Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.

January 26, 2014

This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around…reloading.

Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:  “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”  The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
 
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
 
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)j
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
 
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns.  They need to lose their next election.  We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Please send this to SOMEONE!
Hat Tip to TEXASFRED

Some things that were missed; The Bill of Rights

December 16, 2013

The obamanites and other Tory’s would simply crap their pants if all would have passed!





Amendments Offered in
Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789

First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;” and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: “After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto.”

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: “But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives.”

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.


SOURCE




 

We are from the government, we are here to help: Sleeze bags and out of control Prosecutors

September 22, 2013

Control freaks by any other name. Read on…

Most of us remember the quote by Ronald Reagan“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Imagine this brand of “help” appearing at your doorstep…Please read on.

Your elementary school aged child misses several days of school. First because of the flu, then when you thought things were getting better, pneumonia symptoms set in.

What started out as a “cold” lingered as an illness that is so unpredictable that even when your child was given the green-light  to go back to school, the nurse sends them home for more rest.

You do what any parent will do, make sure your child gets plenty of chicken soup, take that awful tasting cough medicine, and go to the school to pick up any make-up lessons.

Now let’s fast forward. Later in the same year you find out your spouse has to “go under the knife”. As any loving spouse would do, you plan to go through the ordeal with them. And at the same time your “little one” is now distraught as one of their parents is suffering with chronic illness.

By the end of the year your child misses ONLY twenty days of school, while maintaining satisfactory performance as per the official report card.

So far this is a true story happening in the Wheatland WY School District.

You remember the little boy whose family was put on “criminal probation” along with a — NO GUNS ORDER — placed on the household?

Well as anyone would do, this family appealed this order and retained an attorney.

And Wheatland prosecutor Eric Jones (who ran as a Republican) is now retaliating.

By making this a special case. As a matter a fact, it’s so special, that everything will be under a — gag order — claiming that keeping it all behind closed doors is to protect the minor child.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned, is that sleazy prosecutors like Eric Jones love to keep their dirty deeds deeply under cover. His actions are proof he doesn’t give one iota about the children.

To Eric Jones it’s all about power!

Eric Jones is guilty of doing what many prosecutors in America do best –WIN CASES…and if it means making a Wyoming family go bankrupt, it’s just part of the “game” he plays as a prosecutor.

As of now the avenues of diplomacy have been exhausted. You see, every single member of the School Board and the County Commissioners (even Sandy Contour who ran as a “pro-freedom” candidate”) tell me, “there is nothing they can do.

And it’s all a bald faced lie! Under WY-Statute the “elected officials” can force Eric Jones to step down.

Of course, as usual the job of holding “other politicians accountable”, in this case the prosecuting attorney, is something that no one wants do.

By now you probably know how things really work…When a politician is asking for your vote, even for school board, they are certain to speak in a manner to win the popularity contest.

Then once this same politician is safely in office, by their “actions”, they become part of the slimy “business as usual” club. (Commissioner Sandy Contour, in case you are reading this email, YOU should be paying close attention since many people are watching)

Here is the call to immediate action!!!

The good news is, if Governor Mead hears from enough people like you he could put a stop to this merciless harassment of a Wyoming family.

Even though we know Mead has been on the wrong side on gun issues, surely Mead will stand up in defense against this egregious abuse of power that has been directed against this innocent family.

I pray that Mead would realize that bankrupting this family will only leave long term scars.

This matter is urgent, it cannot wait, it’s not something that can be put-off.

Please contact Governor Mead and ask him to stop this attack that started as a criminal no guns order, and has now turned into a retaliatory act by a out of control prosecutor Eric Jones.

Mead’s office (307) 777-7434
Other contact info here 


The following is an example:

Dear Governor Matt Mead,
I am contacting you on behalf of the Cain family in the Wheatland School district.
Life brings its own hurdles, things like Illness and even surgery can certainly send a family for a loop. But adding salt to the wounds by punishing a family for circumstances out of their control isn’t what the “spirit” of the law is for.
Platte County Prosecutor Eric Jones is retaliating against a Wyoming Family that complied with all prior recommendation by the local school officials, all during  time of documented hardship.
Eric Jones is falsely using low PAWS testing scores, since the entire school numbers have taken a nose dive. Also be aware that the school principal that filed the initial action against this family, was later forced to resign for her own poor performance.
On a side note, similarly when a law enforcement officer is found to be a bad apple, it brings the citations written by that officer under strict scrutiny, sometimes even overturning prior guilty rulings. so should this case be treated.
I pray that you help this family by taking this issue out of the hands of Eric Jones and the heavy handed judge, so this family can go back normal. Twenty days of school absence for a little boy dealing with illness, and on top of that, his father undergoing surgery isn’t who I want my government prosecuting. Let’s save all that for real criminals.
Please help Brandon Cain’s family from being wrongful prosecuted by ruthless prosecutor Eric Jones.
__________________________________________
If after you contact Governor Mead, you would like to also contact Prosecutor Eric Jones, here is his contact info.

