Activism

Sebastian is reporting on an effort in your state to ban "inherently dangerous firearms".   As he says, you only get one chance to stop things like this, it's very hard to repeal a law once passed.

The JPFO are asking for donations to help them boot the BATFE. 

It seems that USA 3000 Airline has banned guns in baggage, according to David Hardy at Of Arms and the Law.  That's fairly silly; transport of firearms that way is extensively regulated and quite safe when those regulations are followed.  The biggest risk is probably theft by a baggage handler. 

I'm not sure what the airline thinks it has to gain from this, aside from scoring political points with people flying on the airline, who may not realize that transporting firearms that way is quite legal and reasonably common.  But in deciding to forbid the practice, it has certainly made itself a target for a boycott from supporters of gun rights.

I would be interested to know the economic outcome of the decision; does it cost them more to ban the practice and suffer the boycott, or do their other customers appreciate it enough to make up for the business?

We probably won't ever find out.

David's post, linked above, has contact info if you want to give them a piece of your mind.

Jerry the Geek questions another Geek (with a .45) about the injuries allegedly sustained by Patricia Konie when she was recently jackbooted, noting that the woman on the video is able to lift her dog into a vehicle, and questioning whether she could have been injured as badly as claimed in the lawsuit.

I don't have any more information than what's in the lawsuit, but I do understand a little bit about the nature of lawsuits.  First, the text quoted in my own post on the story is from the complaint in the lawsuit; that's important, because it means the account therein was written by Konie's lawyer, and it was written to establish two things: the legal basis for Konie's claim for damages, and the extent of those damages. 

Generally, courts do not issue awards randomly.  They are usually based some combination of actual damages (eg, costs incurred in healing the injury, medical care, repairing or replacing property, etc), punitive damages (awarded without a showing of cost, to discourage violations), and legal fees (because the injured party should not have to pay their lawyer if the other party is clearly in the wrong -- the lawyer's fees are another cost to repair the original injury, except that they are not always awarded). 

So when you file your initial complaint, you are looking to establish from the beginning the extent of the damages your client suffered, if not necessarily a precise accounting at that stage.  You're going to have a hard time convincing the court to order damages for injuries that magically appear later on in the case, so you include everything you think you might claim eventually.  Most likely that's all that's going on here.  If the complaint says the injuries "may" require surgery, what he's really saying is that they haven't required surgery yet, but that they might. 

Since the complaint was filed towards the end of November, and the press release is datelined mid-December, I'd say that the injuries did in fact require surgery between the time the complaint was filed and the press released issued.  Since the press release is considerably more detailed about those injuries than the complaint, I'd say there are good odds that the medical care obtained in the meantime helped to diagnose the injuries that had been inflicted.

I don't know anything about dislocated shoulders, never having had one, but hypothetically, if I was being "evacuated" and one of my shoulders was dislocated, I would be lifting animals with the other arm.  Just something to bear in mind.

The Gun Owners of America are urging us to support Kaloogian's campaign for Congress, by way of a district in California.  He's got good qualifications:

As a California Assemblyman from 1994-2000, Mr. Kaloogian fought tenaciously against the most radical anti-gun agenda in the country.  Working with Gun Owners of America, Kaloogian lead the fight against SB 23, the expansion of the ban on "so-called" Assault Weapons, and SB 15, the Safe Handgun laws that were really meant to ban small affordable handguns.

The seat is currently open, and will be filled by special election within the next few months.  Since it's a special election with no incumbent, there will likely be relatively small turnout, which means that Kaloogian has a chance at winning if he can mobilize enough people who care about the gun issue.

In any case, GOA says he's worth supporting, and that's good enough for me.

The Gun Owners of America are urging you to contact Congress regarding the Patriot Act renewal legislation.  Here's why:

Capitol Hill sources have told GOA there is a provision in this bill (Section 215) which would allow the FBI to get a secret court order to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without having to make the case that the gun records they're confiscating have any connection to a suspected terrorist.

Section 215 is the same provision that allows for seizure of library records (what you're reading about) and similar privacy threats.  While passing the Patriot Act in the wake of 9-11 could possibly be excused as an emergency situation, it has now been over 4 years since that event.  How many terrorists -- real terrorists, not prostitutes or drug users -- have been captured and convicted because of evidence obtained through section 215?

