2nd Amendment


JD Hayworth for US Senate

HAYWORTH V. MCCAIN
Gun Owners of America Endorse Conservative Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth

PHOENIX, ARIZONA.  FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Second Amendment patriots, Gun Owners of America, have announced their endorsement of Conservative candidate J.D. Hayworth in his run against 24-year incumbent Senator John McCain.

The statement by Gun Owners of America can be found here.

The Second Amendment is yet another area where Hayworth has a more conservative record than the long-time incumbent.
McCain is vulnerable to the more conservative Hayworth on taxes, pro-life and pro-family issues as well as illegal immigration.  Hayworth also has a better lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste.

McCain voted for the $850 billion bailout of the big banks which included $150 billion in pork, proposed a $300 billion bailout for mortgage lenders and, according to the Heritage Foundation, sponsored an amnesty bill that would have cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the long-term.

For more information about the campaign or to make a donation please go to www.JDforSenate.com.

Sonoran Alliance was featured on this Sunday’s edition of 12 News’ Sunday Square-Off. That’s right, yours truly made my debut appearance on the show in which I had the opportunity to represent conservative Arizona bloggers and activists.

Brahm Resnik hosts this weekly show which is always fast-paced and quick thinking. My two co-guests were Katie Hobbs from the liberal blog, Democratic Diva as well as a Democratic candidate in LD-15, and Casey Newton from the Arizona Republic. The show will actually not show tomorrow morning because it is being pre-empted by another show but you can view it online right here on Sonoran Alliance.

PHOENIX – In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that individual gun ownership is a basic right guaranteed to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. But the decision applied immediately only to unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership adopted under federal authority, not the individual states. A new case before the Supreme Court presents an opportunity to protect gun rights from state or local interference through the 14th Amendment, just like other freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s constitutional policy director, explains why in a new policy brief, “Reconsidering McDonald v. Chicago: How the 14th Amendment Obligates States to Protect the Fundamental Right to Bear Arms.”

The 14th Amendment originally was adopted after the Civil War to guarantee that former slaves could exercise all of their rights as American citizens. Since then, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to stop states from usurping basic constitutional liberties. But the Court has been reluctant to expressly state that all rights protected by the U.S. Constitution must be guaranteed by federal and state and local governments.

The Supreme Court is now considering McDonald v. Chicago because two appellate courts have refused to apply gun rights to the states, citing three century-old opinions from the higher court. But Mr. Dranias concludes those three cases do not authorize states to violate rights protected by the Second Amendment. He adds the principle of federalism, the idea that states have the sovereign right to act in areas not granted to the federal government, cannot be used to justify the stripping of gun rights.

“Federalism is ultimately aimed at securing individual liberty,” Mr. Dranias writes. “The goal of preserving federalism should not trump the fundamental rights federalism was meant to protect.”

Goldwater’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation also filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago and the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 2, 2010.

“Reconsidering McDonald v. Chicago” is available online or by calling (602) 462-5000.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

About the author: Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact:  Kassee Bulen

Phone Number:  602-710-7397

E-Mail:  kassee@parker2010.com

 

CELEBRATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH VERNON PARKER

Congressional Candidate to Host Concealed Carry Course Fundraiser

 

On Saturday, February 20th, congressional candidate Vernon Parker will host a concealed weapon carry course taught by expert instructor Jim Neff of Generation Firearms.  Parker is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and will be earning his own concealed carry permit at the event.  Neff is a highly regarded firearms training expert, and the course will be limited to 30 individuals.  The course will start at 7AM and runs 10 hours.  The cost is $85.  Contributions to Parker’s campaign for Arizona Congressional District 3 will be accepted.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Parker announced an exploratory committee for Governor on September 23rd and since then raised his seed money faster than Governor Brewer, generated endorsements and excitement across the state and was on track to qualify for Clean Elections funding next month. 

 

However, since the surprising announcement by Congressman John Shadegg that he will not seek re-election, Parker has been called by dozens of supporters and state leaders encouraging him to consider a run for the Congressional District Three Republican nomination. 

 

Paradise Valley lies in the heart of the district, where just two years ago Parker garnered a record number of votes in his initial run for office.