Platte County Attorney Office
Eric Jones
307) 322-2045
jones@plattecountywyoming.com

If you’re on Facebook – be sure to go to WyGO’s page and like us. We’ll be publicizing this atrocity on social media as well.

 

  

To Liberty,

Anthony Bouchard
   Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

 

P.S. Prosecutor Eric Jones is going to show a Wheatland family just who the boss is unless you get involved.

Since this family decided that a probation order treating them like felons — including a NO GUNS ORDER — went too far. Since they decided to fight, Eric Jones is now on a mission to get even.

Please call Governor Mead’s office ASAP!

Stand Your Ground, Self Defense, Castle Doctrine, and Get Shot in the Back Laws.

August 7, 2013

The recent tragedy involving Trayvon Williams has sparked a new push by the forces of hoplophobia calling for repeal of what has become known as “Stand Your Ground” Laws. First, let us be clear about this. This was not a stand your ground situation, not at all. It was self defense, pure and simple. It also, despite the best efforts of race hustlers about race. It was about stopping having your head bashed into a sidewalk by an up and coming want to be thug. Could this whole thing have been handled differently? Of course, but that is not the issue being discussed in this post.

What have become known as Stand Your Ground Laws are hated by Trial Attorneys. They can’t turn around and sue people because said people didn’t allow themselves or their families to be shot, stabbed, or clubbed over the head from behind. They fought back against an assailant, these laws fight back against tyranny. They are not preemptive in most cases. There has to be a clear threat. If an attack is under way, then self defense law comes into effect.  Overzealous prosecutors with unbridled ambition have abused those laws countless times. Stand Your Ground Laws were passed in part, to thwart those that have some compelling need to one day have “The Honorable” attached to their names.

Closely related are The Castle Doctrine Laws that have been passed in most locals. While overall violent crime has dropped dramatically these past few decades home invasions have risen steadily. The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend your home without recourse by the forces of evil in the court system. Some states extend that right to your vehicle and campsite as well.

The hoplophobes would have you carried by six. I choose to be judged by twelve…

 

Stand your Ground Laws; George Zimmerman and Travon Martin

July 21, 2013

As I look across this nation at all the protests related to the verdict rendered in the Travon Martin shooting I had to think about all those people from the past that had been imprisoned for properly and effectively defending themselves, a family member, or even an unknown stranger from a ruthless crime.

I watched once as a prosecutor, in Arvada, Colorado, drummed into the jury how a friend “had the duty to run,” when his son was being unmercilessly beaten by three others. To allow his son to be killed in other words. Four years later after he was released from the Department of Corrections I, and many others told him that he had done the right thing. The law be damned!

This was quite a few years ago, and just goes to show that political correctness has been around for longer than I have been living. That said…

George Zimmerman could have easily defused this entire situation simply by holding back and waiting for the police to show up. He could have watched from his vehicle from a distance and monitored Travon’s whereabouts and communicated that to the police.

Nevertheless he did have the right to defend himself when Travon started beating his head into the sidewalk. With deadly force I might add. The Jury agreed with that, and the prosecution, the entire team should be brought up on charges of malicious prosecution. It was in fact that bad.

This tragedy was turned into something else by the race baiters, hucksters, and the main stream media, and continues to do so. What has not happened, at least has not been reported to the best of my knowledge so far? The rioting and such. The race war by The New Black Panthers that would accomplish what so many race hatred groups and individuals have tried to get going in the past, like Charles Manson for one example.

I am very much in favor of Stand Your Ground Laws, Castle Doctrine, and Self Defense laws. I support their expansion, and would be in favor of full rights restoration after a person has proved that they are rehabilitated if convicted of a crime. After all, didn’t we lock them up long enough to pay for their transgressions? If not that is our fault. I am also in favor of laws that would imprison those that seek to abuse our laws by twisting them to push their agenda. Such as media types that knowingly alter evidence. Prosecutors that know, or should have known that they were abusing the law, and any other grand-standers that abuse our system of justice.