The answer seems clear: not enough to justify abrogating our Constitutional rights.

Sometimes, it's hard to give the proper response ("That's none of your business!") to a doctor who wants to abuse his position of authority to inquire about guns in your home.  Doctors do have a lot of status as an authority figure, and pediatricians in particular tap into the parental instinct to protect their children.  In order to make it easier to make your point, without getting into an argument that might distress your kids and offend your doctor, KeepAndBearArms.com brings us the Firearms Safety Counseling Representation form.  Good work, guys.  Hat tip to The War on Guns for pointing it out.UPDATE: Fixed the link to War on Guns.  No idea how that got messed up; sorry.

The Gun Owners of America are calling for your help in pressuring the public officials and military officers in charge of investigating and prosecuting the confiscatory criminals of Katrina and their cronies:

In light of this overwhelming evidence, GOA urged General Fine to "investigate who are the guilty parties who need to be held accountable for perpetrating these harmful acts against innocent Americans."

General Fine has the authority to investigate the criminal acts of federal officials and to refer them for prosecution. 

So far, it appears that General Fine has been dragging his feet on this request -- which is why he may need to hear from folks all around the country.

Get your letters out, folks.  If they can get away with confiscating firearms, they'll do it, whether it's "legal" or not.

... has passed the House.   Alphecca has a good description of what it does (and what it doesn't).  It's already passed the Senate.  There shouldn't be a problem with Bush signing it, after which many of the lawsuits against firearms manufacturers will be dismissed.   The case that I have been following, DC v Beretta, should be one of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the trigger lock requirement was included in this version.  That's disappointing, since the version without that requirement could also have passed.  The problem would have been time; reconciling the bills between the House and the Senate would have required more time, and more time means more legal costs defending the suits already in motion.

While I think the trigger lock and "armor-piercing ammunition" provisions are both silly and bad precedent, as a practical matter their effect is small.  The real risk is later laws requiring the use of trigger locks, or lawsuits that make not using them subject to significant risk of liability.

... by banning .50 rifles and ammunition, confiscating them from their citizens immediately (which prevents the citizens from selling them to someone who could legally own them).  For some reason they are also banning "cop killer" handguns, whatever those are.  

Thanks to Techno Gypsy for spotting it.  If you're in Massachussetts, you might want to contact your legislature.  It probably won't stop them, but it's worth a try.

Mr. Completely has the scoop on a proposed hunting ban on Whidbey Island.  He's also got email addresses you can send your comments to.   

It's a familiar refrain: The gun-grabbers clearly want to take away your "big, ugly" semiautomatics. But, they claim, they don't support an outright firearms ban.

Well, next week, the gun-grabbers will have an opportunity to show their true colors.

Next week, the House is scheduled to vote on repealing Washington, D.C.'s gun ban.

That ban -- surely the most draconian anti-gun abomination in the country -- registers (and effectively bans) rifles and shotguns, bans handguns, bans semiautomatics, and bans ammunition.

And, for all of its contempt for individual liberties, the District of Columbia has moved from a relatively safe place prior to the ban to the murder capital of the nation.

H.R. 3193 -- a bill introduced by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) -- will bring an end to this travesty by repealing Washington's myriad gun bans. It will allow D.C. residents -- once again -- to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families.

Yep, it's time to push this bill through the House. The Senate is unlikely to be able to pass it, but it's still worth contacting your representative about. Why? Simple: the vote on the issue will tell you where your Representative stands on the issue. Does he claim to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Make him prove it. Does he oppose gun rights? This is your chance to get him on record as supporting a complete ban on firearms.

This opportunity comes by way of the Gun Owners of America, and you can use their email tool to send along a message to your Representative.

Michael Badnarik and David Cobb, the presidential candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties, will take questions from media, students and the public in an open forum the night of - and just feet from - the first televised "debate" between the two-party candidates.

The debate will take place on Thursday, September 30, at 5 p.m., at the Holiday Inn Ballroom, 1350 S. Dixie Highway, in Coral Gables. Pacifica Radio will interview audience members and debate participants following the two hour debate. From 9 p.m. until 10:30, the candidates and audience will watch a live broadcast of the restricted, two-party debate after which Badnarik and Cobb will offer their rebuttals.