 

Parker, 50, is the current mayor of Paradise Valley, Arizona.  He previously served as General Counsel of the United States Office of Personnel Management, then in the White House as Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush.  Later, Parker was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed with bipartisan support by the United States Senate, as an Assistant Secretary at the United States Department of Agriculture.  A small businessman, Parker also served as a pastor for two years at a small non-denominational church in Paradise Valley.  He is a graduate of Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C., where he met his wife Lisa.

 

Parker’s life story is compelling.  Raised by his grandmother in a severely underprivileged neighborhood in Long Beach, California, Parker was able to escape the drugs and violence through love, education and the commitment of family.

 

For more information contact Kassee Bulen.

 

-30-

 

Paid for by Vernon Parker For Congress

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from oppressive federal gun bans under the Second Amendment. Now, the Court is considering whether the Constitution also protects that right against local gun bans under the Fourteenth Amendment. As before, the Goldwater Institute has weighed-in by filing an amicus brief in support of the right to armed self-defense. But this time, our argument is aimed at persuading the academic left and “strict constructionist” right to adopt a position on gun rights based on genuine constitutionalism.

An academic cadre on the left has long argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all civil rights, including the right to armed self-defense, through its prohibition on states “abridge[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  This presents an unusual opportunity for finding common ground, but many on the right believe the left’s endgame is not so much aimed at securing gun rights, as transforming the Fourteenth Amendment into a mandate for forcing states to facilitate federal social welfare policies. Because of this perception, gun rights are threatened by “strict constructionists” who refuse to strike down local gun bans under the Fourteenth Amendment to avoid opening a “Pandora’s Box” of federal judicial activism.

In an effort to heal this divide and find common ground, our brief acknowledges that the Fourteenth Amendment changed the balance of power between the states and the federal government by guaranteeing civil rights against oppressive state and local laws. But we show that the Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause actually guarantees freedom–not free stuff from the federal government–and that this understanding actually promotes judicial restraint. We also show that protecting gun rights from local gun bans is fully consistent with the Tenth Amendment because federalism is not an end-in-itself; it is meant to protect rightful liberty–including the right to armed self-defense.

In short, the Goldwater Institute has appealed to genuine constitutionalists to protect the right to armed self-defense from state tyranny. We will soon know how many on the Supreme Court are open to the message.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

by Larkin Rose with all credit for an excellent piece of work, originally posted on freedomsphoenix.  Good food for thought on this lovely weekend.

A recent story regarding an “open carry” movement in California (of all places) gives a very telling glimpse into the mentality of the general public, and the state mercenaries (”police”).

Here’s the link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k

The actual substance of the story would be laughably mundane if people weren’t so indoctrinated. The “story” was: “Some people are carrying firearms, and not doing bad stuff with them, and they’re allowed to!” How brain-washed does a populace have to be for that to be “news”? What will the headline say the next day? “Man with axe chops up firewood!; no charges filed.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the open-carry folk are bringing the issue up; it’s just pathetic that the country has sunk so low (with California in the lead) that it’s even necessary. But what is interesting about the story is the mentality of the general public, and the cops, in California. For example, the news story plays a clip of what I assume was a 911 call, where someone reports a guy (brace yourself, this is scary) sitting around a Starbucks wearing a firearm. Oh, the horror! (The caller, demonstrating either profound ignorance of firearms, or her x-ray vision superpowers, says the semi-auto handgun “appears to be loaded.”)

I admit, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that carrying a firearm is still “legal” (allowed by tyrants) in California as long as the firearm is unloaded, and in plain view. (You can also carry clips and ammo, but they can’t be in or attached to the gun.) The California control freaks also require those carrying firearms to let state mercenaries inspect their firearms at random, without any “probable cause,” to make sure they’re not loaded. (Fourth Amendment? What’s that?)

But again, the “legalities” are less interesting than the mentality displayed in the report. For example, the news narrator explains that nothing brings a cop faster than a report of “a man with a gun.” Oh, horrors! Lock up the women and children! Wait a second … a cop is a “man with a gun”! Is there some reason, when you see one guy with a gun, that you really need to bring over a second one?