Gun Control; What do they really think..?

April 10, 2013

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.
9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.
10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.
Read the rest of this very well written and researched story HERE

2nd amendment and what is comming and why: Guest Commentary

April 2, 2013

This is from a member of a forum that is not usually considered to be a political website. Posted with permission. Edited to fit the format here at WordPress. Hat tip to the vampiresmurfhunter.

 A lot of us don’t know whats going on behind the closed doors of the people that are attacking the 2nd amendment. I said after newton that the firearms debate would be forever changed as the anti firearms people would use that tragedy to push for new laws, and they have. What is not really well known is where these new laws are really going, snippets are getting out, but never covered in the media. What is covered is unfortunately the same line of BS that has been used since this president was elected again, a common sense approach. The problem is that common sense approach is new laws that will do nothing to stop or prevent any crime and they have even admitted to it, in one state down south a city councilmen is pushing through expanded background checks, he admitted that they will do nothing to stop crime, so then the Question becomes, why pass something that will not do anything to fix the problem? The answer is, because that is not what they are trying to do at all. So another Question, what are they trying to do?? Well here we go, Ill explain it below.
  Here is the 3 main anti firearms laws, anti 2nd amendment laws they are trying to pass.
  1. Extended background checks. What this is about is anytime a firearm is transferred from one person to another you have to call and have a background check done, even if youre loaning the firearm to a buddy to hit the range with, if you give your child or a wife a firearm, or if you leave it to someone in a will, it all have to go through the nics background check. What is really funny about this is, the government has already said many times over that the background check system is so messed up and not up to date, that it is almost totally ineffective.
  2. Hi capacity magazines, or anything over 15rnds, 10rnds, or even 7rnds. Why and what is this about? This is all about 3, and of course saving the children from another massacre. Seems to me when a psycho does one of these horrific rampages they have plenty of magazines and plenty of ammo, so there basically prepared. So making a person carry more magazines will not solve this problem, and if you have spent anytime shooting a semi auto then you should be proficient enough to change a magazine without an extended amount of time before you are ready to rock and roll again. These anti firearms people would like the world to believe that the time it takes to make a magazine change is all the time people need to bum rush the person that just unloaded a firearm before he can reload, like we all have superhuman speed while we are ducking for cover and trying to make sure our loved ones are not injured. Yes, that’s the answer, while hes reloading, we will grab our scissors or a stapler and bum rush the guy with the guns, yeup that’s the smart thing to do. Ahh, we all should know that’s a stupid thing to do, youd probably wind up dead doing that, but in some cases it could work, but I would rather shoot back at the person then rush them with my trusty stapler at my side, but if someone ever did subdue someone with a stapler they would want to ban those next as it would then be a proven weapon. This magazine ban is all about control, limiting law abiding Americans from the same equipment that the police have, to make sure that WE THE PEOPLE cannot stand toe to toe with their firepower. 2 comments I can remember being said after NY passed their new firearms laws where these, I would prefer the people had less rounds to shoot, something less then a single shot muzzle loader, but people would say we were taking there guns then. The 2nd comment was made by another NY official that was part of drafting the new laws,,, the original draft of the new laws we passed was for us to have everyone register every firearm they had at home, then after we had our list was to go door to door and confiscate all the firearms, magazines and ammo from everyone in the city. He said in the same interview that was the first draft, but realizing that the people of NY would not go for that, they had to scale it down and slowly work towards that goal, we are not done yet, but this is a stepping stone towards total confiscation of guns in NY and the country. So you can see where the magazine ban was just the first step, they are currently trying to pass a bill to limit the amount of ammo a person can have in their home, and how they are going to go door to door to all registered gun owners to inspect the house and check on how much ammo is present.
 
