Gun Transfer Case Heads To Supreme Court

Photo Credit: laura padgett Creative Commons

Gun laws in America are so convoluted that otherwise law-abiding citizens can find themselves on the wrong side of the legal system for increasingly absurd reasons. Such was the case with a former police officer who is now the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

The high court began hearing testimony from Bruce James Abramski Jr. last. According to reports, he bought a firearm in Virginia. Though he claimed the purchase was for his own use, Abramski subsequently sold the handgun to his uncle, a resident of Pennsylvania.

He has since been indicted for making a false statement during the purchase, which his lawyer argues should be irrelevant considering both Abramski and his uncle were legally permitted to own the weapon.

While his defense revolves around Congress’ intent in passing the applicable law, government bureaucrats contend he technically violated the code and should therefore face criminal prosecution. Since he didn’t inform the seller of what he might do with the gun on some future date, federal prosecutors contend he prevented the gun dealer from conducting a background check on the handgun’s ultimate owner.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by early summer, will deal with the form Abramski filled out upon making the purchase. Justices will determine whether questions asked at that point – which originated with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – carry any legal penalty for those who provide false answers.

While Abramski’s lawyers will likely stick to the defense that Congress envisioned preventing legal gun owners from purchasing guns for criminals, there is little indication at this point regarding which way the court will rule.

The ongoing leftist campaign for gun control, however, relies heavily on curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. While literally making a federal case out of a simple transfer of ownership between two family members, the government is notoriously silent about the rampant murder in states with strict gun control laws.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo Credit: laura padgett (Creative Commons)

Obama Promises Dictatorial Rule In 2014

Photo credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Just a day after the Supreme Court began hearing testimony regarding Barack Obama’s appointment of several National Labor Relations Board members in apparent violation of his constitutional authority, the White House is announcing even more executive overreach in the coming year.

Calling 2014 “a year of action,” White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer explained Obama’s goal in an email he prepared Tuesday morning.

“President Obama has a resolution for 2014,” Pfeiffer wrote, explaining he will take unilateral action if and when he does not get what he wants from members of Congress.

“Instead,” the email continued, “the president will use his executive authority, both his pen and his phone, to work with anyone to get things done….”

While such unilateral governance has been his modus operandi for more than five years, Pfeiffer’s announcement seems to indicate a renewed – and disturbing – focus on forcing his leftist policies onto the nation as a whole.

As a lame duck, he no longer has the threat of an upcoming campaign to keep him honest. He can, and apparently will, begin usurping even more power while further neutering the legislative branch.

Obama himself joined in the rhetoric Tuesday, saying he is “not just going to be waiting for legislation” before echoing Pfeiffer’s assertion.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he said prior to a White House cabinet meeting.

Obama’s radical agenda is detrimental to America’s future. As such, Republicans have often been vocal critics of his policies. To such an imperial ruler, however, opposition is seen as an impediment he can overcome through fiat decrees.

Reports indicate he will likely unveil a number of these executive decisions during his upcoming State of the Union address.

Though his attitude toward Congress has often been dismissive in the past, the administration has generally made some attempt to pay lip service to legislators. Now, it seems, Obama is comfortable enough in his position to openly announce his intention to disregard the balance of power developed by our founders and recorded in the Constitution.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Will Supreme Court Reign In Obama’s Executive Power This Week?


Photo credit: afagen (Creative Commons)

The Obama administration has proven itself keen on issuing unilateral decrees and ruling by fiat. Naturally, this philosophy has earned significant scorn among those who believe in the balance of power guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

One of Obama’s most contended decisions related to his first term recess appointment of three National Labor Relations Board members – an overstep lower courts ruled unconstitutional. While the chief executive is permitted to make recess appointments, Obama’s detractors pointed out that Congress was not in recess, but a “pro forma” session defined by frequent short adjournments.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear testimony in the case before issuing its own decision. Justices will either uphold or overrule the appellate court decision that recess appointments may only be made between congressional sessions, and only in the event there is a new vacancy during that period.

The case, initiated by Oregon bottling company Noel Canning, will have major implications regarding a president’s power to make recess appointments. In its early stages, the case revolved around the effects Obama’s appointments might have in strengthening labor unions.

Now, the scope of the Supreme Court’s involvement is limited to defining a president’s ability to use executive power.

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown University Law Center will present the case against Obama. He said he is confident that those on the other side of this issue will be unable to prove their points.

