hunting participation has held pretty steady in Maine. I’m sure Savignano is referring to the USFWS survey that I have said for months is not an accurate measure of who hunts and who doesn’t, yet even state officials use that data instead of information from their own agencies. Go figure!

The difficulty, as I see it, does come from the power of the dollar. I don’t want the wildlife watchers taking over fish and game departments. Lee Kantar, a biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and who has recently been put in charge of looking out for the moose, had this to say about the pressures put on the department in managing the moose.

“Our job is to balance the interests of all people - the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care,” said Lee Kantar, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Population numbers, he added, “can be the stuff of battles.”

Perhaps this is what it has evolved into but it’s not supposed to be the function of the fish and game department to be managing game animals for the wildlife watchers and those trying to make a buck off charging people to go on wildlife watching safaris.

Once again we see history being lost in our society. People forget what state the moose was in not that many years ago and whose dollars it was that were used to restore the moose population. Now we have a seemingly abundance of moose and some hunters are demanding more permits to hunt the creature while at the same time wildlife viewers, who pay nothing for the management of the animal, are demanding more moose to watch.

For many reasons there are people who don’t want the two entities to coexist. I won’t go into all the reasons. The media does little to help as is shown in this article.

I want to see the wildlife watchers pay their share to meet the demands they are putting on MDIFW but separate from the fish and game department. I have said this repeatedly. Fish and game needs to be shrunk in size to a function of, well, fish and game and NOT as Mr. Kantar says: “Our job is to balance the interests of all people - the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care.” This is not a function of a wildlife biologist or the fish and game department in my opinion. Why should my license fee be used to satisfy those wanting to go moose watching, or for pandering to the insurance companies to reduce collisions, etc.?

There are no sour grapes here toward those who want to make a buck or two by schlepping those interested in canned photo opportunities and wildlife viewing safaris across the state. What irks me is their demands that hunters stop shooting the animals in order that they have more animals to watch. All this without paying a red cent to the agency they are demanding provide them more opportunities.

It’s been said countless times. If it wasn’t for the millions of dollars paid by hunters over the years, these viewers would have little to watch and safari organizers would be doing something different. Hunters generally speaking do not resent that people want to go wildlife watching. What we do resent is these groups looking to promote their new-found activity at the expense of running the hunters off the face of the earth.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Not to pick on Obama - oh heck! Why not? - But really, he is no different than any other blood sucking, slime ball politician trying to have things both ways in order to lie, cheat and steal their way into office.

Obama said on more than one occasion that he believed the District of Columbia’s gun ban was constitutional. Then just prior to the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller, Obama changed his mind.

In an article by Jacob Sullum in Townhall, he lays out how it all went down.

Last November, by contrast, Obama’s campaign told the Chicago Tribune “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” The candidate was so upset about that misrepresentation of his views that he sought to correct it — seven months later. A few hours before the Supreme Court pronounced the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional, an Obama spokesman told “ABC News” his campaign’s November statement to the contrary “was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the senator’s consistent position.”

The lesson, for those who haven’t caught on yet, is to never listen to campaign rhetoric as it is all lies. Follow their past and voting records to gain a better understanding of their true positions on issues.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It has to be time for random thoughts again as it seems that’s all I have right now with little time or energy left to do a lot of research into creating not so random thoughts.

I heard today at one of the local auto garages here near my summer camp that the owner has never had so many high cost repairs to automobiles. I shared with him about my brother-in-law who just laid out $2,800.00 for repairs on a 2007 Ford F-150 truck with little more than 30,000 miles on it.

The Ford dealership where my brother-in-law went said the same thing as the local guy that it was because of the state of Maine now using just calcium chloride to clear the roads in winter. The local guy told me, of which I cannot verify, that environmentalists say the negative effects of calcium chloride are less than that of pulverized sand (after it has been spread and run over by several thousand cars and trucks). Save the damned environment, right?

At what expense! Ever looked around an auto garage at the leftover and used car parts taken out of vehicles? Where to they go? What impact do junk piles and junk yards have on the environment? How much more of the earth do we need to dig up to manufacture more parts? These are parts that normally may last the life of the automobile. They’re being replaced after 2 years.