  3. Assault weapons ban. What this is really about and what it covers in the ban. I have actually posted on this before, Sen. Feinstien, I really hope I spelt her name wrong, I have no respect for her at all, lol. We have tried her assault weapons ban before, it did nothing to curb crime, crime sprees or any mass shootings. The way the law that she continues to push is written is interesting in ways that most people that are not firearms owners, or a person that keeps up on the laws can really grasp or understand, it is so broad that it encompasses just about everything dealing with a firearm. Now there is a lot to say about this, so I am going to try to break it down into a lot of different areas, so make yourself comfortable this will take a bit.
  The assault weapons ban that did pass and has expired was proven to do nothing, but if you ask any anti firearms person about it they will deflect the conversation away from the real information, the real statistics about the number of crimes that really did occur before the ban and during the ban. Why? Because they cannot stand on the real numbers, so they use ones that never existed in fact, but that were projected to happen about 40 years before the assault weapons ban ever existed. The ban did exactly nothing that they sold it on, that is why it was left to expire, probably the one biggest and greatest thing any politicians ever did with a law. It did not turn into a monster that usually happens anytime a law is passed, it failed and they did the right thing for once, they let it die.
  The new assault weapons ban bill. Again this is a Sen. Fienstien idea, right out of her delusional head. This thing is a monster, and the definitions involved in it are so encompassing that it boggles the mind, its hard to find one place to start to attack it because all the parts of it are linked together and it gives peoples headaches trying to explain it, namely me, lol. So lets start with the so called assault rifles, and why sen fienstien is so important. She has drafted what will probably be the definitive ban and all out grab of all firearms, she has stated more than once that her bill is just the start, we have to register all the firearms so we know where to go get them from. So why was that important to the rifle part? the old ban was mainly a twofold situation, one for money, for the tax stamp for a fully auto rifle or pistol, and the second part was the extensive background check and registration of every fully auto firearm in the country. Before this ban was implemented the government had only guesses as to how many there really was, after it was instituted they knew exactly how many law abiding Americans had and who had them. It didn’t really ban anything, but it put a lot of people out of range of buying one, and counted and told them where they were, it was registration in its purest form. It did ban a few things as far as accessories on the firearms themselves. Folding stocks, bayonet lugs, in all just minor things to see how far they could push before we get pissed and say outright NO. this new bill of hers bans everything to do with the furniture of the rifle, iron sites is about all you can have. No scopes, ho holographic sites, so flip up sites, no more rails on the fore end, no folding stocks, no collapsible stocks, somewhere part of the original ban, some of these are add ons for this new bill that the outrage from the newton shooting they think they can get in this time around. Who cares about the furniture on the rifle? Well this then gets into any rifle I’m sure many of you have in the safe or on the wall. Well take a look at what you got and see if you have anything other than iron sites on it, if you do then it would be illegal with the new bill. Certain rifles have been added to the bill by name, make and model; they got really specific about what they were banning in some areas. What are they banning? Scary looking rifles. No really, it’s scary looking rifles. It has nothing to do with what the rifles do, there action, what caliber they shoot, some are actually single shot, it is all about appearance and if it looks scary. Some like the AR family of rifles are on the list because they look like military rifles that are the main reason they give in public. Behind closed doors they have admitted they do not want anyone to own or posses any rifle that the military has or looks like a rifle the military has. So for you hunters out there that use anything in the AR family, it doesn’t matter what caliber it is, what you hunt with it, it is on the list. It was probably on the list already because of the furniture you have on it. Ok the next part of the rifle ban, you got anything that’s in .223? well that is illegal under the bill as well. Now there is a few exceptions to that, a single shot breach loader, or a box magazine that holds 5rnds or less, it might be 4rnds or less. I haven’t heard much on this part other then firearms manufactures are trying to figure out a way to redesign the box mags to meet this part of the law. For those with a magazine well inside the stock, your rifle would be illegal and there is nothing you can do about it except turn it in. again your rifle would probably be illegal anyways because you would have a scope on it. Start to see why this is so mind boggling to try to explain the frigging complexity of this bill? Lol. One of my favorites of this bill was muzzle loaders, a few of them were put on the list of banned firearms. Why? Because some are 50cal, yup just because of their caliber.
 

