.JPG)
New Hampshire state House Representative Daniel Itse has stirred the political pot with his bill, House Concurrent Resolution 6: “A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles”, under which New Hampshire would secede from the United States if the federal government attempts additional usurpation of power under five specific circumstances, including “Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…”
In an interview with Alex Jones of infowars.com, Rep. Itse made particular mention of a gun control bill HR 45: “Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009” as being an example of such usurpation, noting that “if the government chooses to aggress in nullifying the Constitution, it is impossible to secede from something that doesn’t exist.”
‘The general government is not the … final judge of the Constitution’
“When the Congress of the United States of America is considering a federal gun license, when the new President has promoted mandatory community service for young people (slavery), when there is talk of re-instituting the fairness doctrine (stopping freedom of speech) and when land is being purchased for the NAFTA Super Highway, the last best defense of the people of America are their State Governments.” – Rep. Daniel Itse, from press release on HCR 6.
Rep. Itse makes no claim to drafting the language of the resolution, saying that he used the language of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, written in 1798 in response to the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolutions” passed the state legislature there November 16, 1798 and December 3, 1799, while Madison’s “Virginia Resolution” passed there on December 24, 1798. Says Itse, his resolution relies on how the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution saw the relationship between the States and the federal government.
“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
“VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…” -- House Concurrent Resolution 6.
Will it or won't it?
Assess for yourself the chances HCR 6 will pass in New Hampshire … but bear in mind that it wouldn’t be the first time a state has adopted such a resolution.
Does Itse want New Hampshire to secede? Not really. He says his goal is simply “a revitalized union within the confines of the Constitution.” But in case it actually happens, does anyone know where I can find a deal on land in New Hampshire?
Use this button to send via e-mail:
www.fpaulvalone.com
For legislative information, go to:
www.GRNC.org
Copyright © F. Paul Valone All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing or any information storage and referral system, without written permission from the publisher. For reprint permission, contact: fpv@fpaulvalone.com
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner on NRA News
Daniel White will be discussing his column "News from the weekend illustrates futility of gun control schemes" at 10:20 PM EST. Click here for more details and for how to listen.
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
National: Showdown under the big sky?
Austin: Another Brady hallucination: More guns, more ‘gun violence’ (Part 1)
Cleveland: News from the weekend illustrates futility of gun control schemes
DC: DC City Council enables residents’ easy access to mail order handgun carry permits!
Denver: Granny, get your gun
Los Angeles: Gun Control: the very first pig with lipstick on it.
Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns
Minneapolis: The folly across the river
St. Louis: What's next--a .499 caliber ban?
Comments
Remember when you could move to another state when they experimented with the taxes or welfare?
Now that it is all going federal, we are losing our options.
LOL< a politician actually getting it? No way dude! Tell me it aint so!
RT
www.anon-tools.us.tc
How many times must it be repeated for people to get it right? How many times must someone utter "its my right to own guns for whatever reason I want to own them." That is so far from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment it makes me sick to my stomach.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to let the people both protect the sovereignty of the US and defend their freedoms. It is not an all exclusive pass to own anything you want to. Heck, the 2nd Amendment if read literally, states the guns are for a well ordered state militia. I know a few state militia's that would pass muster but most fall FAR short of being anything other than some 'super' gun club.
Heck besides that the old framers never even imagined guns as we have them today. In their time being able to load their gun in about 1 min was considered an amazing feat. 2 shot hand guns were the ultimate close protection and required constant upkeep to work properly. Show them 1 bolt action .22 rifle and they'd run in fear. Let alone if you showed them something like the M-16/AK-47... heck can you imagine showing them the devastating power of 457 Magnum?
Finally this is nothing but political fodder to 'put a feather' in his cap. Instead of sitting around bemoaning hoe bad things are and I want this and that you can't take my freedoms, why don't we try to fix the real frigging problems? Like poverty/homelessness/wars/pollution/etc. After that why don't we come back to the table and ask the big question of whats right to own and not. Take it to the Supreme court and finally get this measure nailed down. I (by the way most will by now think I'm some anti-gun maniac) believe that people do have a right to own a REASONABLE weapon to defend their liberties and hunt/sport with. I also think its your right to get said weapon in a reasonable amount of time also. That doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to let everyone have whatever they want whenever they want it.
