The idea of the bill is to allow a concealed weapons permit holder in one state to cross state lines and that person’s legal permit would be recognized in all other states. There now currently exists some states with agreements among each other to accomplish much the same thing.

I find it humorous, in a way, that when it comes to guns freedoms, liberals are somehow concerned about state sovereignty. When it’s about gun control, to hell with state sovereignty. Heller v. District of Columbia ruled the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun. McDonald/NRA v. Chicago ruled that the city of Chicago could not prohibit an individual from owning a firearm. What neither case did was define what limits any legislation can put on gun ownership. So long as there are no limits placed on the Second Amendment and until challenges from the states go through the court system, nobody really knows if such a reciprocity act is constitutional or not. Where will this bill end up?

What I also find interesting is what was written in a Fox News report that was said by head of the NRA, “It [support for the bill] cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives — even President Obama’s base is strongly in favor of this legislation.”

For my money, if Obama’s “base” is strongly in favor of the legislation, that is reason enough for all Americans to be suspect. Obama could care less about individual bills and what people think they are getting. What he is interested in is to further his dictatorial power reach. As I see this, if pushing this bill further defines that the states have less and less power (defined as loss of power and rights to the people) to demand sovereignty, while at the same time ceding that power into the hands of a despot seeker like Obama, he’ll support this bill.

Be careful what you vote for. Some are interested in only the bottom line.

Tom Remington

Rep Alexander, Rodney [R-LA-5]
Rep Lamborn, Doug [R-CO-5]
Senator Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Rep Altmire, Jason [D-PA-4]
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]
Senator Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Rep Bachmann, Michele [R-MN-6]
Rep Matheson, Jim [D-UT-2]
Senator Enzi, Mike [R-WY]
Rep Benishek, Dan [R-MI-1]
Rep McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4]
Senator Hatch, Orrin [R-UT]
Rep Berg, Rick [R-ND]
Rep McMorris Rodgers,Cathy [R-WA-5]
Senator Kyl, Jon [R-AZ]
Rep Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1]
Rep Miller, Candice S. [R-MI-10]
Senator Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN-7]
Rep Miller, Jeff [R-FL-1]
Senator McCain, John [R-AZ]
Rep Bonner, Jo [R-AL-1]
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]
Senator Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Rep Boren, Dan [D-OK-2]
Rep Nunes, Devin [R-CA-21]
Senator Murkowski, Lisa [I-AK]
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [D-IA-3]
Rep Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2]
Senator Risch, James [R-ID]
Rep Broun, Paul C. [R-GA-10]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN-7]
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A.[D-CA-18]
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [R-WI-6]
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3]
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [R-AZ-3]
Rep Coffman, Mike [R-CO-6]
Rep Rehberg, Denny [R-MT]
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX-11]
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [R-MI-8]
Rep Cravaack, Chip [R-MN-8]
Rep Ross, Mike [D-AR-4]
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [R-MO-8]
Rep Ryan, Paul [R-WI-1]
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-1]
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5]
Rep Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]
Rep Heller, Dean [R-NV-2]
Rep Terry, Lee [R-NE-2]
Rep Herger, Wally [R-CA-2]
Rep Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-5]
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS-1]
Rep Walden, Greg [R-OR-2]
Rep Kline, John [R-MN-2] Rep Young, Don [R-AK]
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID-1]

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

Restore Wolf Management to the States

Cosponsor the bipartisan American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act

Current cosponsors: Bishop, Boren, Boswell, Broun, Cardoza, Chaffetz, Heller, Kline, Labrador, Lummis, Matheson, Ross, Ryan, Simpson, Walden and Young

Endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, American Sheep Industry Association, Big Game Forever, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers Association, Public Lands Council, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, and the Wild Sheep Foundation.

Dear Colleague:

We invite you to cosponsor the “American Big Game and livestock Protection Act” (H.R. 509), a bipartisan measure to prevent wolves from being listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Wolves are a recovered species, and the science is there to prove it. Unfortunately, environmental extremists have put politics in front of sound science, wrenching control from states with responsible wolf management plans. With states unable to control the predator, populations of deer, elk and moose have plummeted, and livestock depredations are on the rise. We need to call attention to this abuse and solve an issue that should have been put to rest years ago.

When its introduction efforts began in the 1990s, the federal government initially set out to establish 300 wolves in the northern Rockies. Today, biologists say there are at least 1,700 wolves in areas of six Western states. In the Western Great Lakes region, where more than 4,000 wolves currently reside, populations have far surpassed the original recovery goals. Consequently, wolves were removed from the endangered species list by both the Bush and Obama administrations, only to be relisted again by the courts based on legal technicalities.

