A new poll conducted by MPR and the Humphrey Institute finds that an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans oppose the new sales tax increase constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot this November. The poll surveyed people likely to vote in the 2008 election and found 72% opposed to the amendment, which would increase the state’s sales tax by 3/8% to fund "the arts and outdoors." Just 22% support the measure, with 6% undecided.

The proposed constitutional amendment is the final touch on a legislative session that was characterized by tax hikes, borrowing and budget expansion. The measure will require approval by the voters this fall. Based on the results of the MPR/Humphrey Institute survey, passage doesn’t appear likely at this point, but there is a concerted effort underway to promote the amendment. 200 environmental and arts organizations are pushing the tax hike with their "Vote Yes" campaign which launched in May.

The ballot question reads "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide funding beginning July 1, 2009, to restore, preserve, and enhance the state's fish and wildlife habitat and other natural resources; to protect the state's drinking water sources; to protect and restore the state's lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater; to support the state's parks and trails; and to support the arts and cultural heritage of the state by increasing the sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"

Details on the proposed use of revenues collected by the new tax can be found in the bill (HF2285) but the basic breakdown is (at minimums) 25% of the new revenue is dedicated to a natural heritage fund, 25% to a clean water fund, 15% to a parks and trails fund, 15% to a "sustainable drinking water" fund and 10% would go to an arts and cultural heritage fund. The remaining pot would get divvied up by the whims of the legislature.

The 200 organizations pushing for the amendment’s passage this fall are a laundry list of arts and environmental groups with their hands out. They are seeking constitutionally dedicated funding streams on the backs of already overburdened Minnesota taxpayers. 72% reject the notion, saying these organizations and services should be paid from existing revenues and individuals.

Former senator Rod Grams summarized the Vote Yes coalition, saying, "They want to tack on a new tax, by a group of special interests that want to pick the pockets of Minnesota taxpayers, to create a slush fund to enable them to spend monies on their pet projects,"

Take Action: Use our letter to the editor tool to send your opinion on the tax hike to your local newspaper.

Prices at the pump remain at record highs and Minnesota Majority has joined the chorus of demands for Congress to act. With soaring fuel prices and increasing demand, it’s well past time Congress listens to the American people and begins to dismantle the road blocks Congress itself put in place to obstruct access to our own abundant natural resources.  Despite the rhetoric coming from our elected officials about easing the pain at the pump, energy independence and taking the strain off of family budgets, our congressional leaders have done nothing to reverse the problems created largely by congressional policy.

Lately it seems that our representatives in Washington are all political spin versus taking meaningful action. Excuses and blame are elevated to a high art form in modern beltway politics. Some of the myths perpetrated by congressional leaders by way of defending their grossly irresponsible inaction on American energy issues have made their way into the mainstream consciousness.  One of the biggest myths about expanding access to American oil reserves is that it wouldn’t make any noticeable difference. Opponents of abundant American energy claim that even if ANWR and the outer continental shelf were opened up for drilling, the oil wouldn’t enter the market for ten or more years and the effect on fuel prices would be negligible or nonexistent.

Another common meme is that oil investors speculating on future scarcity are the driving force behind high prices. These two notions cannot harmoniously coexist. If speculation on future scarcity is driving up the price of oil, how can it be that future abundance wouldn’t bring prices down? The truth of the matter is that oil speculators are cashing in on high prices, but they can only do so because supply is artificially limited by congressional policy. It’s the restrictions on accessing domestic oil that creates the scarcity. Immediately following the president’s announcement that he was lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling, gas prices began to drop, because it became that much more likely that supply would be increased. The closer we get to tapping more of our own resources, the more the price will fall, before a drill bit even touches the ground in expanded access sites.