The local mechanic also told me of trucks and SUVs of 2-5 years of age having to be junked because the calcium chloride has destroyed the frames. What happens to that mass of junk? As they say here in Maine, “Ain’t too friggin smaht if ya ask me!”

Anyone else hearing anything about “excessive consuming”? I’m hearing that in parts of the country - Arizona seems to ring a bell - communities or members of such, are pushing to pass measures that would restrict how much you can “consume”. It seems the Nazis…er, I mean those who act like Nazis, don’t think you and I have a right to buy and use what we will. We’re talking houses, cars, TVs, etc.

One method called for a cap and trade program that would be much like those of our communist politicians who want to control our carbon expenditures. Each person will have consuming credits issued. If they are used up and want more, they can negotiate the purchase of credits from some schmuck who ain’t got a pot to go to the bathroom in.

Comrades! This is good for the Mother Land?

But hang on! I heard a term yesterday I have never heard before - Imputed Income! Obama says, perhaps not directly, that we will have a tax increase if he is elected prime minister. It could be the biggest one ever. It’s slimy enough that those idiots in Congress, who actually could give a rats behind about your bank account, the price of gas, the cost of food, or the amount of taxes you pay, but this slime ball plans on instituting something called “Imputed Income”.

From what I understand, if you make over $75,000.00, you can, come April 15th, write Obamessiah a check for about $50,000.00 for your share of taxes. He vows to steal from the rich and dole out unearned cash to the lazy SOBs who refuse to contribute to our economy. (There is a growing number of believers in distribution of wealth in this country which is a good indication that we have created a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, slobs.)

So what’s this imputed income thing? Well, say for instance you make $50,000.00, you might think, according to the lies of the Obamaman, that your tax load will be less than that of the guy who made $75,000.00 and gave it all to the government. Wrong! Your “imputed income”, which according to the Kremlin-like Congress, has a perceived value much higher than $50,000.00 and therefore you owe the same tax as the guy who earned $75,000.00. Hang on folks! We’re in for a bumpy ride.

So, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling in which it defined the Second Amendment. Why are there people who are like Hatey Smurf who all they can offer up in response is that it ain’t nothing, it means nothing and won’t change anything? Dunno? Then why are there people who think happy days are here again and everything is looking brighter everyday? If you figure it out, write a book!

Why is Justice Scalia an idiot in some people’s eyes and Justice Stevens the most intelligent being on the planet? Or vice versa?

Why are all the leaders of the communists, dictatorships and terrorist-sponsoring nations lining up to endorse Sen. Obama? Why do conservatives hate McCain? Why does Bob Barr (libertarian candidate) dislike American troops?

I heard about a high school student who couldn’t or didn’t want to complete his essay as part of his in class work. He simply wrote, “Fu*% You” on his paper and passed it in. The teacher gave him a grade of 7.5 for what he wrote because he spelled it correctly. Evidently, the teacher made comment that had the student included an exclamation point, he would have received a grade of 12.5 percentage points.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you’re wondering where I am, I lost the timing belt in my car this morning in front of the post office. I’m in the process of trying to get that picked up and to a garage for repair (ugh, swear a lot, etc.) I’ll be back at it here probably after lunch sometime.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Within hours of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court over District of Columbia vs. Heller, the presses and the Internet were a buzz with opinions, talk, spin, conjecture and defensive strategies knowing challenges await cities like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

I’ve been reading and gathering reactions and comments and thought I would share those with you. What better way is there to get all the information you want without spending hours trying to find it?

Let’s start first with the trouble Barack Obama may be in over his stance on gun control. We know from his past he is staunchly opposed to handguns, gun manufacturers and has a basic dislike for any weapon and considers the Second Amendment useless. He has tap danced around District of Columbia vs. Heller since forever.

He can’t do that any longer. People want to know and as any good candidate he is flip-flopping and trying to take a middle stance in order to win votes and not anger too many gun owners. Robert D. Novak of Townhall, shares what he says has put Obama firmly into a corner.

Novak reminds readers that last April Obama revealed his true side by calling many gun owners bitter people. Now he is trying to say that the Washington, D.C. gun ban went a little bit too far.