Can remember the next line of this part of the constitution about the right to bear arms: "AS PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" - I does not count if you or even a group of your friends want to own UZIs. Only if you are part of an organized militia run under recognized regulations.
No, our founding fathers never envisioned guns like we have today, they also never envisioned police on our streets with tear gas, sting grenades, bulletproof vests, tasers, and M4 Machine guns. What they envisioned was a public that was able to stand up against oppressive government. If you actually read the declaration of independence or many quotes by Jefferson or Paine you'd know that's exactly what they meant - that the people (being the militia), had the right to defend themselves against tyranny.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
@Annoyed:
Defending their freedoms is intended to mean "from the government". It is the threat of revolution which acts as the last threat by the people against an overbearing state.
If the government can decide who owns a gun, the only people getting them will be population supression.
This man isn't bemoaning how bad things are, he's drawing the line where it ought to be drawn - where the founding fathers drew it. The fact that the American government has drawn increasingly closer to a 1984esque all encompassing government is the problem.
Letting people have whatever they want is the fundamental principle of freedom, and until a person commits a crime they are to be presumed innocent and so deserve no such restrictions.
When Washington decides when we reap and when we sow we shall soon want bread.
ramriot, perhaps you need to read the constitution again. That is not at all what the second amendment says. What you are doing is altering the language of the second amendment.
Here is the REAL second amendment:
"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."
No where in this sentence is it implied that a well-regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are one in the same.
Well it looks like change is a coming. It's a sad day when you read an article like this and know that this could become a reality. But until Americans really stand up and stop letting the minorty rule the majority. Its only going to get worse. If you like European socialism, if you like your anti guns, free health care, and social programs that destory a country and ultimatily bring it to its demise. Then get the heck out of the USA and go to Europe.
Well it looks like change is a coming. It's a sad day when you read an article like this and know that this could become a reality. But until Americans really stand up and stop letting the minorty rule the majority. Its only going to get worse. If you like European socialism, if you like your anti guns, free health care, and social programs that destory a country and ultimatily bring it to its demise. Then get the heck out of the USA and go to Europe.
Good quotes. Albeit a little strong for said situation.
The 2nd Amendment is meat to offer you some form of protection from the government and day to day owning of guns for basic defense and hunting/sporting.
I mean if we did as citizens have to resort to owning weapons of the magnitude most people want to own, things would be alot worse then they are. At that point most of this would be moot anyways. Since I would not be hear I'd be out throwing down/dying for the liberty of my fellow man.
What I'm trying to say is that people take the 2nd Amendment to far past what its purpose is. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. Heck one of my most prized possessions is the rifle my dad gave to me. But then I'm not dumb enough to let everyone own anything. People are a stupid lot (myself included) and in heated moments with come of the weapons out there they could kill alot of people very easily and I'd like to keep that to minimum if I could.
Has anybody really thought long and hard about the simularity of the rise of Obama and the rise of Hitler. There are unremarkable simularitys in how things are getting played out. Take the guns away from the people. Preach to the middle class, but provide them with nothing really. Think about it.
@Dan:
I'm sorry. Considering the realist I am, albeit I would love to be able to trust anyone and everyone... man that would be sweet, I give people the reasonable doubt that they are guilty but still would like some protection in place to keep nut jobs from getting weapons. Any in my opinion, but that would restrict others freedoms, which I'm against. So I like the middle ground of some gun control with the option for those that want to own it to prove they are both capable and knowledgeable enough to know how to wield said weapon(s).
@goeers83:
I'm sorry as a liter statement it reads that in the context of both The People's freedom and the State's right to a well regulated militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. The implication is that they are separate, which in my opinion if they had intended it to be a right by itself it would have been, by itself. Seems fairly straight forward.
Here's the thing-- if the US government did become this overbearing tyranny,
1. it would happen very gradually, so nobody would notice enough to actually want to fight it using their guns and
2. Even if a percentage of the US population were armed, they would be powerless against a government that really wanted to suppress them. Think about it-- our government exercises control over our power, water, food, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the government wanted to take away our freedoms, guns wouldn't be able to save us.