Ok now for the important part of this, now that you know all of your rifles would be illegal under the assault weapons amendment to this package of crap there trying to pass. The assault weapons part was dropped from the main part of the new guns laws they are trying to pass because they felt it would hurt them from getting enhanced background checks and the hi capacity magazines ban passed. They have said they don’t have the votes to pass it as part of the main bill, so they will add it as an amendment. That means they will put everything they have at the first 2 and get them passed hell or high water. We cannot allow any enhanced background checks, and we cannot allow a hi capacity magazine ban. Joe biden just said it the other day in a speech, this is just the beginning. In other words, they are going to keep adding, we gave an inch and they will take a mile behind closed doors. This amendment they will have to vote on, they know it will fail, but they want to see who’s on their side, who is right on the edge of voting for it, who will not vote for it because there about to face an election year, and who will vote for it knowing they have an election coming up they may lose. Their testing the waters to see who’s on their side.
  Ok the handgun part; I love this part because it is pretty simple. You can do nothing to change a pistol from the factory; it has to be factory original. Absolutely nothing the military uses can be on the pistol, you cannot change the recoil spring, cannot change the grips, cannot put on night sites, cannot put on a flash light, no trigger jobs (same for rifles too), no hi cap mags, if it originally came with double stack mags you have to get single stacks for it, they added a special part to the bill after seeing a YouTube video, so no race springs, no race holsters. See how ridiculous this is getting. Funny thing here, they outlawed the 50cal rnd for rifles, but it also applies to handguns too because the person that wrote that part didn’t know that you don’t shoot a 50bmg from a pistol, so as the law stands, no 50cal pistol. Heres a funnier part, they recognized there error and said, who needs a 50cal pistol? Who do they think they are Arnold Schwarzenegger (Ok I cannot spell his name but they did say his name when rationalizing this part to keep it in). so there rational for no-one having a 50cal handgun was a movie star, nothing to do with hunting bores, hogs, I know some do some big game hunting with pistols, but they don’t matter because a movie star decided this. Well not personally, just his character in movies did. Can you start to see the mentality of the people who are writing this stuff? They don’t know what they’re talking about, they just want to save the kids, it’s all for the kids. Remember that line; you will start to see more of it, a lot more of it.
 
  Well ok what does all of this mean? Well it is for our safety, it is for the kids, it is to lower the crime rates, to stop the mass murders, and it is for all those things. So if it is for all of those things? How can every anti firearms person all agree that this will do nothing to lower crime rates or make anyone safer? See they all say we have to do these things now, if it just saves one child, or stops just one mass murder spree, anything, but we must do something. They know what they are doing, it is why we have the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment, they can’t get around that pesky 2nd amendment thing. I hope some read the post I made a bit back about the history of the 2nd amendment and why our forefathers put it in our Constitution. At the end of the day all of these laws lead and only lead to confiscation, they have said so many times. You have to listen to what they say and how they say it. They have changed the words, the definitions, and how they say things as they need to, they need to always make it bad, to confuse the general public about what they are talking about. If I’m loosing you here no worries, just follow me for a minute and it will make sense.
  I think the best way of describing this is to think of obamacare, every promise made was an absolute lie, but more than that was the fact that everything said was actually the opposite when it was finally read. The something will happen with the gun debate, you hit them with facts and they ignore you, or say your facts are wrong and only there’s count. We can see the progression of this with the language, first it was hi capacity clips, now they have learned because all of us that know something about firearms were laughing at them because a clip is totally different then a magazine. So now they have changed the terms to say magazines, but it’s hi capacity clips and magazines, I still laugh about that. It was AR type rifles after newton, now to help scare the people; it is military style weapons of war. Some of you may have noticed how the new catch phrase is; weapons of war do not belong on the streets of America. They pull numbers of deaths by firearms almost out of thin air, but when challenged on the real facts of their numbers they run and hide, totally dismiss all the facts about the numbers they use. Here is a little tip on how to always shred the argument that America’s gun violence is the highest or 2nd highest in the world. Break down the number they toss out there, they always use the number of all deaths by firearms. They never break it down by, actidental discharge, murders, gang on gang shootings, rifles, shotguns, hand guns, or police shootings. The last one there is important because it accounts for just about 1/3 to half of shootings. Self defense shootings or justifiable shootings take up another huge part as well. When you break down their own numbers they will always dismiss it, news rarely mentions the actual facts of where the numbers come from or how they are broken down, they need the fear for those that don’t know the facts and refuse to educate themselves about what is going on. For them it is simple, politicians said it is bad, it’s for the kids, these are weapons of war and we don’t need them on our streets, we must act now, we cannot forget about the kids, etc, you will hear these lines more and more as well as the Newton brought up more and more before they vote on this bill.
 