Chicago is in scramble mode. The city is being sued to overturn its ban on guns. Within hours of the ruling, a minimum of two gun groups filed suit. Reuters reports on the efforts of the NRA to repeal Chicago’s gun ban and The Illinois State Rifle Association has also filed suit according to the Chicago Sun Times.

The Editor and Publisher reports that the Chicago Tribune is calling for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment….well, not really but really but not really but really but making this statement.

“No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon,” the editorial said. “But it should.”

And I found one resident of Chicago who is quite angry to think that the Mayor is about to spend millions of dollars fighting the lawsuit to end the gun ban. That’s in the Daily Herald.

Reuters reports on a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco to end its gun ban.

Brian Doherty’s Op-Ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun says that the Brady Center is claiming the Heller decision a victory for them.

Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby’s strength is based on stoking the public’s slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they’ll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition.

Robert J. Spitzer says that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion of the definition of the Second Amendment was “manufactured”.

As one would suspect, the New York Times disregards the ruling and continues its focus on fear mongering and stating that the question of whether the existence of guns causes more deaths, crime and murder.

Associated Content ran a poll showing Americans agree with the decision of District of Columbia vs. Heller.

David Savage of the Los Angeles Times asks this question:

Is gun ownership a “fundamental right” under the Constitution, or something less? Put simply, is a gun akin to an automobile, a legal but dangerous product that can be strictly regulated by the government? Or is a gun more like a book, both legal and largely off-limits to government regulation?

Last time I checked, there was no constitutional guarantee of a right to keep and bear automobiles.

Trevor Bothwell of Examiner.com says the Court has overstepped its bounds and has no constitutional rights to tell states what to do.

It may appear that by applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court is merely extending constitutional protections universally. But this is a mirage. For one thing, it has no constitutional right to do so. But more importantly, to accept this notion is to give the federal government prima facie authority over virtually all state legislation, which contradicts the entire point of limiting its jurisdiction in the first place.

David Kopel, New York Sun, takes a look at how the Heller ruling might affect New York’s strict gun control laws.

Scott Whitlock of Newsbusters says the day after the ruling of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the three network morning talk shows, dedicated 3 minutes and 33 seconds to the story. How dare they!

AlterNet.com has a piece written by Sanford Levinson who seems to be saying that both Justices Scalia and Stevens, were picking and choosing only parts of historic documents from the time of the Second Amendment writing and they should have ignored it and focused on modern historians interpretations.

Neither Scalia nor Stevens pays any real attention to a plethora of first-rate historical work written over the past decade that challenges this kind of foolish self-confidence.

Isn’t this exactly what got us into the mess we are in now? This is typical of today to disregard history and pay attention to the extremely biased writings and research of modern day “historians” with an agenda.

Philadelphia Mayor Nutter says that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion leaves open the door that Philadelphia’s gun restrictions will stick.

I tried to pick a broad sampling of the talk and actions taking place across the country concerning District of Columbia vs. Heller. I hope you have enjoyed this post and the links I’ve provided.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

I actually seems quite ridiculous that is has taken over two hundred years to get a definition of this great Amendment, the Second. So has been the case with District of Columbia vs. Heller, more commonly known as the D.C. Hand Gun Ban.

Heller worked as a security guard and petitioned the District for a permit to keep a hand gun in his home for protection. He was denied and thus began the process of a legal challenge by Heller and others that such an act was unconstitutional. A District Court of Appeals agreed with Heller and the case was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.

In March, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Even before the conclusion of oral arguments, many thought the High Court would rule that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. For whatever the reasons, some in this country have come to want to believe that the Second Amendment applied only to giving states the authority to arm state militias. There is little evidence to support that claim.

Somewhat lost in the debate over the Second Amendment was the actual case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. The District’s ban against Heller and being challenged in court, states that for all intent and purposes, that it prohibits the possession of a handgun and demands that all other guns kept in a home be rendered inoperable through disassembly or the use of trigger locks. The U.S. Supreme Court could not and does not rule on certain issues on the administration of the Second Amendment as some would have hoped because of the case before them.