Of course, the terror of “a man with a gun” does not, in the minds of the peasantry, include a government mercenary with a gun. What actually scares the peasantry is “a man with a gun who isn’t pretending to be ‘authority‘.” But consider how weird that is. What it boils down to is this: “Oh my gosh, there’s a guy over there with a gun, and he doesn’t think he has the right to rule me!!” Um, isn’t that a good thing? Most Americans have no idea what they should and shouldn’t be scared of.

I’ve seen quite a few people carrying firearms in my lifetime. The only ones who ever invaded my home were “police.” The only ones who ever stole my stuff were “police.” The only ones who ever took me hostage were “police.” And frankly, the only ones whose firearms ever worried me were the “police”–the robots trained to do the bidding of the politicians, forcibly carrying out whatever arbitrary commands the government crooks might decide to make up.

If I heard someone say, “there’s a man with a gun,” my immediate question would be, “And what’s he doing with it?” (Well, my first though might be, “You mean a man with a gun other than me?“) If I heard about “a man with a chain-saw,” or “a man with a crowbar,” I wouldn’t automatically assume they were about to go on a killing spree. So why would anyone assume that of a man with a gun? The simple answer is: indoctrination.

Near the end of the “news” report, a propaganda specialist (”spokesman”) for the California mercenaries (”police”), while admitting that people have a “legal right” (never mind that that is an oxymoron) to carry unloaded firearms openly, said he doesn’t see what it adds to society. Hey, what’s that thing on his hip? Golly gee, it’s a firearm! I wonder what he thinks that “adds to society.”

In short, most state mercenaries today, having devolved deeply into the tyrannical mindset, think they should always outgun the general populace. From their perspective, it’s good for them to always have the ability to kill people, but it’s bad for you to have that ability. (Excuse me, officer, your fascism is showing.)

How sad that the public has been trained to fear those people who have taken on the responsibility to protect themselves and others from the predators of the world. And no, I’m not talking about “law enforcers,” who pretend to be protectors, but are in reality the hired thugs of the biggest gang of predators around.

I was happy, and somewhat surprised, that the news report included a comment from one of the “open carry” advocates, correctly pointing out that the state mercenaries (my word, not his), according to the Supreme Court, have no obligation to protect anyone. That being the case, if I see a guy in a Starbucks with a gun, I’m sitting in his general vicinity. Because, if some bad guy is unlucky enough to pick that time and place to play tough guy, I and the other “man with a gun” will have him outnumbered.

The Privateer Navy and The Subscription Warships of 1798

When discussing the right of modern American citizens to bear arms under the Second Amendment, it is the vogue at schools, universities and part of conventional wisdom in “Progressive” thinking to argue that one must put the ‘right to bear arms’ into a “historical context;” a nuanced approach that conveys common sense, informed historical perspective and induces the assumption that times have changed, and thus, the Second Amendment is suggested that it is now an anachronism in today’s society; “The Second Amendment was written in a different time when socially people lived mostly rural lives.”

It’s a quaint and rugged vision of the self-reliant homesteader, protecting his family, bringing in the deer or ducks for provisions, between trimming logs for the cabin on the lonely western frontier of the colonies. But never do the apologists for gun control ever mention the other frontier of the American self-reliance of the late 1700s, a time when “the majority of the American population lived no more than a day’s journey from the ocean, when every major town up and down the coast was an Atlantic seaport, with large communities of professional seamen and all the essential industries needed to build, outfit, provision and repair ships … The shipyards drew from a broad pool of expert laborers and master craftsmen, including carpenters, caulkers, joiners, painters, sparmakers, woodcarvers, coopers, ropemakers, smiths, and sailmakers. … Day after day, all up and down the coast, newly built ships rumbled down the ways and plunged into the sea.” (Six Frigates, Toll, p. 12).

So the majority reality of the early Post Revolutionary society was not the rough, isolated, self-reliant self-sufficiency romanticized by Emerson or Thoreau of later years, or a period “when socially most people lived mostly rural lives,” but an extraordinarily interdependent and highly productive society of expert trades organized to support and expand the American merchants’ international reach, which stimulated economies across the globe as the means to move goods from producers to consumers became more sophisticated and dependable.