“I don’t think this is a close case,” he said, indicating he foresees a unanimous decision in favor of Noel Canning.

Rosenkranz explained that, in order to uphold Obama’s appointments, justices would have to believe he is constitutionally permitted to make appointments whenever Congress is adjourned, and that he may do so to fill existing vacancies. Furthermore, he said the court would need to rule that pro forma sessions are not really sessions at all.

While Obama shows no signs of scaling back his imperial presidency, a Supreme Court ruling against him in this matter would at least send the message that people are paying attention.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at


Photo credit: afagen (Creative Commons)

The Supreme Court: Just Another Wizard Of Oz

Remember when arguments were made before the Supreme Court both for and against the constitutionality of what is known as “ObamaCare”?

You probably heard much of the screeching and shouting about this topic in the news. But I would like you to think about something that you probably didn’t hear – and maybe haven’t thought about – concerning this issue and other issues that come before the Supreme Court:

No matter what opinion the Supreme Court issues in this case, or in any case before them, that decision does NOT have the force of law.

Though a Supreme Court ruling is not unimportant, it is legally binding and enforceable only with respect to the parties in this particular case!

That means that it doesn’t affect anyone else. It doesn’t become law! With respect to the particular parties involved, it’s a ruling. But with respect to the rest of the world, it’s just an opinion!

Here’s the important implication of that truth:

The governor of each and every state retains the full right, and the duty, to determine whether or not the individual mandate (within “ObamaCare”) complies with the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, each governor should determine whether or not the whole scheme of “ObamaCare” complies with the Constitution, rather than allowing it to be accepted as law in his or her state.

I believe that all the fanfare, and all the radio and TV coverage, is a lot of “smoke” designed to convince you and me that the Supreme Court is the “GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ,” and that it is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of this matter and, indeed, of all matters in the country.

But if we look behind the curtain, we find that this simply is not true.

Why am I so sure of this? I read the Constitution. So can you!


Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

“The Walking Dead” Constitution

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

With the media’s obligatory mention of Justice Sotomayer’s New Year’s Eve epic decision to impose a temporary injunction against the so-called HHS contraception mandate, I am now thoroughly convinced that all four branches of our government (executive, legislative, judicial and the media) have been bitten by zombies.

This infected regime seems to be attempting to add a sly new layer of tyranny against the masses by matter-of-factly informing us of this one judicial-zombie’s independent decision to supposedly protect the rights of a small group of Catholic nuns from enforcement of contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But why would a dedicated leftist zombie justice, whose guarded opinions on abortion weigh heavily in favor of a woman’s right to choose rather than an unborn child’s right to live, all of a sudden care about Catholic nuns or their religious convictions? It doesn’t make sense. It is almost scary. And they just keep coming at us.

We once battled mightily when the left claimed that the Constitution was a living, breathing document rather than what we knew it to be: a concrete, concise, understandable set of laws. But what should we do now that we have something akin to a “Walking Dead” Constitution, where ruthless executive, legislative, judicial, and media zombies continue to trample our fields and our fences in an attempt to gorge themselves upon our constitutional freedoms (if not our very lives)?

While we watch the next episode on television, our badly bitten President changes the laws that he himself imposed upon us with a smile on his zombie face and a stroke of a pen; and the majority of Americans seem only to whimper and whine, hoping that they too don’t get bit. Being as we seem so weak at this point in our Walking Dead constitutional history, why wouldn’t they test the will of the people against the will of a zombie judiciary of one? This certainly isn’t the first time the judicial zombies have broken our constitutional fortress.

It still sends chills down my spine to think that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s one single deciding vote kept our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms intact in the June 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller case.

At the time, many of us held on to the hope that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would vote for real freedom for real people, while we already knew that Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg would vote for zombie tyranny; but no one quite knew how Justice Kennedy would vote. So when his vote came in seemingly uninfected, there was a collective sigh of relief heard among frightened individualists across this country. But they still keep coming at us.

How can we ever forget the most recent judicial tyranny-of-one imposed by newly bitten Justice-turned-zombie Roberts in his fickle ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate feature of ObamaScare?

Why do we let this continue to happen? And what is to come of our representative republic when a dreaded judicial zombie rewrites our very tax laws that are much too complex and complicated to understand in the first place? Where do we hide? What is to become of our children burdened to live under zombie tyranny? Our only options seem to be to fight or to become one of them, but neither option is especially palatable. Where is Sheriff Grimes when we need him?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath


Photo credit: terrellaftermath