As I said earlier, it has taken over two hundred years in order to get the Supreme Court to actually define the Second Amendment. In case you have been in outer space in the last few days, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, agreed to uphold the lower court’s ruling that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority which included the following justices: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

Here is Scalia’s summary of the Court’s decision:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

For the Court to reach this decision, it first opted to actually define the Second Amendment. For those interested in reading the entire rendering of the case, which includes Alito’s opinion and dissenting opinions by Justices Stevens and Bryer, I have made it available at our Skinny Moose Media website.

Although Justice Scalia didn’t spell out something I find quite important and never considered by most in discussions about the Second Amendment early in his opinion, I would like to bring to your attention this important fact before getting into the highlights of Scalia’s definition.

Scalia points out that the way the Second Amendment is written clearly shows us that our right to keep and bear arms was a recognized, preexisting right long before the Bill of Rights was written. The Second Amendment isn’t a right granted to us by the U.S. Government. The Second Amendment merely recognizes that as free human beings we have that right.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

To spell that out more clearly, Scalia is saying that if this was a right being granted by the Government, it would have stated so. Instead, by defining the right and declaring that this right “shall not be infringed” points to the fact the right already existed.

Justice Scalia goes to great lengths in creating the definition of the Second Amendment supporting it with historic facts and data. He also points out that our Constitution was written in language that we would understand and of that used at the time of its writing.

The opinion states that “the right of the people” refers to individual rights and cites references in even the unamended Constitution that clearly signifies rights as being intended for individuals and not a “collective” right when suggesting that the Second Amendment pertains to the military only.

A bit of cleverness was used by Justice Scalia in his discussion of the interpretation of “keep and bear arms”. He actually uses the opinion of Justice Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in what was defined as “carries a firearm”.

“[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

As Scalia points out, Justice Ginsburg’s opinion of what “carries a firearm” means, she uses reference to the Second Amendment but does not refer to that in any context of the military, yet Ginsburg was one of the four justices voting against the appeal of District of Columbia vs. Heller. One would think that if you believe that the Second Amendment means that an individual has the right to “carry a weapon” how can you then take on the opinion that the Second Amendment pertains to the military uses only?

Justice Scalia spends a great deal of time refuting Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion concerning individual vs. military rights under the Second Amendment. He also points out that four states had included in their constitutions, rights to keep and bear arms that clearly defined such as the right of an individual.

There has always been differing opinion about the preface of the Second Amendment, i.e. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”, and the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and how they work together. Scalia claims that the two parts fit nicely together and the meaning is clear once we gain an understanding of the history that our founding generation knew and all that he gives in his opinion.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

If we now have determined exactly what the definition of the Second Amendment is according to the interpretation of Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy at the time of ratification, how has it been viewed and written about in history since that time? I actually find much of this quite puzzling. I find myself asking the question, “If it was widely agreed upon, the definition of the Second Amendment, and was so rarely interpreted through law and referred to in writings after ratification not differently, then how did we reach a point of banning ownership of guns without being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court until now?

Scalia takes us through a chronology of three eras in history since ratification and explains to us how each era viewed the Second Amendment. The first era is the Post-Ratification era in which he describes the writings of three prominent legal scholars during that time - St. George Tucker, William Rawle and Joseph Story.

The second era is the Pre-Civil War and the third is the Post-Civil War era.

As was the case during oral arguments, dissenting Justice Stevens places a lot of emphasis on The United States vs. Miller, in which it was determined that the use of a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon covered under the Second Amendment.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence
tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

Miller can get quite confusing if not understood. Scalia points out that “ordinary military equipment” means those “ordinary” for its time, yet in 1939 machine guns were in use in our military but had been banned by the National Firearms Act. Scalia believes he understands the meaning of Miller.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right,

If this were the end of the discussion on the Second Amendment and that the U.S. Supreme Court had made its ruling, many “purists” of the Second Amendment would be happy and of course those who hate the right of others to keep and bear arms would be riled to the ultimate. Scalia however, in his opinion, begins to point out that the court understands that, like other rights guaranteed via the Constitution, none are without some kind of limitations. This becomes a troubling situation for many and an opening in the proverbial door to gun control and restrictions.

The court, also through this finding, establishes that in the case of Miller, it is recognized that there are restrictions to the types of weapons individuals can own. Although not clearly defined, it generally means that those weapons that can be kept are those “in common use at the time” and also referred to as “dangerous and unusual weapons”.