“Merchant vessels sailing under the Stars and Stripes were ubiquitous on the high seas, but rarely was an American warship ever seen… American ships were seen taking on pepper in Sumatra, tea, coffee, silks and spices in China, ivory and sandalwood in Malaysia. Weather-beaten whaling ships out of Nantucket and New Bedford were seen north of the Arctic Circle and deep in the heart of the South Pacific” (Toll, p.11).
“Every returning ship brought another payday, and at the height of the season, in summer and fall, 250 ships entered American seaports every day.” (Toll, p. 14) Merchants believed Thomas Paine’s rhetoric in Common Sense, “…the plan is commerce, and that well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe, because it is the interest of all Europe to have America as a free port.” (Toll, p.19) Reality soon deflated that assurance.

Yet, it was a time of excitement, the new nation of America was producing marvels such as Salem’s Nathaniel Bowditch, whose impoverished family apprenticed him out at age 12, a natural born mathematical genius, nearly completely self-taught, who while on “his first sea voyage to the West Indies reviewed the widely-used navigational tables of John Hamilton Moore of England, and found 8,000 errors, and corrected them.” http://www.salemweb.com/tales/bowditch/ Bowditch’s book, “New American Practical Navigator” printed in 1802, quickly becoming the most desired standard reference and guide for seaman, is today two hundred years later, still in print, a testament to Bowditch’s ability to make the complex easy to understand, and an example of the flourishing of talent and achievement in America which was upending the old European elite order.

Astoundingly, America’s rebellion on the high seas against the naval giant Britain was fought primarily not by the Continental Navy, but by Revolutionary Privateers. In 1775, General George Washington, “initiated the enterprise off-handedly, ‘I fitted out several privateers or rather armed vessels, in behalf of the Continent.” (Patton, p. xvi). “Offering a percentage of spoils as inducement, the call for citizen sailors to raid the British shipping tapped the same vein of self-interest and comradeship that had led the colonies to seek independence in the first place … The emergence … of some of the most intrepid mariners in American history highlights the strategic element of Revolutionary privateering, for they would spearhead a massive seaborne insurgency involving thousands of privately owned warships whose ravages on the enemy dwarfed those of the fledgling United States Navy.” (Patton, p. xvii)  “The industry of privateering supported shipbuilders, service workers and a complex network of agents and legal officials to adjudicate captured prizes.” (Patton, xvii). “Investors traded privateer shares at a premium or discount … Prize courts opened in Philadelphia and Baltimore, and the turn-around time between a prize’s arrival in port and its legal settlement narrowed from months to weeks, streamlining the efficiency of an already booming industry. (Patton, p. 80)

And with great risk and audacity came great wealth, “Fellows who would have cleaned my shoes five years ago have amassed fortunes and are riding in chariots.” (Patton, p. 234).

“In the last years of Revolutionary privateering, the trend had been for larger vessels that could stay at sea longer, carry extensive armaments and yet still sail fast. … But the war’s many privateer partnerships, formed to share expense and distribute risk found a perfect application in global ventures. Legal firms and insurance consortiums were on hand to facilitate arrangements as they had done with countless privateer ventures just a few years earlier. Most of these were based in Boston, so Boston became the center of America’s Far East Trade.” (Patton, p236)
With the British, through its navigation act of 1783, blocking Americans from trade in the West Indies, American merchants used their privateering expertise to promote commerce with Russia, Scandinavia and China. (Patton, p. 236)

But after Independence, “Greedy eyes studied the ships of this new nation the way wolves study sheep. The wolves were hungry, the sheep were fat, numerous and slow and there was not a shepherd in sight.” (Toll, p. 24)

Between 1785 and 1815, over 700 Americans suffered as hostages and slaves in the North African kingdoms of the Barbary Coast, merchantmen crews and passengers held for ransoms, and the fledgling United States was being blackmailed for ‘protection money,’ considered “tribute” by local tyrants under the umbrella of the Muslim Ottoman Empire. With the new U.S. government broke, towns up and down the American Eastern seaboard began collections like Salem’s “Small Society” to raise money ‘for the relief of the known prisoners in the hands of the Algerines.” (The Crescent Obscured, Allison, p.128)