Defenders of do-nothing policy are also fond of parroting the notion that oil companies aren’t using the leases they already have. Supposedly, after paying hundreds of millions of dollars in rent, and investing in equipment and exploration, Shell is sitting on thousands of idle acres of leased land where they could be producing oil. Again, it’s a game of deflecting blame and the easy target is big bad oil companies. This is simply not true. And with oil prices at an all time high, it doesn’t make sense, either. If Shell could get all this supposedly untapped oil out to market, they’d stand to make even bigger profits than they already are. Buy low. Sell high. Simple market economics dispels this myth, but some additional facts may bring more clarity. The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service reports that there are 7,457 active leases for oil drilling. Of those, 1,877 are classified as producing. That doesn’t mean oil isn’t flowing out of the remaining 5,580, or that drilling and exploration isn’t underway at those sites. To be deemed producing, a site must be producing 130,000 barrels of oil per day. It takes time to ramp an operation up to that capacity, and the process is underway on all leased sites with known deposits of oil.

The argument that lifting the drilling ban wouldn’t have any effect for a decade is false, but even were it true, it’s a ridiculous, short-sighted argument. Using their own premise, if we’d lifted the ban ten years ago, we’d have that oil today and wouldn’t be in such a dire energy crunch now and ten years from now, we’ll still need oil.

A couple incidents that occurred decades ago have lived long in the American psyche. One is the 1979 Three-Mile Island nuclear reactor partial core melt-down. That incident unfortunately happened just a few weeks after the release of The China Syndrome, a disaster movie about a nuclear power plant melting down. This helped usher in a ban on new nuclear power plants. A new one hasn’t been constructed in the US since while France and the rest of the world leap ahead of us in nuclear technology. The other incident was an oil spill caused by an offshore rig back in 1969.

When offshore oil rigs were new technology, operators didn’t have a grasp on the environmental hazards posed by bringing up oil from beneath the ocean floor. An accidental spill resulted in 80,000 barrels of oil washing up on the coast of Santa Barbara. Everyone has seen the footage – probably more than once. That was just about forty years ago, and thanks to advances in technology and safety protocols, such a disaster hasn’t happened since. Regardless, the myth persists that offshore drilling is environmentally destructive. The truth is modern oil rigs are equipped with automatic shut-off valves beneath the ocean floor. Should an accident or damage to the rig occur, the oil in the well is safely capped off so virtually none escapes into the seas. There are backup protocols as well and oil companies are required to constantly rehearse and demonstrate competence in containing any possible oil spill.

These are some of the myths being used as excuses to do nothing that would truly increase domestic oil supplies. There is a strong element in our society and in our government that wants gasoline to be prohibitively expensive. They envision a carbon-free solar and wind powered utopia of extreme conservation among the masses. Affordable, abundant energy such as is needed to power our homes and our economy run counter to their vision for us. Excuses are useless. Americans need leaders who will act, and act in the best interests of their constituents. The American economy is the most productive in the world and the engine of that economy needs fuel. Someday we may be powering our factories and automobiles with hydrogen or another kind of energy, but the truth is right now, we need petroleum. We have it. It’s time for Congress to let us go get it.

Take Action. Tell Congress to cut the excuses and increase domestic oil production by signing the ActNowOnEnergy.com petition and sending a direct message to your elected officials.

Saturday, September 20^th, The Conservative Issues Fair will take place at the Bloomington Airport Hilton (by the Mall of America) from 10:00 – 4:00. This event will feature speakers including popular conservative talk host, Jason Lewis, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (6^th District), Barb Davis White (5^th Congressional District candidate), Congressman John Kline (2^nd District) and Ed Matthews (4^th Congressional District candidate).

Breakfast with Michele Bachmann is served from 7:00 – 9:00 for those who want to arrive early and Lunch with Barb Davis White runs from 10:00 – Noon.

Numerous conservative organizations will be showcased at the fair, including Minnesota Majority, Center for Parental Responsibility, Citizens Council on Health Care, the College Republicans, Minnesota Federation of Republican Women, Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform, Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota, the Twin Cities Republican Association and many others. This is a fantastic opportunity to meet the people behind all of these great conservative organizations, pick up information and other materials and discuss the issues of the day.

Minnesota Majority will be distributing free GlobalClimateScam.com yard signs and bumper stickers along with copies of our newsletter and other literature at this issues fair.

