Law School Conservative

Obama’s Still Trying to Deceive

Wayne LaPierre — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Barack Obama just can't escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control.

Obama wouldn't say how he feels about the legality of Chicago's ban on handguns, and he wouldn't give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it's clear the bans aren't working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I've pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn't like empty rhetoric. But that's all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won't fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.

Right-to-Carry Works

Wayne LaPierre — Tue, 06 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That's not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn't seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You're not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week.

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister's home earlier this month.

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal, Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn't work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we'd know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed.

Barack Obama's opposition to Right-to-Carry isn't based on logic or reason. It's just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.

Paying for the Gold

Wayne LaPierre — Mon, 05 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that's quite a payday.

Our own shooters don't stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they'll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They're representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don't need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.

Bitter people in Philadelphia clinging to guns and religion.

Carlos S. Ramirez — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:03:52 +0000

We’re just following their example:

Hat tip to co-author Grant Keener for this one.

Animal Rights in the Classroom

Wayne LaPierre — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C.

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they'd be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.”

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you'd be their "animal guardian."

It's easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won't stop until they get their way.

ACRU — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:21:45 +0000

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INDIANA VOTER ID LAW WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today 6-3 in favor of the Indiana Voter ID law which requires registered voters to present a valid form of identification when they go to the polls. Since early voting is already in progress in Indiana for their primary, this law is much needed in the state's efforts to eliminate voter fraud. In an amicus brief submitted by The American Civil Rights Union on this case, General Counsel Peter Ferrara explains that, "No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99% of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of driver's licenses, passports, or other identification." The ACRU supports the Indiana law because it protects, rather than infringes, the rights of legitimate voters, by helping to ensure that their votes are not watered down by illegal voters. The full report can be found here. ### You can read ACRU's amicus brief by going here

Blowing Away Stereotypes

Wayne LaPierre — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal's Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama's comments are.

According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans. They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others.

Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I've met, I'd say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it's not because we feel let down that the government hasn't taken good care of us. It's because we feel the government won't let us take care of ourselves!

But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that's designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals.

The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them.

ACLU Loses, Common Sense Wins, in Voter ID Case

ACRU — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:21:48 +0000

By a vote of 6-3, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Indiana Voter ID Law, which required voters there to establish who they are and that they are legal residents of Indiana before they vote. Similar laws have been passed in several other states. The ACLU has been fighting such laws in many jurisdictions, because the ACLU believes in open borders for illegal aliens, who can get drivers licenses and even register to vote, absent such laws. * * * * The facts but not the legal conclusions for this article come from an article by Greg Stohr on Bloomberg.com on 28 April, 2008. Today (28 April) the Supreme Court ruled that Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo IDs in order to vote, is constitutional. There is a serious factual error in the original story, however. Justice Stevens, who normally votes with the "liberal" side of the Court, voted to uphold the law and wrote the main opinion. The Bloomberg article says that his personal decision avoided "a 5-4 split... along ideological lines" as in Bush v. Gore concerning the 2000 election. Actually, the vote on the Court in Bush v. Gore was 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the First Amendment in that election. Many members of the mainstream media, in order to favor the Gore position, said that it was "a 5-4 decision" to make it look both closed and more ideological. That error is, unfortunately, repeated by Bloomberg. In the lead Opinion, Justice Stevens writes that the possibility of voter fraud is "very real" and that states have " a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined in Stevens' Opinion. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito agreed with the result, but would have granted states even more leeway in acting against voter fraud. Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer filed two Dissents, one by Souter and the other by Breyer. They argued that the Indiana law "imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden." This is the ACLU argument made in this and several other cases. This argument is now dead. The real interest of the ACLU seems to be maintaining drivers' licenses, and the right to vote (through the Motor-Voter Law) for illegal aliens in the US. The Indiana law, and similar laws in Georgia and elsewhere, will cut down on the number of illegal aliens who vote, and who drive. Justice Scalia in his Concurrence chided Justice Stevens for his main Opinion, for leaving the door open for more litigation against state voter ID laws, based on facts rather than the basic theory that states are responsible for state election laws. Source for original story on the Net: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6YsoNXb356s&refer=home

A Lawless City

Wayne LaPierre — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:00:00 +0000

The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won't enforce them. But Nutter says he's going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances.

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they're probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don't get our way isn't going to solve [violent crime] problems. It's just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we're a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council's actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don't care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?

Obama and the Joyce Foundation

Wayne LaPierre — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:00:00 +0000

The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama's problem with gun owners. Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead.

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn't just fund gun-banners.

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them." That's baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never.

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama's record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn't know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It's forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can't even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can't let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.