Please join us, along with thousands of hunters, farmers and ranchers, conservationists and small business owners who are demanding a permanent solution to this ongoing problem. We strongly feel that congressional action is the only way to protect our rights to responsibly manage wildlife by avoiding further litigation.

If you have any questions or would like to cosponsor this legislation, please contact Eric Bierwagen in Congressman Rehberg’s office at Eric.Bierwagen@mail.House.gov.

Sincerely,

Denny Rehberg member of Congress
Jim Matheson member of Congress

During the final days of the 111th session of Congress, bills HR6028 and S3919 never made it out of committee. It is expected the Senate will introduce a similar bill early next week. As yet, no listing of Senate sponsors has been made available but during the last session S3919 was sponsored by: Risch (Idaho), Crapo (Idaho), Barrasso (Wyoming), Enzi (Wyoming), Hatch (Utah), McCain (Arizona)

This new bill, which doesn’t appear to have a number yet, has slightly different wording but accomplishes the same thing.

The bill will simply amend Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to add part (j): ‘‘(j) EXEMPTION OF GRAY WOLF.—This Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (canis lupus).’’

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

……………………………………………………………
(Original Signature of Member)
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. ll
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (canis lupus).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on ________________

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (canis lupus).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF GRAY WOLF FROM ENDAN
4 GERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.
5 Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended by adding at the end the fol
7 lowing:
8 ‘‘(j) EXEMPTION OF GRAY WOLF.—This Act shall
9 not apply to the gray wolf (canis lupus).’’.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:58 Jan 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPREHBER_067.XML HOLCPC
January 26, 2011 (11:57 a.m.)
F:M12REHBERREHBER_067.XML
f:VHLC1261112611.045.xml (485433|3)

Following that, I will select my favorites from such things as the most stupid, best video, photo, best from Milt’s Corner, best post and best hunting story. I hope you enjoy this.

In no real particular order:

One of the top events of this year had to be Climategate. The reason is because of the revelation of the corrupt and agenda-driven “scientists” who have and still are perpetuating a lie for monetary gain.

In Maine, a refusal to recognize the real effects from too many predators, combined with poor leadership, a faulty deer management plan, among other things, has led to a serious destruction of one of this nation’s biggest, sought after trophy whitetail deer populations.

Guns and gun rights certainly had its share in dominating the news. On the heels of District of Columbia v. Heller, we watched as the Supreme Court addressed McDonald v. Chicago. Where Heller finally gave us a confirmation through the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment was an individual right to keep and bear arms, McDonald confirmed that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment, the result being that states cannot overrule a Federal protection of gun rights guarantees.

In addition to the above gun rights cases, we can’t forget the nationwide movement labeled the Firearms Freedom Act. Montana and the Montana Shooting Sports Association, were the first to enact the law which states that any guns and accessories manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. There are presently 21 states that have passed or have introduced similar legislation. Montana’s bill, signed by the governor, is wending its way through the court system in hopes of garnering a ruling in favor of the bill. A victory in the Courts could rewrite gun regulation in this country and could possibly set off more efforts to restore 10th Amendment state’s sovereignty.

Wolves have and will continue to dominate much of the news cycle of events. 2010 was no exception. Here is a list of notable events with links where you can read more information about it.
1. Wolf Wars
2. Disease
3. Court battles, i.e. Molloy and Johnson
4. Idaho County Declaration of Emergency
5. Idaho woman’s wolf encounter
6. Rex Rammell threatens to begin shooting wolves
7. Wolf Hunts
8. Battles with Idaho Fish and Game commissioner and sportsmen

There was Measure 2 in North Dakota, a citizen’s initiative to shut down elk and deer farms; a major property rights issue. The measure failed.

In California, a bastardization of the Endangered Species Act has kept water from flowing to ranchers and citizens in hopes of saving the delta smelt. A recent ruling on this declared the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, but water isn’t flowing yet.

Barack Obama’s nominations of Sonja Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as justices to the U.S. Supreme Court should have gotten more press coverage than it did. Both nominations oppose gun rights in addition to being unqualified candidates, as well as having lots of baggage and skeletons in their closets. Regardless, both women now sit on the High Court.

The shocking and disturbing death of Candice Berner in Alaska, as she was attacked and killed by wolves, brought to the surface many of the emotions behind dealing with such vicious killers these animals are. It also shed light on the perverse thinking of those people who blamed Ms. Berner for being attacked. While these people and many others stand on their soapboxes spewing lies that wolves don’t bother people, the unfortunate result is we have to see it first and even then people remain in denial. This event should have opened the eyes of many people.