If you are a conservative who has been looking for a way to get more involved, this is the ultimate event at which to do so. Whatever your top issues are, this event should have you covered and Leadership Institute will be conducting a workshop for activists throughout the day.

Admission is only $5.00 Minnesota Majority will see you at the Conservative Issues Fair.

Lawmakers, reluctant to take action to reverse the trend of increasing energy scarcity have been feeling the pressure from their constituents and, for the sake of political survival are compelled to act on energy. The driving force has been a plan called the "American Energy Act," an "all of the above" plan to increase domestic production and supply of all kinds of energy. Everything from petroleum to nuclear power was addressed in the bill. Speaker Pelosi and her anti-energy cohorts in the House pulled the plug on debate when it became obvious that they were on the losing side of the argument.

Since adjourning for a five-week vacation instead of addressing the sharply rising cost of energy in the United States, Congressmen have been feeling the heat from angry constituents demanding they get back to work and do something about American energy.

Since abundant, affordable energy runs contrary to their agenda, this puts some lawmakers in a bit of a pickle. Their careers could be on the line if they don’t act, and act quickly, but taking action could upset their future plans.

The new "gang of ten" has ridden in on white horses to save the day with the "New Energy Reform Act." This plan, cooked up by 5 Senate Republicans and 5 Senate Democrats (Conrad D-ND, Chambliss R-GA, Thune R-SD, Graham R-SC, Lincoln D-AR, Landrieu D-LA, Isakson R-GA, Corker R-TN, Pryor D-AR, and Nelson D-NE) is supposed to be the compromise between boosters of abundant American energy and those who wish to restrict the flow of energy.

How can there be a compromise between parties, who on one side want more energy while the other side wants less? The only possible middle ground would be to keep things they way they are. This New Energy Reform Act isn’t even a middle-ground compromise, though. The plan will be presented as a way to increase domestic drilling for oil, something the vast majority of US citizens favor, but in reality, this so-called "reform" is so packed with stipulations and regulations as to make it nearly impossible to meaningfully increase domestic oil exploration and drilling. Throw in a whole slew of new taxes on energy producers, more mandates for "alternative" and "renewable" energy sources and what you really get is what the anti-energy crowd wanted all along: Less energy at higher prices.

So now, Pelosi and her followers have a bill they can say is an energy bill that includes domestic drilling. When Congress gets back from it’s 5-week vacation, they can get behind this bill, and hold it up to their constituents as proof that they listened and are doing something about America’s energy problems, but it’s nothing more than the old bait and switch trick. The "New Energy Reform Act" (also called the "New Era" bill) is the same tired old tax and regulate liberal politics with a name that implies something it isn’t.

Highlights from the New Energy Reform Act include new taxes and regulations on energy producers, converting cars and trucks to non-oil fuels, carbon mitigation and sequestration, more biofuel subsidies and conservation initiatives.

More progress could actually be made if Congress did nothing, rather than enact the "New Energy Reform Act." As it now stands, the Congressional ban on offshore drilling expires in October. They will have to pass a bill to continue the ban. The president could veto such a bill and offshore drilling could begin. Were this "New Era" bill enacted, most US coastal waters would actually be permanently off-limits for drilling in statute. Only a narrowly defined portion of potential drill sites would be opened, and under such stringent regulations that any actual drilling on a meaningful scale is unlikely. Add to that at least $84 billion in new taxes on energy production and somehow the equation is supposed to equal more energy at lower costs?

Don’t confuse real reform like the "American Energy Act" with it’s doppelganger surrogate. The "New Energy Reform Act" may actually be worse than doing nothing.

Take Action: Contact your elected officials and tell them not to be fooled by the "New Energy Reform Act" / "New Era" bill and to support real solutions like the "American Energy Act."

Take Action: Help us spread the word on the American Energy Act by contributing toward air time for our radio ad campaign.

Many lawmakers were ready to vote for the American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), a bill that would have expanded access to all of America’s energy options and bring relief at the gas pump, the grocery store and on home energy bills.