Unlike the scripted and staged exchange between the two-party candidates which will take place directly across Dixie Highway from the Holiday Inn Ballroom, the open format debate will allow for uncensored questions from the public and students and will represent a wide range of viewpoints on the critical issues facing our country.

The debate will be covered live by freemarketnews.com. While we can't get out parties in the same room with today's candidates, the published debate format allows for a "virtual" debate -- with third-party questions answering the same questions. Time is short, so we need to get the word out about this debate and where it can be viewed. Tell your friends; post it on your blog. The URL is: http://www.freemarketnews.com/

Once it's over, all we need to produce a real Presidential debate is to get a recording of both events and some time with video editting software. Anyone up for trying it who has access to the necessary software?

On Wednesday, September 29, we need you to join the thousands of people from across the country who will be calling the Senate to oppose this bill. Calls from constituents can make all the difference. Sign up below to join the action, and we'll send you detailed instructions and talking points in the next 24 hours. Thanks for taking action!

The INDUCE act is a significant expansion of copyright law that will stifle technological innovation. If you're not up on the issue, read this fisked version of the introductory speech and these articles.

Here in Canada, members of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA) have been publicly demonstrating against the Firearms Act for over eighteen months. Various CUFOA members were arrested from time to time, but the government always dropped the charges. They apparently had no stomach for seeing the Firearms Act challenged in court.

Bruce Montague, a CUFOA member and one of the more vocal opponents of the Firearms Act, was arrested while attending a Dryden, Ontario, gun show with his daughter.

That he was arrested is not overly surprising. The Area Firearms Officer knows all about Bruce and does not like him or his flaunting the law so flagrantly.

What is surprising is the way this case has been handled. After all, Bruce had been openly asking the government to charge him for ages. He would have gladly taken Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers on a tour of his home and showed them where the unregistered firearms were.

Instead they dragged Bruce away to jail, left his 12-year old daughter Katie alone in the Dryden gun show. Donna Montague, Bruce's wife, only found out about the arrest because a friendly vendor called Donna to let her know what had happened, and that Katie was with him. The OPP apparently couldn't be bothered to let anyone know they had abandoned the 12-year old child after arresting her father.

By way of The Smallest Minority comes this horrifying tale of police abuse for a paper crime: failing to register a firearm. Go read the whole thing. There's a legal defense fund for the case, and they could sure use some donations; lawyers are expensive.

The memorandum of understanding that sets out rules for the debates between Bush and Kerry is now accessible to the general public, and it's got some real shockers inside. Well, ok, I'm not shocked. But I am appalled.

The parties agree that they will not [...] (2) appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate[...]

In other words, they are engaged in collusion to prevent the third-party candidates from receiving any attention. And that's just wrong.

The parties agree that the Commission's Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004 General Election Debate Participation shall apply in determining the candidates to be invited to participate in these debates.

If one or more candidates from campaigns other than the two signatories is invited to participate persuant to those Selection Criteria, those candidates shall be included in the debates, if those candidates accept the terms of this agreement.

While that looks nice and fair, that's all predicated on the assumption that the "Commission's Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria" are fair. Despite the use of the word "Nonpartisan", however, those criteria are carefully constructed to exclude third parties. In this respect the debate commission's role is to act as the fall guy; it takes the heat for excluding third party candidates.

If you want to see what the third-party candidates have to say about this, you can watch the shadow debates. Badnarik was one of those participating, and he's pretty good; if you want real debates, the Badnarik campaign wants your help.

Click the link above and show your support for the Libertarian candidate.

We've compiled all the public emails for CBS affiliates around the country. (Many thanks to Fraters Libertas, who first put this together) Just write your message and fill out the form below, and an email will be sent FROM you to every CBS affiliate in the country. If you get any responses, please forward them to contact ((at)) rathergate ((dot)) com.

I haven't been posting much on the CBS forged-documents scandal, because it's a little outside my brief; it doesn't pose a threat to any of our Constitutional rights. But when there's an opportunity to speak up and make your voice heard, that's something worth mentioning.

Following the link will take you to a page that will allow you to send a customized message to all the CBS affiliates (ie, the local stations that carry CBS programming). The idea is to express your disappointment concerning the forged documents scandal and to demand that Dan Rather either resign or be fired for his part in it.

If you're not familiar with the situation, read up on it at powerline.