There were other events that also got covered and were important. Two of those were the BP oil spill and the death of Erwin Evert, attacked and killed by a grizzly bear that had been drugged by researchers but signs of warning had been removed against standard policy.

My favorite post was “The Environmentalist“.

The best hunting story was sent to me by Rod Davis – “Bear Attack – Nearly Mauled”

Even though there was extreme competition, the stupid story (person) of the year has to go to Hank Johnson who, during testimony before Congress, was afraid that if the U.S. put too many troops on the Island of Guam, it would tip over.

Finding the best photo for 2010 was a daunting task as I literally waded through hundreds and hundreds of photos that got posted. Where this is my chance to share my favorite, my choice is the photo of the cow moose and two young yearling bulls sent to me by Jane Ryerson of Bethel, Maine. (click on the photo for a full-sized image. Necessary in order to capture the expression on the one young bull’s face.)

Choosing Milt’s Corner best picture was also no easy task. However, were I am partial to architecture and this building is eye appealing, along with sharp, crisps colors, it’s my choice for best picture.

And last but not least, my favorite video is of the man who shoots his .45 pistol with his feet. I’m sorry but here goes. It is a simply incredible feat.

Tom Remington

The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.

Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.

Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.

A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.

So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?

If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?

How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?

Tom Remington

Now we have McDonald v. Chicago, where the SCOTUS has ruled that states and local jurisdictions cannot deprive people of their right to keep and bear arms. In Wisconsin, the District Attorney for Jackson County says he will NOT prosecute certain infractions of gun laws that he says are in violation of McDonald v. Chicago.

Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea? Do you think other district attorneys, etc. should make that decision and refuse to prosecute laws that are in violation of McDonald v. Chicago? Tell us what you think and why.

Tom Remington

Justices in dessent: Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayer.

It appears all of the majority Justices agree that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments but there may be some disagreement with Alito’s entire ruling.

McDonald v. Chicago ruling can be found here.

I’ve not examined the ruling yet but it appears McDonald v. Chicago is very close in resembling the Heller case. The Court remanded the case back to the Seventh District Court and what we will probably see is a similar action as to what we saw in Washington, D.C. after Heller.

It appears this is one more step in trying to make some kind of determination as to what is considered “reasonable” gun control. Incrementally we will take back what we can get of our rights to keep and bear arms but as with the Heller case, the Court does not offer any indication as to what is acceptable gun control.

I’ll offer more as I get it.

Tom Remington

However, according to Bloomberg, her comments on District of Columbia v. Heller, were:

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,”

When people ask why it is that people question the personal views of nominated judges on subjects such as Second Amendment, or Roe v. Wade, this is why. The role of a law clerk, in this case what Kagan was doing in her job under Justice Marshall when she made her comment, is to advise the judge, supposedly based on law, about a ruling. When we hear of a clerk making reference that she is “not sympathetic” about an American citizen’s concern for the protection of his Constitutional rights, it now becomes extremely important as to whether this person should be in a position to hand down rulings. Can we be comfortable believing that she is interpreting the law or being sympathetic or unsympathetic?

Tom Remington

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. It appears from comments made during arguments that probably the court will incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment via the “Due Process Clause” and not entertain the idea of opening a can of worms by incorporating with the “Privileges or Immunities Clause”. On the surface it would appear that gun rights advocates will win another victory in that a ruling of incorporation would say that the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment extend beyond the scope of the federal government and forces the states and local communities to honor that right. But how much?

District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that citizens have a right to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. The ruling made it clear that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. What didn’t get decided in Heller was what, if any, restrictions on those guaranteed rights were allowable. It appears McDonald will not tell us that either.

There is no clear cut established “gun right”. It is not defined. The only thing that has shaped gun rights or gun restrictions, has been state and local laws through our jurisprudence. As we have seen, some of those restrictions have gone so far as to deny certain citizens the right to possess a gun at all, as was the case in Heller, in the District of Columbia and McDonald, in Chicago.

If SCOTUS should rule to force Chicago to abide by the Second Amendment through the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the question becomes, how much? Will the court offer any ruling as to where Chicago should begin?

In oral arguments, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the NRA, suggested that there should be a “carry over” of Second Amendment laws along with the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.

Personally, I believe the Court will react much the same way it did in Heller. They will make a ruling of whether Second Amendment rights extend to the states and then leave it up to the courts to hammer out what will then become “reasonable” restrictions on guns.

After Heller, even though the High Court ruled that a ban on gun ownership was unconstitutional, the District of Columbia did not make it easy for anyone to get a gun and register it. I foresee the same events in McDonald.

Tom Remington