Scalia points out that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the balance of power, if you will, was considerably different than today. In other words, the weapons owned by individuals who could be required to take up their arms as part of their duty to the state’s militia, we very much the same weapons as were being used readily by the military. The same weapons being owned today by individuals would pale in comparison to some of the high-tech weapons of today. That being the case, Scalia declares that this still cannot change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

While the court has recognized that limitations are reasonable, it does not spell out what those limitations are. In discussions prior to the Court’s rendering of this decision, it was not thought that the court would do this. It was believed by legal scholars that the High Court would rule on an individual right but leave open the door for “reasonable restrictions”. I stated that when this happened the courts would be very busy attempting to sort out what were reasonable restrictions.

Falling somewhat short of naming weapons and limitations, Scalia’s opinion falls back onto the case at hand, District of Columbia vs. Heller. Because Heller was prohibited to have an operable gun in his home, the Court, through the work and the definition it derived, declared the District of Columbia’s ban unconstitutional. The ban removes Heller’s well established right to self defense which is contrary to the Second Amendment.

The lower Court of Appeals and the attorney for Heller, created a problem that left the door open to the possibility of strict regulation. Scalia points out that in the lower ruling, the court failed to address the issue of required licensing to own a gun in the District of Columbia. Couple that with the fact that during oral arguments Alan Gura, attorney representing Heller, told the court he didn’t have a problem with licensing and that this requirement is permissible as long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

As a result of these two events, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of licensing as an unreasonable restriction on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. For those who see licensing as an obstruction to the owning and possessing of firearms, this could pose serious problems in the future. Time will tell.

The second part of the District’s case was that if the Court found that the Second Amendment right was guaranteed to an individual, they still had the right to limit and restrict usage and ownership because of safety concerns. Both Justices Breyer and Stevens, in dissenting opinions stated that because of the crime problems in Washington, D.C. the District should have the right to limit guns. Scalia pointed out that the court believes that although they may recognize a crime problem, there are more than enough laws to combat violence.

It has taken over 200 years to finally have the highest court in this land define the Second Amendment. That is done and the court has voted, however this does not put to rest any of the continuing debate on what kinds of restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. This will have to be hammered out in the lower courts and perhaps one day one case will find its way back to the High Court.

What this ruling does do could be even more far reaching than any of us can imagine. In the near term, actions will begin to challenge existing gun bans - probably in cities like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

This ruling will give power and ammunition to those fighting off the efforts of gun control freaks to snatch our guns.

Our current presidential election could prove to be interesting now that there is a clear definition, laid out by the Supreme Court, that we as individuals are guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. Both Obama and McCain need to watch their step and make sure they speak clearly and precisely on their positions on guns and gun control.

Perhaps one of the most important and encouraging aspects of this ruling is that the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to take a stand, return to the history of this great land and help us all gain a better understanding of what it was the founding fathers and the citizens of that time wanted when they crafted the Second Amendment. This is important to our future.

Perhaps this is one giant step toward the preservation of our great and inspired U.S. Constitution.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment was declared constitutional and guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. In what some are calling the greatest decision by the Court in a decade or maybe even 70 years, I believe this is perhaps the grandest moment in American history, defining once and for all the Second Amendment.

First let me apologize for not getting something out on this sooner, as most of you know Heller vs. District of Columbia is something I have followed for a long time and has been a bit of a passion for me. I said all along that this ruling, no matter which way it went, could have the biggest impact on our society since Roe vs. Wade. Picking up all the pieces on this ruling will take time and it remains to be seen the full impact of the decision.

This ruling could be a huge turning point in the presidential campaign as well. I am very interested to see how the anti-gun crowd reacts to the ruling and how each candidate responds - truthfully, not just blowing more hot air about supporting gun rights while voting to restrict gun rights.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion on the ruling. For those interested, you can read the full decision of the court here at the U.S. Supreme Court website(pdf).

My schedule at the moment is hectic and I am off to the airport this morning to get my granddaughter back home. I am reading the opinion from cover to cover and over the next few days will bring you highlights, commentary and opinion and share with you what others around the country are saying about this decision.

Last night my son and all his family were gathered here at our camp and we were having a family celebration around the campfire. When Steven arrived at camp around noontime, he was ecstatic to tell me of the decision - my communications are somewhat limited here in the woods.