@aconcernedamerican:
So loosing all your rights to privacy 6 years ago wasn't 'European' dictator enough for you? Socialism? Are you serious? C'mon go look up the word for me and when you do come back and apologize for every time you have misused it. Socialism does not equal Communism. Communism was a type of socialism, much like we have a type of democracy, not democracy itself. But I digress, we could discuss socialism till the sky fell in.
The issue at hand is drubbery like this being used as political fodder to feed more junk into our brains. I want politicians to stop trying to pass these worthless hand gestures and get back to doing the job they are paid and elected for.
black helicopters.
This is enough to make me want to move to NH.
nah, this clown doesn't get it. "Annoyed" below does however. where was all this outrage when the patriot act, the single most constitution-shredding law we've ever seen, was passed? the right to bear arms, while very important, is too routinely devalued as a pathetic, desperate gesture by the far right to distract the sheep while they take away MUCH more dangerous freedoms and put into place control policies far beyond the grasp of feeble conservative intellects.
"This is enough to make me want to move to NH."
No one's stopping you - take all your brownshirt wingnut friends, please.
@ Annoyed;
Your opinions are decidedly elitist in nature, assuming that everyone you approve of should be allowed to have a firearm (including yourself) but no one else. Don't you think the political-class thinks the exact same thing, that only they and anyone they choose can have firearms? This policy sets a dangerous precedent to permit an already elitist group of people nitpick at who in society has the right to defend their life. Lets use some reason here, does giving the next Bush-like administration the power to choose who gets firearms rights the same way they chose who recieved 1st, 4th, and 5th rights sound like a smart idea? Your notion that "certain people" cannot be trusted with firearms also tastes of bigotry; why must any American be forced to prove their competency to exhibit a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Must we be forced to pass a literacy test to have freedom of speech? Or perhaps pass the Bar in the state of your trial before you can be tried before an unbiased jury? If a government claims the power to grant a right to certain people, is simultaneously claims the power to deny that right to anyone it does not grant it to, which is the definition of "infringement" and illegal.
You should note that the Patriot Act was proposed in congress by Rep. Jane Harman, a DEMOCRAT from CALIFORNIA... and has Barack Obama even mentioned removing the provisions of this act? The undermining of our rights is a bipartisan endeavor, and we shouldn't just permit the 2nd to be undermined simply out of spite of the Republicans, who many of us Firearms owners do not associate with. I hear this argument brought up all the time, yet where were the Dems when the Patriot Act was being passed? In the halls of Congress, voting "Yea" is the correct answer.
Also, concerning your argument that the citizens could not resist the US Army if a revolt were necessary, I say why not? Some estimate that 1/2 the households in America have some form of LEGALLY owned firearm, which means that over 150 million people have access to a firearm. Not even China boasts the capability to arm 150 million people, and there are simply not enough non-atomic devices in the US to combat an armed force of even half that number. I say that if the government goes tyrannical, we would be perfectly able to put it back in its place as we stand right now. Not to mention that an extremely small number of our troops would ever be willing to fight against fellow Americans who are fighting in support of their Constitutional Rights. Why are so many blindly partisan Democrats so opposed to the notion of overthrowing a tyrannical government? Why do many claim that since it is "impossible" we should just get rid of the guns anyway? This is not an argument against guns, it is an argument against just and accountable government. Many claim that since it is somehow unlikely that the people could overthrow the government (false) we should simply just get rid of the tools for doing so and accept our role as the governed. What kind of logic is that??
@ Dave
I would hardly call the firearms community "brown shirts". If anything, the brown shirts are the ones baying for this legislation to pass so that the lawful people could be impeded from self defense. I have never heard a firearms activist claim anything as restrictive as what the anti-gun activists claim; that entire groups of people be barred from excercizing one of their inalienable rights.
Not sure we'd really miss New Hampshire.
This guys an idiot!
To bring arguments from the 1700s is just ridiculous. The statements were written in a time that couldn't comprehend the type of environment we currently live in.
The great thing about the constitution is that it can be changed all the time. So, you need to take your argument to your State representatives in Congress. I do not think any of our founding fathers would stand for military weapons kept in private homes or businesses. You have to remember what they used on the battle field in those days and in most states you can carry similar weapons, shot guns or knives in public on your body with out a permit. So if you honestly believe that our founding fathers would say our current gun rights are unconstitutional is ridiculous and makes you sound like an idiot.