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, fearing that her agenda of restricting America’s energy supply would be upset should this bill come to a vote on the House floor, turned off the lights and went home. Rather than debate what has become a serious problem for many American families, Pelosi and her anti-energy cohorts abruptly adjourned session.  It should outrage most Minnesotans that a majority of Minnesota's Congressional delegation voted to adjourn session rather than address America's energy crisis (click here to see how Minnesota Representatives voted).

When pro-energy lawmakers refused to leave the House chamber and continued to debate the issue, Speaker Pelosi ordered the lights, microphones and cameras turned off in an attempt to stifle the popular pro-energy message being espoused.  Despite the darkness, and lack of CSPAN coverage, many lawmakers remained in the chamber and pitched their energy plan to tourists or whoever happened to come through the chambers. These determined congress men and women have remained at this vigil for days, calling on Speaker Pelosi to reconvene session or for the President to force Congress back to work on the energy problem by calling a special session.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who represents Minnesota’s 6^th District, is one of the lawmakers who voted against adjourning. Of expanding oil drilling into ANWR, she recently said, "Currently, the U.S. is the only country in the world that discourages using its own energy resources. Our country imports 10 billion barrels of crude oil every day. And we are importing 1.3 million barrels of refined gasoline. Having toured Alaska, I've seen the infrastructure that is already built and pipeline that is not even at full capacity, and no wildlife at all is being harmed."  Bachmann believes in an "all of the above" energy policy that would include increased domestic oil production, developing new energy technologies, conservation and terrestrial (nuclear) power.

Pelosi's anti-energy agenda was exposed in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.  Pelosi, who upon becoming speaker had promised a fair open debate process that would allow the minority party to present their alternatives, now says she will not allow a vote on the Energy Act to come to the House floor. "They’ll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote," she said of Republican lawmakers attempting to have their bill heard. Pelosi says she’s saving the planet by stonewalling on energy policy, stating her "flagship issue" is global warming.  Pelosi said, "We have to take this one step at a time, but why we're spending all this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe?"

Pelosi suggests a solution for gas prices would be for the President to release oil from the strategic petroleum reserves, a stockpile of about 775 million barrels of oil set aside for military use in case of national emergencies. Selling off 100 million barrels of the reserve has the potential to reduce the price of crude by about $12 per barrel (currently about $125 per barrel). This reduction would last for all of three months and then leave us in the same boat we are now in with no new oil supply, continued rising prices and with the added bonus of a reduced strategic reserve that would cost even more to replenish.

Meanwhile, a group of nearly 50 House members remain at the capitol with a message of "Pelosi, we’re here. Where are you?"  Speaking from the darkened House chamber, Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio said, "Pelosi is on a book tour, God bless her, she wrote a book. I wish I could take the time to write a book. Well now is the time to vote, not the time to write a book."

RSC Chairman Jeb Hensarling observed, "Speaker Pelosi says that we need to "use our imagination" for her to allow a vote for more American energy. Well, I’ve got a wake-up call for her. Americans shouldn’t have to imagine their summer vacations, they should be able to take them. Americans shouldn’t have to imagine their commute to work, they should be able to afford it. And in the greatest deliberative body in history, the peoples’ Representatives shouldn’t have to imagine a vote for more American energy, they should have a right to it."

Congressman John Kline, who represents Minnesota’s 2^nd Congressional District is among the lawmakers lingering in the House chamber demanding a vote on energy solutions. "We should not be on a five-week paid vacation when Americans are pumping their paychecks into the gas pumps," Congressman Kline said. "We are going to continue to insist that House Democrat Leadership bring Congress back so we can find a meaningful solution that includes domestic drilling to help Americans deal with rising gas and energy prices."

Two people have the power to reconvene Congress at this point. One is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is dead set against allowing a vote on this issue which she holds the minority opinion on, and which she knows could be politically damaging to her cohorts. The other is President Bush, who has indicated that he will not call a special session to force Congress to deal with this important issue.

Take Action. Tell Congress to support the American Energy Act by signing the petition and sending a message to your elected officials.

