Barney Britt v. North Carolina: Gun Rights Restored

While the country is taking a severe left turn in the Marxist direction in economics and "social justice" (which I think is a code word for wealth redistribution), we are actually making strides toward more gun freedom. Make no mistake, it is a fight every step of the way.

More and more states have become "shall issue" concealed carry states. States are expanding the places where there is a right to carry, such as restaurant, as long as the concealed carrier is not drinking. States are expanding the protections in self defense by expanding the state Castle Doctrines, making it clear that in your own home, you do not have the duty to run from someone breaking in.

Here is a case where a man name Barney Britt was convicted of a nonviolent drug felony in 1979. He completed his probation and his rights were fully restored by law including his right to own a firearm under North Carolina law. In 2004, the North Carolina legislature banned possession of firearms to all persons previously convicted of a felony, regardless of the subsequent history of being law-abiding.

In the case decided August 28, 2009, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held the 2004 law unconstitutional as applied to Barney Britt on the facts set forth above. The court said "In particular it is unreasonable to assert that a nonviolent citizens who has responsibly, safely, and legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a significant threat to public safety." The court went on to hold the 2004 statutory amendment to be a violation of Art. I., Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution which states the right to bear arms in exactly the same words as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Read the full case and the dissent here.

Quote of the Day

The Ultimate Recipe.

Kill stuff.
Add fire.
Eat.
Burp.
Have a good night.

Thank you very much, drive safely.

--Ted Nugent

Ted Kennedy -- Traitor?

Ted Kennedy has been lionized as a deal maker. Clearly he was a liberal icon. But was he also a traitor, trying to make deals with a foreign government, a communist "evil empire," to gain an advantage in American elections?

KGB files reveal facts that support that conclusion about the late Ted Kennedy, as reported by Forbes:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Read it all.

Hanoi Jane, step aside, a bird of your feather has just passed by and passed on. With Americans like that, who needs enemies?

ABC Displays Its Partisanship

ABC has refused to run an anti-Obamacare ad because, according to ABC, it is "partisan." Wow. Since when is that a reason not to run a paid political ad?

It would break new ground to refuse to run an political ad that was demonstrabley false, much less "partisan."

The ad is straighforward. It favors neither Democrats nor Republicans. It never mentions party -- and there are plenty in both parties who oppose Obamacare. Here is the ad. You decide if it is "partisan."



As a private company, ABC has the right to refuse any ad it wants to. But, please ABC, don't blow smoke up our butts and give us a phony reason for refusing the ad. Tell us the truth: you are in the tank for the left wing of the Democratic party and the far left wants Obamacare. So you dive into the tank, including your 30 minute Obamacare infomercial.

Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer swore that ABC's much-scrutinized health care special with President Obama "won't be an infomercial." She also seriously touted the objectivity of the network, cheering, "I know that our network has worked very, very hard to be completely- completely responsible and fair and serious about big issues."

Now, two months later, here is ABC being responsible -- by refusing to allow paid debate on the big issue of health care reform.

With this sort of comradeship, oops I mean "partisanship," at the corporate level, how can your news teams have any journalistic credibility? Hint: Other than John Stossel, they don't unless you are comparing them to MSNBC.

Readers: Take this rejected ad and share it far and wide. Do for America what ABC refused to do.

Quote of the Day

Firearms stand next importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.... From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

-- George Washington

Source: Nugent, Ted, God, Guns & Rock'N'Roll

How Well Gun Bans Work

Chicago has one of the toughest gun bans in the nation. And gun crime? Rampant. Read about it here.

If something is not working, of course, you want more of it, right? That is EXACTLY the gun-bigots' proposed solution.

Yes, I think that ARE out of their collective minds.

Obamacare Taught

What Obamacare Means
You go to the grocery store. Obama is waiting for you at the door. He asks, "What are you here for?" You say, "Some steak and arugula". Obama says, "Do you have the money to pay for it?" You say, "Yes".

Just then, another person walks up. Obama asks her, "What are you here for?" She says, "I'd like some cans of ChiliMac and a package of Twinkies, but I don't think I can afford it". Obama tells you, "Give her some of your money so she can buy the ChiliMac and Twinkies". You do.

Obama then turns to you and says, "You can go in and buy some ChiliMac and Twinkies, too." You say, "Say what?" He says, "If that's all she's getting, it's fair that it's all you get, too." You say, "But I can still afford steak and arugula." Obama says, "That's fine. Buy that for me."

Source: Cree Tees