Let's put it this way, some of the laws we currently have will have to be changed or amended in the future. Because there is no way for us to know what will be around in fifty years from now. Also, in the future if weapons make it easier for people to mass murder or infiltrate private homes, I hope the government does something about it.
I am a gun owner and have a permit in my state. I think I am able to protect myself and my family with what I have on hand. People like yourself often complain about the gun laws, but never really say what you want.
So my question to you sir is what exact rights are you looking for? You want a AK-47 or MG3? Please say yes, so you can look like an even bigger idiot.
Jay Serna: I'm sure you don't know the difference between an AK-47 and a deer rifle (FYI, there is none). You ban one, it's a smooth slope to ban all.
I agree with this and I'd move to his state if they did it. If you want to destroy your little world, move to a state like California and do it. You don't force it on the entire country. Ones problem in Compton is not ones problem in Bridgewater. We are the United States, not the Socialized Union.
A mind as narrow as yours shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the freedoms of this country.
These people are just freaking out because there is a black democrat president. Morons.
I love when people suggest that gun owners should all go somewhere else. Surprise! You're in a country where the 2nd amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms - so get over it or get out yourselves!
If not for the people in this country having guns in 1776 you wouldn't even have the right to argue it, if you like Britain's anti-gun stance so much, bugger off!
Ladies and Gentlemen, I"m not going to point @'s at anyone in particular, but being United States Marine, I can safely say that at least without the dissolution of the USMC the right to bear arms isn't going anywhere. We may be the only branch the president can order on a whim without congressional approval, but I ask you gentlemen to look at the oath every US Marine takes upon entry to the service. We swear to uphold the constitution first, then el presidente. Sitting around telling people that they should not be able to enjoy freedom is juvenile. There is a Marine Captain in charge of the recruiting station in Berkley California, when asked about the city allowing protestors to get right on his door step, he said the following "I may not agree with what they are saying but I will die to defend their right to say it." If the people in the armed forces feel this way about it, what right do any of you have to say differently. We are the ones that put our lives on the line to defend it, and unlike colonel jessup in a few good men, we aren't so cynical as to hate the people we protect. Having said that, I'm the proud owner of several weapons, including a Barrett .50, should the president order me to surrender my arms he would have to pry from my cold dead hands and those of every other Marine who is serving or has served in the Corps. Semper FIdelis
In case you were wondering, the House Committee hearing this bill voted (mostly along party lines) HCR-6 "Inexpedient to Legislate" with no one on the committee explaining their reasons for this.
Not one legislator or citizen testified in opposition to HCR-6, but that didn't stop the Democrats from doing their best to kill it.
The full House takes this measure up next month, and there is a rally planned for March 4th in front of the State House.
BlackFrank: "These people are just freaking out because there is a black democrat president. Morons."
Behold, the "progressive", tolerant left.
When they can't win on the merits of their ideology, they accuse their opponents of being hate-filled bigots.
Martin Luther King Jr. would be ashamed to know someone like you, Frank.
Annoyed: To suggest that our Founding Fathers would be afraid of a modern bolt-action rifle displays a level of sheer ignorance I haven't seen in decades.
This is the same vacuous mindset that says Thomas Paine would be horrified by the idea of being able to transmit his writings to millions by the click of a button.
These 18th century bloggers, turning out their work on hand-operated printing presses would haev embraced the internet with open arms.
Just as they would today's military hardware.
You seem to be confusing these brave MEN with five-year-old CHILDREN (or 40-year old liberals).
To all those who say "But the founding fathers never imagined the kind of guns we'd have today..."
Well, they also never imagined the telephones, television or the internet either, but the Freedom of Speech still applies to them.
And to those who have issues with people owning AK47's, it clearly demostrates that you don't know much about guns and are allowing your ignorance to guide you. Nearly all AK47's in the USA are not the fully-automatic assault rifles that are had in other countries. They are semi-auto, 1-trigger-squeeze-1-round-fired weapons. Those that do have fully auto AK47s have tax stamps for them obtained from the BAFTE by submitting to a 6-month backround check. Also, the round fired by the AK47 isn't even as powerful as a round used in a hunting rifle. So your fears aren't justified and are based on ignorance.
This youtube video produced by a San Diego Police Officer further de-mystifies the functional differences between these types of firearms.
youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
These people are just freaking out because there is a black democrat president. Morons.