In the wake of new terrorist videos threatening election-day attacks, Massad Ayoob explains how armed citizens can fight terrorism. Being a helpless victim is a choice. You can choose otherwise.

UPDATE: There are reports that the CIA has not authenticated the tape, despite Drudge's claims.

There is apparently no limit to the insanity in California. For the umpteenth time in the long and sordid tale of AB-50, the California Assembly voted on the bill and the bill lost by a 35-36 margin. That was voting by the rules.

But the rules seem to matter very little in Sacramento. Shortly after voting to send the fifty caliber ban to a well-deserved grave, California Democrats called for a "re-vote" and we watched as a handful of Democrats pressed the vote button at their own desk, then calmly walked to the empty desk of another member of the Assembly and voted a second time. This, we learn, is what California Legislators call "Ghost Voting." Nobody there is shocked because "they do it all the time." Ah, I see...

The Smallest Minority reports on a claim by the Fifty Caliber Institute that the .50 ban in California failed on the first attempt, and only passed with the help of the supernatural.

This sort of bullshit is exactly why we have a Second Amendment. The Fifty-Caliber Institute is trying to lobby the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to veto the bill because of the ghost-voting. I doubt it will be an easy sell, but he is a Republican who ran on a promise to shut down political bullshit like this, and the bill apparantly includes spending provisions that won't exactly have a positive effect on California's already near-bankrupt coffers. I'd say that adds up to a chance, especially since the ghost-voting will provide cover if he wants it.

So stop by the Fifty Caliber Institute and contact Arnie. You might want to check out their fundraiser raffle while you're there. Here's some suggested text for your email:

Governor,

Recently, the California legislature passed "AB50", a bill that certain elements have been trying to pass for a long time. Up until now, they have failed with a consistent 35-36 vote, including one immediately before this bill passed on a re-vote. The most recent vote, however, succeeded only due to the practice of "ghost voting". If you are not aware of this practice, it involves legislators present voting "for" legislators not present -- literally voting twice. Simply put, some of the legislators who were not present had their votes stolen from them and recorded without their consent.

It is in your power to put a stop to this practice simply by vetoing this bill. This is exactly the kind of political abuse that you ran for office to stop, and this is your chance. Stand up to the games the legislators are trying to play, and insist on an honest vote.

I oppose AB50 because I am a gun owner and I believe in the Second Amendment rights of all US citizens, including citizens of California. As an immigrant, you have undoubtedly taken classes or education concerning the Constitution of the United States. Most likely this education avoided the subject of the Second Amendment. You may have been told that the Second Amendment is outdated, or refers to the National Guard. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, a right that has served us well throughout our history. AB50, by banning a large class of firearms almost never used in crime, is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

But I do not ask you to veto AB50 because it violates the Second Amendment. That argument has little power in your chosen state of residence, where corrupt politicians have forgotten the duties of honest government. I ask you to veto it because it was passed only through blatant fraud. More, I call upon you as an American and an honest man: it is your duty to veto this fraudulent bill. I invite you to contact the Fifty-Caliber Institute[1] and verify their account of the fraud, and I hope that you will do so, and take appropriate action.

If you stand up to this political corruption, you can show the legislators that you will not stand for bullshit. If you sign the bill into law because you are afraid of political consequences, however, you will prove only one thing: that you are the real "girly-man" in California.

1: http://www.fiftycal.org/

If you send an email or a letter, please leave a comment too.

On the heels of the supernaturally-assisted passage of AB-50 (banning .50 caliber rifles), California has enacted a measure requiring ammunition vendors to collect information and fingerprints from those buying ammunition. I got the tip from this thread on The High Road.

As if those two weren't enough, there are also reports that SB1140 passed; that's a Brady Campaign measure creating a misdemeanor offense for "keeping a handgun where a person knows or reasonably should have known a child is likely to gain access to it", as well as what they call a "wobbler" (some kind of sometimes-misdemeanor, sometimes-felony thing I think) for "storage of a firearm in proximity to ammunition".

The information demanded by the state on each ammunition purchase includes:

• Date of transaction
• Name, address, and date of birth of the purchaser
• Driver's license or other ID number, including state of issuance
• Brand, type, and amount of ammunition
• The signature of the customer
• The name of the salesperson
• The right thumbprint of the purchaser

Yes, that's right. In order to buy ammunition in California, you are required to provide a fingerprint! And there are provisions for inspection of these records at any time (during normal business hours), by any employee of the District Attorney or the Department of Justice, which means no warrant is necessary.