Joining our family celebration were our good friends and people we closely regard as family, Milt and Eleanor Inman. When they came driving down our camp road, I could hear their radio blaring from their car. Expecting to hear a polka, which they both enjoy listening to, a grand version of Stars and Stripes was playing. They explained they were listening to talk radio and The Savage Nation. It appeared Michael Savage was in the middle of celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and declaring that President Bush would go down in history as one of our greatest presidents for appointing Justices Roberts and Alito to the Court.

This is just one indication of how some across America are reacting. I’ll bring you more as well as some of those who will sharply disagree but today, I am still celebrating the greatest day in legal history in my lifetime and perhaps forever.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As promised, you can watch “From the Frontlines” right here today at 4:00 p.m. This is a great fund raising event to raise money to buy care packages for U.S. troops.

Live Video streamed by Ustream

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The rumor mill is saying that the U.S. Supreme Court will pass down its decision on the Washington, D.C. gun ban case, Heller vs. District of Columbia sometime today. My plan is to let readers know of the decision and then take a closer look at it and how it might affect our future.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

My god it is late at night - much later than I am accustomed to for doing work but when feeling compelled, as I am at this moment, I have to at least begin this article and finish it in the morning. If I wait until morning, I fear little sleep and good rest.

Today, I was reading two opinion pieces in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota. One piece was written by Roger Kaseman, perhaps the self-appointed leader of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. Kaseman uses “deceptive” practices in order to convince readers that a group, also in North Dakota, called the, “Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights”, is using “deceptive” practices in doing battle against the Fair Chasers who want to outlaw hunting on game ranches. (Make sure you read all the comments that follow)

The second opinion piece was written by Willard Swanke, claiming to be the owner/operator of an elk ranch in North Dakota. Swanke believes that ranchers own their livestock and the property he keeps them on and has the right to harvest is animals as he sees fit.

Neither editorial brings anything new to a long running debate about ethics and property rights. Convincing one side or the other the come to their senses is much like asking the Pope to convert to Judaism.

Although the battle seems to be between elk ranchers and landowners seeking to protect their property rights and those in Kaseman’s camp eager to rule the universe and force their ideologue down the throats of others, the reality is that each side is trying to win public opinion. After all, Kaseman’s Krusaders are attempting to get enough signatures to force a citizen’s initiative vote in November. Fore Kaseman to realize success, he and his gang must convince the voters of the evils behind ranch hunting. For Swanke to shut down their efforts, he and other ranchers must convince the public they have rights.

Part of Kaseman’s argument against the Property Rights group is that he claims they have no right to offer hunts to paying customers. He claims there are no “laws” or “rights” that guarantee the ranchers, therefore the practice should be issued good riddance as he fears keeping it alive will destroy his hunting heritage.

What often gets lost in all of these debates is history. I’m not talking history of last year or a couple years ago. I’m talking about history back to the beginning of time. God created man with the intent that man be free. If not, He would not have given us choice. One of the consequences of having choice is we end up with people who bully, whine, cheat, steal, are greedy, jealous and anything else bad we can think of.

Before I proceed from here, I’ll have to say that if one exercises their freedom to not believe they are a creation of God, I certainly cannot expect them to agree with or understand much of this discussion.

Lost in our history from generation to generation is the fact that this country was founded upon the belief that God is the Creator. He is referred to often in many things written in our founding documents. Human beings are creatures of God, free to choose, free to have possessions, to own land, to grow and prosper.

People today too often believe that if a right isn’t specifically spelled out in the Constitution or enacted by our Congress, it is not protected and/or has no value. I should point out that everyday of my life and that of millions of others, we enjoy hundreds of freedoms not spelled out in some law book. It is becoming necessary I guess to spell out every right and its limitations as respect for those freedoms is waning.

After spending time reading the above mentioned opinion pieces and the many comments that went along with them, I was about to close up shop for the day and go to bed. Here it is, a few hours later still, and I’m pounding away on my keyboard to at least get the initial draft done.

I just couldn’t give up before doing a quick glance through some of my favorite websites. The last site I visited, was that of Hugh Hewitt, one of my favorite conservative writers. I