To all those who legitimately making the argument to retain guns because they feel they need them to defend themselves from the government should it turn corrupt, you are not Batman. You also aren't the Punisher, Rambo or any other badass. At best you are a person with moderate training who occasionally goes out to the range and practices shooting. Against a government with a well trained military that has unmanned aerial vehicles, cluster bombs, huge amounts of state of the art tanks, fighter and bomber jets, and to top it off, a full nuclear arsenal, what the hell do you think you can do? Lets even say you rally a whole state with no dissent, what could they do? Unless you demand that the US allows all of us dissatisfied with it a nuclear deterrent you have no way of fighting back against the US government. You are about as effective as Palestine was against Israel.
these three already happened under the Bush administration.
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
Go. Succeed. Oh wait, is this all just political posturing?
these three already happened under the Bush administration.
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
Go. Succeed. Oh wait, is this all just political posturing?
Hank, A government what would nuke its own citizens has gone far beyond tyranical. Also, you arguments would have been music to the ears of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and others. You would have been hung for sedition by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Educate yourself:
www. lizmichael.com/armedrev.htm
these three already happened under the Bush administration.
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
Go. Succeed. Oh wait, is this all just political posturing?
This is a good resolution. There is a reason why we bear arms. It's to revolt against a tyranny if need be. The United States has a strong foundation in mutiny and breaking free from governments that take too much control and too much away from citizens.
The proof that taking arms can hold off a tyranical govt. Iraq. 3rd world citizens have been able to compete against the U.S. military and its allies. I lost a relative who didnt even want to be there, thanks to the backdoor draft.
There is no back door draft you leftist moron. Everyone who signs the contract can clearly read that they have an eight year obligation to serve and even after can be held onto active duty to serve their country. How selfish are people now days that they will sign up for the military and reap the benefits of free health care and college but whine when they are asked to fulfill their half of the deal.
Can't wait for laser guns! pew pew pew! 3 homes down 3 shots! Hell yeah baby, don't regulate that either!
Wow, this Rep. really does have his tinfoil hat on.
Adrian, are you really this daft? In case you haven't noticed, our federal government is *totally* out of control. How can you be on a site like this or just on the net in general & yet be so ill informed? Keep drinking your fluoridated water & watching TV...
If you look at the purpose of the original law, it was to keep the fed from holding enough power to prevent a valid uprising of the people against the tyranny of the gov. In this case, the law has long been overturned as ballistic missiles and tanks make any type of small arms a non-threat.
What it means though is that crazzies, criminals, and terrorists to legally buy weapons that have no practical purpose besides killing human beings.
Jesus and Buddha, what a douchebag! If this rebellion actually happens, part of me will be laughing my ass off when they roll the national guard in to quash it. Someone should put this guy in his place.
Live free or die indeed, I need to get a real estate agent i'm moving.
Steve K Educate yourself. The AK 47 fires a 7.62mm jacketed round. The same type used in high power rifles like the 30.06 a perfectly capable and popular deer killer. Incidentally used in the M60 Machine Gun.
Steve K this one is a freebe for you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
This guys an idiot!
To bring arguments from the 1700s is just ridiculous. The statements were written in a time that couldn't comprehend the type of environment we currently live in.
The great thing about the constitution is that it can be changed all the time. So, you need to take your argument to your State representatives in Congress. I do not think any of our founding fathers would stand for military weapons kept in private homes or businesses. You have to remember what they used on the battle field in those days and in most states you can carry similar weapons, shot guns or knives in public on your body with out a permit. So if you honestly believe that our founding fathers would say our current gun rights are unconstitutional is ridiculous and makes you sound like an idiot.
Let's put it this way, some of the laws we currently have will have to be changed or amended in the future. Because there is no way for us to know what will be around in fifty years from now. Also, in the future if weapons make it easier for people to mass murder or infiltrate private homes, I hope the government does something about it.
I am a gun owner and have a permit in my state. I think I am able to protect myself and my family with what I have on hand. People like yourself often complain about the gun laws, but never really say what you want.
So my question to you sir is what exact rights are you looking for? You want a AK-47 or MG3? Please say yes, so you can look like an even bigger idiot.
This is so stupid. I got more important thigns to do than read an article about some crazy guy who wants to stick to old ways, and stupid idiochrosies.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!