And guess what? There are exceptions for two classes of people: police officers and concealed-carry permit holders. Before you start celebrating about the latter, California is NOT a shall-issue state, which means that those holding concealed-carry permits are the political cronies of the legislature and nothing more -- such luminaries as Dianne Feinstein are exempted from the law, but no ordinary peon in California can get a concealed-carry permit.

I wonder if these bills passed by a "ghost vote" too? I wonder if Arnold will sign them? Since I asked him to veto AB50, I'm going to write a follow-up email asking for an investigation of these bills on ghost-voting grounds. Please send your own letter to his email address: governor@governor.ca.gov. As always, please drop a comment on this post if you send an email.

Governor,

Recently I wrote to you regarding the practice of "ghost voting" in the California legislature. This practice was used to pass AB-50, a measure banning the sale of .50 caliber rifles in California, which had languished for a long time in a very close vote. However, the legislature eventually passed the bill 45-32 when your legislators abandoned honor and decency to cast false votes for legislators not actually present! I wrote to you asking you to veto a bill passed through clear fraud and abuse of the legislative system.

I am writing to you now because two addition bills on the topic of firearms have also passed your legislature. These bills are SB1152 and SB1140. They are bills which are offensive to the Second Amendment and to any free people. SB1152 requires a fingerprint to purchase ammunition. How would you feel about being required to provide a fingerprint before making a speech protected by the First Amendment? SB1140 makes it a criminal offense to store a handgun in a manner useful for self-defense. Do you own a handgun, Governor? How is it stored? You may already be a felon.

But because of the way AB-50 was passed, I urge you to investigate the passage of SB1152 and SB1140. I urge you to find out whether these measures, too, were passed by "ghost voting". If they were, regardless of your feelings about the Second Amendment, I urge you to veto all three bills (AB50, SB1152, SB1140) due to their abuse of the people's trust. If your legislators can't be trusted to respect the sanctity of the opposition's votes with a nanny to watch them, it is your responsibility as governor to administer the spanking.

I recognize that if the Democrats in your legislator are "girly-men" as you have accused them of being, they may find the spanking more enjoyable than might be wished. But if you prefer to let them spank you with this legislation, who then is the "girly man"?

Assault rifles are about to become legal in September when the law banning assault weapons expires. These are the same weapons our troops are trying to take off the streets of Baghdad. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said he supported the ban. Early in 2004, he said he'd sign an extension of the ban if it reached his desk. That's turned out to be a big if.

sigh All together now, folks: the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with machine guns. They have a form where you can write a Letter to the Editor.

This past March, the White House was caught unprepared when an extension of the ban was heading to Bush's desk as an amendment to the ''Lawful Protection of Commerce Act.'' The bill, which sought to give the gun industry almost 100 percent legal immunity from lawsuits, so enraged the gun-control movement that in a rare display of teamwork, it unified to defeat it. The victory prevented the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits pending against gun manufacturers and retailers, including a suit I've filed in Illinois arising from the death of my son with an illegally trafficked handgun.

Painting that particular fight as a "victory" for either side is an interesting characterization.

Over the past 20 years, the gun industry's products have taken the lives of more than 30,000 Americans annually. The industry's critics accuse it of refusing to police itself and allowing junk gun manufacturers and unethical retailers to pour guns into illegal markets.

And when you break down those numbers, you start to realize that most of them are suicides and the remainder are either legal shootings (eg, in self-defense) or shootings committed by people who have no legal right to own a gun (eg, convicted criminals). Judges have been dismissing the silly lawsuits brought by the "critics" (aka the gun control lobby) right and left because they ARE silly; the industry protection bill would simply avoid the necessity of paying the lawyers to file a motion to dismiss.

To moderate voters, the three amendments seem reasonable. But the extremists won: The NRA refused to accept the three amendments, and the White House ordered the bill defeated.

To moderate voters? The NRA is composed of moderate voters.

On Sept. 13, the assault weapons ban will expire, and Bush will tell the electorate he would have signed the bill had it reached his desk. Police officers support the ban almost unanimously, as does about 75 percent of the American public. Still, Bush has decided to stick with his base in the NRA.