Click here to see how Minnesota's delegation voted on adjourning.

July 4^th, 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared the first "Energy Independence Day." We’ve since moved further as a nation from the stated goal of energy independence, but that’s beside the point. 

Independence Day is the most uniquely American holiday, and its significance shouldn’t be lost in discussion of gas prices. To be sure high costs were part of what brought about the American Revolution, but it was high taxes imposed by the English crown, and meddling in the colonies’ ability to conduct free trade that created such tremendous unrest.

Independence in the states marked a turn away from tyranny that sent reverberations throughout the world. Self-governance had never been successfully implemented before the United States of America charted a new course with our American Experiment.

Our tiny nation of rugged individualists threw off the shackles of the most powerful empire in the world and became the shining city on the hill, setting an example of freedom and prosperity that other nations of the world envied and soon emulated to large and small degrees. Isn’t that enough for one day? Should such a momentous occasion have to share it’s day, and lose its meaning in the shuffle of current events to a subversively similarly named "Energy Independence Day?"

We tend to fill up at the pump and pay higher than usual prices for gas to take road trips to family cabins or other fun summer destinations for Independence Day weekend, so we feel the pinch on this day, perhaps more keenly than on many others, but that’s not even close to what the 4^th of July represents. 

Freedom is mankind's greatest accomplishment. Still in it's infancy and often threatened, we would do well to mark this day by remembrance of the sacrifices required to secure a freedom too easliy taken for granted and the value of defending it.

Lest we be drawn down a familiar path of the slow erosion of tradition, history and meanings, below is posted the reason for John Adams’ suggestion that Independence Day "ought be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore."

In Congress, July 4^th, 1776 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America 

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Even though the state legislature is adjourned, Minnesota Majority is still keeping very busy this summer. Besides ongoing research, phone calling and networking, we have a busy event schedule.

On Thursday, June 26^th, the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Washington DC’s total ban on handguns. They found it unconstitutional because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

The individual vs. collective right argument was central to Washington DC’s gun ban. The city enacted the ban with the notion that the 2^nd Amendment represented the right of a state to arm a militia. The District of Columbia isn’t part of any state.

The militia and collective right arguments gun-control advocates have always fallen back on are specious, for those who only give the Constitution a casual glance.

The Second Amendment is only one simple sentence that concludes with very strong and clear language, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It’s the beginning of the sentence gun control advocates have focused on, however: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" It is this wording that is often used to justify the infringing of the people’s rights. Gun control advocates claim that the amendment is obsolete in the era of a technologically advanced, standing military, or that the amendment only pertains to organized militias, calling into question what constitutes a militia. This line of reasoning fails to take the sentence as a whole.

The Second Amendment doesn't read, "If a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state..." That a militia (an armed citizenry) is necessary for freedom isn't a caveat for the right to own arms. Rather, it is a simple expression of what is. Likewise, the declaration, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a direct, absolute statement. Shall not. The word unless is distinctly absent.

The key questions revolving around the Second Amendment have traditionally been who has the right to keep and bear arms? What is the militia? For what purpose are the citizens to be armed?

The answers can be found in the writings of the framers themselves. Studying the Federalist papers and other statements made by the framers during constitutional debates makes the issue very clear. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. The militia is every person. The citizens are to be armed for defense of their country, defense of themselves against crime and as a last resort to defend themselves against their own government should it turn to tyranny.

Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 2^nd Amendment is indeed an individual right, local governments will have a much more difficult time defending overreaching gun control laws. The decision overturning Washington DC’s gun ban will reverberate across all the states.

Republican Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah lost his primary election to challenger Jason Chaffetz, a 41-year-old first-time candidate. According to Numbers USA, the only substantial difference in their policy positions was on open borders.

Were one to judge strictly by the ubiquitous news broadcasts of the mainstream media, the illegal immigration problem would appear to have vanished, but clearly the voters haven’t forgotten. Utah’s primary elections are early. Cannon’s defeat could be a bellwether signaling an uprising of conservative voters around the nation. Time will tell.