Schwarzenegger Bans Rifle in Support of Gun Control

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6234778&section=news
Tue Sep 14, 2004 03:37 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Breaking with Republican lawmakers who oppose gun control and a Hollywood film career filled with gun play, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill banning .50-caliber BMG rifles, an aide said on Tuesday.

The large-caliber, high-powered rifle is used by the military and police to shoot at long-range targets, including ones more than a mile away. Really, I didn't know that. I don't see the justification to ban the BMG rifle... yet.

Civilian owners of the weapon typically use the rifle at firing-ranges and for big-game hunting, but with armor-piercing ammunition the rifle can penetrate concrete shelters and lightly armored vehicles. You never know when you'll be assaulted by a pesky concrete building. Better to be prepared! But, still no justification for the ban...

Critics of the rifle argue there is no reasonable civilian use for the weapon. They say it could be used by terrorists to shoot at oil refineries and airplanes, or by snipers against people. Gun rights advocates maintain the weapon has not been used in a crime in California. Now we get to the heart of the issue. No harm has actually been brought by anyone in possession of this weapon. It's just a bunch of "critics" who think it "could" be used by terrorists. Well hell, you may as well ban cell phones, computers and the internet, television, and Boeing 747s. We've already seen where they've used all of these items to administer terror on us. Or is that somehow different? Argue your point and justify your position!

Despite his gun-toting film career, Schwarzenegger is in favor of some gun controls, including the 10-year federal ban that expired on Monday on certain semiautomatic firearms known as "assault weapons," said his spokeswoman Terri Carbaugh. If the ban was effective, it would not have expired, period!

"He's committed to keeping the public and law enforcement as safe as possible," said Carbaugh. "This lines up with his philosophy that reasonable gun control measures are necessary to accomplish that objective." There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep people safe, but you must respect ALL people's rights while doing it. Period!

ACLU Files Motion Today to Exclude Secret Evidence

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16273&c=262

August 19, 2004
NEW YORK - The government is using gag orders and secret evidence to keep the public in the dark about its use of the Patriot Act to investigate Americans, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

In two legal challenges to controversial provisions of the Patriot Act brought by the ACLU and other groups, the government has filed secret evidence that it is refusing to disclose to the public and even to the attorneys in the case. How does one defend themselves against this kind of oppression?

"Our system of justice does not and should not tolerate the use of secret evidence in deciding important constitutional questions, which is why this tactic has been repeatedly rejected by the courts," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. I would like to quote for you the 6th Amendment to our Constitution... (You know that piece of paper that is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. )

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the RIGHT to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

If the Patriot Act is found to be in violation of any of those a fore mentioned restraints, it is VOID!

Today, in its challenge to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the ACLU filed a motion to exclude classified portions of a government affidavit that were provided only to the court. The government has asked the court to consider this secret evidence in deciding whether to dismiss the ACLU's constitutional challenge to the law.

The lawsuit, filed in Detroit in July 2003, challenges the FBI's unprecedented power under Section 215 to access medical, library and other private records without a subpoena or a warrant based on probable cause. The judge has not yet ruled on the government's pending motion to dismiss the case. How nice... The judge is having trouble with this matter? If the judge would READ the Constitution, he would have his answer. The 4th Amendment states:

"The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NO BE VIOLATED, and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."

Again, if the Patriot Act is found to be in violation of any of those a fore mentioned restraints, it is VOID!

In the second case, filed in New York in April of this year, the ACLU is challenging the FBI's authority to use National Security Letters to demand sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. Here, the government has submitted a secret affidavit without providing any justification for the secrecy or any indication of the nature or scope of the evidence. [the article continues on] When will we, as Sovereign Citizens, figure out that our servant government needs it's butt spanked for getting out of line? There's a rebellion going down against us, and we're sleeping at our posts.