Police administrators support the ban. Police officers oppose the ban. And the public only support the ban in polls if you lie to them.

As we approach the election, Bush will claim he's the stronger candidate in dealing with terrorism, but if the gun control movement is smart, they'll ask him: How is it we're safer if assault weapons are now legal, and felons and terrorists can waltz into weekend gun shows to buy a military combat rifle with no questions asked?

What's it take to buy a military combat rifle? Maybe the terrorists would like to ask their local police chief for permission to purchase the weapon, pay a $200 tax to the BAFTE while undergoing an exhaustive background check the includes fingerprinting? No? Then they can try to buy something that's actually covered by the assault weapons ban, something that is NOT a military combat rifle. But then, they can do that already, since such weapons are perfectly legal to possess and sell -- just not to manufacture.

And yet, they don't. Somehow, I don't see this as a problem.

This past spring, the Illinois General Assembly passed a new bill requiring compulsory mental health screening for children and pregnant women; it was signed into law by Governor Blagojevich. This program will require all pregnant women and children through the age of 18 be tested for mental health needs.

Public forums are now being held in different locations throughout the state and many alarmed parents are attempting to get the word out: get to those forums and voice your opinion. "We're moving toward social training over academic training with this program," says Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

This is extremely scary. Whatever happened to the right to choose your own mental health treatments? To have the right of privacy within your own mind?

There are public forums for this issue. Anyone who lives in Illinois, get your ass to those forums! Even if you're out of school and not planning to become pregnant, it's only a short step from this to mandatory testing for everyone.

Under this new, compulsory mental health law, pregnant women will be screened for depression and following her baby's birth, evaluation would continue for up to one year. Follow up treatment will also be provided under this program. All children ages 0-18 years will be provided screening under this mental health program. "Mental health centers" at schools will handle the process to "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools."

Can't you just feel the political correctness oooozing out of the program?

The Illinois State Board of Education is the agency targeted with the responsibility to develop appropriate tests that assess both mental health and academic standards. The current task force hosting these statewide public forums is scheduled to send their recommendations to Governor Blagojevich by the end of the summer in accordance with the Act (HB 2900).

Because the Illinois State Board of Education is doing such a good job with the public schools in Illinois, I suppose, we should entrust care of our children's minds into the hands of the state as well. No thanks!

Seems that the Cleveland Plain Dealer printed a list of Ohio CCW permit holders in their newspaper. No Quarters has put together contact information for the newspaper's internet advertisers, with the idea of calling the advertisers to complain about the newspaper's actions. Complaints to advertisers yank the financial chain of the newspaper effectively when complaints to the newspaper itself are ignored.

So check out the post, and consider sending a polite note to the advertisers expressing your dismay that they choose to advertise in a disreputable newspaper like the Plain Dealer.

Earlier this month, the Republican leadership in Congress violated its own rules to ensure a slim defeat for a measure that would have protected your privacy in bookstores and libraries.

The measure -- an amendment offered by Rep. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) -- would have forbidden the government from funding the use of powers granted by the infamous Section 215 of the Patriot Act to demand your personal records from bookstores and libraries. These new powers give law enforcement the ability to obtain -- without an ordinary criminal subpoena, search warrant, or probable cause ? a secret court order allowing access to all of your personal records -- including your library records, the books you purchased, your medical records, your finances and even the complete history of your web surfing. The Sanders Amendment would have been an important first step at rolling back part of these overreaching surveillance powers.

Although the measure initially garnered a majority with almost all Democrats and 29 Republicans voting ?yea,? Republican leaders kept open the vote for more than 30 minutes ?- twice the allotted time ?- so they could persuade 11 members to switch their votes. The amendment then failed on a vote of 210 to 210.

The ACLU is getting a bit kinky with this one, but that's OK. This is a good way to find out how your Representative voted, and make your opinion heard. I've previously posted a call to contact specifically those Representatives who flipped their votes under pressure; this effort applies to everyone who cares about the issue, regardless of how your Representative voted and regardless of whether they caved under pressure.

If you include in your email that you don't want the Assault Weapons Ban renewed in any form whatsoever then the politicians might start to realize that there is a core constitutency in the nation that cares about freedom, and isn't easily shunted into a democratic or republican slot.