By 1798, with no navy, US merchant ships were at the mercy of pirates and fickle friendships such as that of presumed ally France, whose treachery was exposed to the American public through the “XYZ Affair,” a shake-down attempt against American envoys who had arrived in France to negotiate a peace to end the “Quasi War,” provoked by France’s plundering of American merchant ships on the high seas. As the U.S. government hesitated, hung between fear of a standing army and navy as a means for the establishment of tyranny, and bowing to the reality of the conniving world beyond American shores, that other countries were not interested in respecting America’s official policy and societal expectations of Neutrality. With America losing ships by the hundreds to pirates, the public cry was, “Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute!” 

Modifying a clever financial mechanism used in the past by the British and the French, to appeal to citizens to directly contribute to the national defenses, the merchants of Newburyport, Massachusetts came together and decided America needed a Navy, and more critically, they couldn’t wait for one. In June 1798, the Newburyport committee announced their decision “build a 355-ton ship, armed with 20 six-pounder cannon, in ninety days.” (Leiner, p.21)

News spread quickly and soon nine more ports contributed a vessel each, “Salem, Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston along with one joint vessel from Norfolk and Richmond.” (Leiner, p. 3)

“As the democratic system s of the West now weigh “privatization” – use or return to entrepreneurial activity to do public work – the 1798 “subscription ships” were built by a concerned citizenry weighing the meaning of ‘citizen’ in a republic that had won its freedom only a few years before. These men acted before there was any bureaucracy or government infrastructure to do public works. But the 1798 crash shipbuilding program is a microcosm of the timeless American debate of the balance between private and public tasks, about the nature of government and the nature of the citizen.” (Millions for Defense, p.3)

Frederick Leiner quotes John Ruskin who wrote in the mid 1800s: “Take it all in all a Ship … is the most honorable thing that man, as a gregarious animal, has ever produced. By himself … he can make poems and pictures and other concentrations of what is best in him. But as a being living in flocks, and hammering out with alternate strokes and mutual agreement … the ship of the line is his first work. In it he has put as much of his human patience, common sense, forethought, experimental philosophy, self-control, habits of order and obedience, thoroughly wrought handiwork, defiance of brute elements, careless courage, careful patriotism, and calm expectation of the judgment of God as can be put into a space 300 feet long by 80 broad. And I am grateful to have lived in an age when I could see the thing done.” (Millions for Defense, p.2)

So, if one were to go “back in the day” as academics have encouraged us to do, to understand the historical context of the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the language of the Second Amendment, one rediscovers what has been omitted in the debate of “militias’ and ‘citizens’ and ‘defense’- the prevailing spirit of independence from tyranny, the higher calling for citizens to be self-governed, and to take active responsibility for their homes and local communities – the robust affirmation of personal initiative and wariness of governments with too much power. “With the memory of British troops so fresh in mind … a good part of the nation regarded militarism as the close cousin of despotism” inclined to “ regard navies as the playthings of kings and tyrants.” The administration’s only tangible proposal had been to “organize American seaman into a kind of naval militia.” (Toll, p. 40, 44). The society of the day had more than a dim view of allowing a centralized government too much power, it abhorred it. “There was no bipartisan political support for a Navy … yet the mercantile towns had the audacity to build warships to take on the French navy, which, before Admiral Nelson trounced them at the Nile, seemed as powerful or as ominous as the British navy itself. These American merchants were not faint of heart.” (Leiner, p 26).

“When Noah Webster wrote that the subscription ships would be ‘managed with the energy of hardy FREEMEN, who know the motives of their duty and who possess a spirit unaccustomed to being cowed or conquered’… he was trying to strike a chord with men who had shared the rhetoric and memories of the Revolution. Many had fought in line regiments or in privateers and shared the prevailing mythos of the militia defending the hearth and homestead. The young men of 1776 and 1777 were in 1798, the civic and mercantile leaders of the United States. In the Revolution, they came to their country’s defense with their local officers, without a central government that could feed or support them. Twenty years later, these men would not be slow to loan their money, even without central direction. They were not passive citizens in a large, established world power; they were active participants in a new, small republic that they had helped create.” (Leiner, p. 180)

Therefore, the concepts of self-defense and the role of the citizen and militias which informed the reasoning in the day for the Second Amendment right to bear arms were established in the experience and study of tyranny, out of a complex and vibrant urban, national and internationally active and sophisticated society with the experience of war, and confrontation with a world of tyrants just across the horizon, not just by any apparently obsolete practical needs of a random collection of hypothetical homesteading colonialists.

