Monday, June 22, 2009

A guest letter to Congressman (from an old friend)

Congressman Baird,

I’m writing to ask you to please oppose ANY “anti gun bill” that includes ANY “gun ban” to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I as a natural born citizen of the United States, do hereby demand that you vote “NO” on every unconstitutional bill to ban or confiscate the legally owned firearms of millions of law-abiding Americans. This includes the elimination of Gun Shows as proposed by the Obama Administration and Mr. Holder.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment – they were giving the people the right to defend themselves against all threats – including the threat of an oppressive government.

Americans will be highly skeptical of any diversionary talk of “waiting periods”, “background checks” or “gun registration” and additional promises to enforce any new deeply flawed approaches.

If history is an accurate guide, banning guns would only embolden criminals and encourage crime leaving American’s defenseless and allow the uncontrolled and unacceptable to happen, making family security even worse than it is now.

Such legislation is a bad idea because it creates armed criminals to prey upon law abiding citizens. Further, it would be impossible to administer and even more unlikely to be enforced. Gun control is about controlling people, not making people safe.

That’s what is at stake here. Our freedom. Our future.

The most important job you have to do right now is to protect U.S. citizens Second Amendment Rights. Like millions of Americans, I’m sick and tired of the “inside the beltway” politics on this issue; I will NOT listen weasel words or slick excuses.

This issue is BLACK AND WHITE – there are no shades of gray! We need you to protect Americans RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! Please oppose any gun bill, particularly if they include any gun ban provisions. I will be watching your vote on this issue very closely. Thank you.


Merrill Berger

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Letter to Congressman Minnick: Sotomayor confirmation

Dear Congressman Minnick,

I write you today begging you to stand against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to the US Supreme court.

Being a man in the know, I am sure you have heard the typical sound bites concerning Sotomayor’s life experience as a woman and Latino, and how that should make her more wise than other people groups. Although I am not personally offended (I’m a white male) over her statement (she is entitled to her opinion, right or wrong) I do believe such a statement is a declaration of her inability to be objective. Although this statement has been given most of the “legs” in the media, her 2001 speech at Berkley is riddled with statements that should particularly exclude her as an objective justice. She explains over and over how her life experiences will affect her rulings. Her philosophy as I would describe it is postmodernist, relativist and incapable of objectivity; each descriptive is a complete contradiction to what the job description of a Supreme Court justice should be.

A Supreme Court Justice should be very close to a machine; their job is interpreting laws and delivering a verdict based upon the intent of those who handed down the law, not based upon their personal desires. It is your job, Congressman, to deliver the laws, written with the clarity present to make the intent unavoidable. You are the policy maker, not the judge. The Constitution is the Law, not the judge. If the Constitution fails to serve the people’s desires, or if the laws you and your equals pass, fail the people, then change them as the rule of law dictates. It was never our founder’s intentions that the one that holds the gavel be the one that is the law; if so, a scepter would have done just fine.

Perhaps Judge Roberts said it best during his confirmation hearings when he said, "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." Judge Sotomayor could be likened to a game seven World Series home plate umpire wearing a NY Yankees hat during the game. I encourage you to read her full speech and act as an American Statesman would act. Please act in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and not William Jefferson. Additionally, please don’t bother sending a response if it is one that tap dances around the crowded dance floor without stepping on anyone’s feet. There is a right and wrong to everything, toes will get stepped on. If you choose to be contrary to my position than please declare yours as such. For that you will earn at least my respect, but not likely my support.

Thank You
Walt Holton

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Legal but Unjust (An open letter to the IDFG)

Here is the multiple choice question for the day

Which was invented first?
a) The center fire rifle
b) The bow and arrow
c) The muzzle loading rifle

To any one sane this is a simple test, and strangely enough the more primitive the armament the less advantage the hunter retains. However, the Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) seems to operate upon anti-logic. In Idaho with the purchase of a standard hunting license one buys the right to wield a modern firearm in the field. Of course tags are extra as they should be. But if one wishes to give more advantage to the game animal and chooses a more primitive arm, the hunter must pay extra. In the case of a muzzle loader $18.25 and in the case of an archer $18.25. Archery and muzzle loader hunters must pay extra to be disadvantaged; that seems backwards to me. Of course the logic behind the IDFG is fees and funds. Paying extra for a disadvantage seems illogical.

Secondly, should we not consider archery as the de facto baseline hunting weapon? It was invented first the muzzle loaders second and the center fire rifle third. So again would it not be logical for a baseline hunting license to include the right to wield the most basic arms rather than the most modern? I would suggest in a logical world it might go something like this. Hunting license includes archery, additional endorsements may be purchased at the following fees- muzzle loader permit $5 center fire permit $10 enter fire with telescoping site $15. Not only is such a scheme logical, based on sporting advantage and tenure of technology, but it would also raise much more money due to the vastly larger numbers of rifle hunters. The latter should perk up the ears at the IDFG. The present system is unfair and backwards. It would almost seem like they are picking on a minority, which is what a constitutional republic is supposed to prevent. There is a right and wrong in every matter, wrongness substantiated by a majority may be legal but it is still wrong. I believe Ayn Rand called it, “a legal injustice.” The present fee structure is wrong!

Walt Holton