A Sampling of Privateers: Rattlesnake, Catch me if You Can, True Blooded, Scourge.
The Subscription ships: the Merrimack, the Boston, the Philadelphia, the New York, the Richmond, the Essex, the John Adams, the Maryland, the Patapsco

Resources: Six Frigates, The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy, Ian W. Toll, WW Norton & Co, New York, 2006; The Crescent Obscured, The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-1815, Robert J. Allison, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995; Millions for Defense, The Subscription Warships of 1798, Frederick C. Lerner, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 2000; Patriot Pirates, The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the American Revolution, Robert H. Patton, Pantheon Books, New York, 2008.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute 
 
When the U.S. Supreme Court last year recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, it left open a gaping question: does the Second Amendment restrict state and local regulations?
 
The Court was able to momentarily dodge the issue because the Heller case involved a challenge to a law of the District of Columbia. But now that it has accepted review of a challenge to a Chicago law, the Court must address that question. Two federal appeals courts have held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.
 
The first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights by their terms restrict federal action only. Over the years, the Court has applied some of the Bill of Rights to the states via the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to restrict state abuses of individual liberty.
 
But the due process clause was not intended to protect the full range of rights retained by the people. That task was assigned to the first of the 14th Amendment’s guarantees, which forbids states from infringing the “privileges or immunities” of citizens. While thousands of state and local laws have been struck down over the years as violations of the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees, the privileges or immunities clause, oddly, has essentially been a dead letter.
 
That status owes to the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, in which the Court upheld a slaughterhouse monopoly in Louisiana that drove scores of butchers out of business. In one of the Court’s worst decisions ever, a 5-4 majority ruled that the clause protects only a few rights, such as access to the seat of government.
 
In fact, the privileges or immunities clause was intended to protect the basic rights that citizens of all free governments possess, such as economic liberty and the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
 
As the Court acts to protect gun owners’ rights, it can set an even greater precedent for freedom by at long last consigning the Slaughter-House Cases to the dustbin of history.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Mark DesimoneRemember this Democrat? This is Mark DeSimone, former Democratic state legislator from legislative district 11 who resigned after being busted for a domestic violence dispute with his wife. Well he’s back in the news again. This time as an example of what’s supposedly wrong with Arizona’s latest law upholding the 2nd Amendment.

Apparently, DeSimone doesn’t like the new law which allows law-abiding citizens to wear their firearm into a bar. DeSimone owns the Hidden House Cocktail Lounge in Phoenix and has posted signs that will NOT allow patrons to carry their firearms into his lounge.

According to the story posted by the Associated Press,

“I hate to have to put them up,” Mark DeSimone, owner of the Hidden House Cocktail Lounge in central Phoenix, said of the signs. “It looks scary. It looks to somebody like, should I go in this place because they obviously have a problem with people bringing weapons in.”

DeSimone has signs banning guns next to his liquor license and outside the bar.

He said every bar owner should be concerned about the possible consequences of allowing anyone into a bar with a gun.

“You don’t want people to even have a stick,” he said. “When I take steak knives out (for customers), I look for the ones that don’t have pointy ends.”

We simply find it deliciously ironic to see someone like DeSimone worry about someone else drinking too much and acting crazy.

Hat tip to Gila Courier for chasing down the truth on the gentleman who carried the AR-15 assault weapon at the Obama protest.

Here is the video the guys at WeAreChangeAZ shot of the “incident.”

YouTube Preview Image

“Chris” who wore the AR-15 is a Libertarian and ardent defender of the 2nd Amendment.

One interesting confirmation is during the video clip there is an exchange between a blond woman and Chris. You will see her refer to her feeling and how the big black gun makes her feel uncomfortable. This is a classic example of how the liberal worldview is driven by emotions and not logic.

Next Page »