These things are all parts of a larger push to register all firearms, the start of that is the expanded background check, which is the way to find all firearms in the country, it may take a few years, but eventually they will have a complete list, then they can come and take them. Notice the assault weapons bill, I did not want to type all of that, but I had to. I had to tell you all everything that was being defined in that bill, so you can see where the registry begins. Everything you own is in that bill in some way or another, everything will be registered and they will know what you have and where you live. Hi cap mags, that is just another way to take something from us, to show they have control and we are sheep. Bear posted a story we all should read, it is about a man that sent an email to a rep in his state about the 2nd amendment and that states own Constitution, and the laws that would be broken if they passed any gun laws or even voted for them from the federal gov. the reply the man got had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and the rep actually threatened the mans life, if you haven’t read that story, you should.
  Lastly and most importantly, gotta tell a story first so you’ll know where I am coming from on this. On 2-23 I went to a pro firearms, pro 2nd amendment rally here where I live. It was supposed to be a warm day so everyone was dressed for basically a day at the park lol. Well it was snowing and cold as all get out and no-one was dressed for that, not even the congressman that showed up to give a speech. After his speech the rally broke up, but the congressman was still there talking to a small group of people, I went and joined that conver and talked to him and the 7-8 others for over an hour, freezing our butts off, hands and fingers were turning blue, it was cold. So whats the point here? He said to send emails to your reps, to call them all, bug them daily with phone calls and emails telling them you support the 2nd amendment and to pass no new firearms laws. He said that phone calls and emails really do matter and in a lot of ways that’s how their offices judge what the people want them to do. So your voice must be heard in those ways, they do matter and it does work. So please, even if you have a pro firearms rep, call them and say thank you, keep up the good work on the 2nd and keeping my rights.

  If nothing else I hope you all learned something about the attacks that are taking place on the 2nd amendment, these are going to be back door deals that you will never hear about on the news, but this is what is coming, the vice pres said it best, there is more to come, this is just the beginning, and if you want to go to jail follow his advice about shotguns for home defense, lol.

~snip~

This was from a person that is not normally politically active, and if people like that are thinking this way? This nation is in for one hell of a roller coaster ride. One that will be anything but pleasant I might add.

 

 

Trafficking Bill Passes Out of Judiciary Committee

March 8, 2013

Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical: HEROS

February 24, 2013

Ever since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has rabidly pursued all manner of unconstitutional gun control legislation. Federal, state and local, the NeoComs stop at nothing to deprive us of our unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. Yet all is not lost as long as we stand firm.

The National Institute of Justice, the research branch of the Justice Department, recently leaked a memo evaluating many of the White House’s preferred gun control measures. For example, the NIJ says that Dianne Feinstein‘s defensive weapons ban is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence” because — wait for it — those firearms “are not a major contributor to gun crime.” Therefore, concludes the NIJ, in order for a ban to be effective, it would have to include no exemptions and be paired with a mandatory buyback program.

Notably, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) just introduced legislation to impose a 10 percent tax on concealable firearms, aiming to fund a federal buyback with the revenue collected.

The NIJ reaches similar conclusions about magazine capacity limits, which would be ineffective while exempting currently owned magazines, and universal background checks, which won’t work without national gun registration because criminals use straw purchasers or steal weapons in order to avoid background checks.

The question is, will Obama and the NeoComs pursue NIJ’s recommended “fixes” to their obviously flawed plans?

While movement has temporarily slowed at the federal level, the states are busy enacting their own draconian gun restrictions. In Colorado, House Democrats passed four anti-gun bills including outlawing concealed carry on college campuses (more on that below), requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

As we noted last week, Magpul, maker of the popular PMAG magazine for AR-15 platform weapons, plans to carry through with its threat to leave the state because of the mag cap limit. Democrats tried offering them an exemption to manufacture their magazines in-state as long as they didn’t sell them there, but Magpul wisely didn’t take the bait. “If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here,” said Doug Smith, Magpul’s chief operating officer. The move would take $85 million and hundreds of jobs from Colorado.

In Washington, a bill is in the works with a requirement to “safely and securely store” any legally owned “assault weapons.” It would also provide sheriffs with the power to, “no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance,” upon penalty of up to one year in jail.

Maryland Democrats seek to ban “possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” That goes beyond Feinstein’s federal ban proposal in that it also bans “possessing.” Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 may possess ammunition, meaning they also can’t hunt. Things aren’t going well in the Used-to-Be Free State.

New York, an early adopter of unconstitutional restrictions post-Newtown, isn’t done. Democrats introduced a bill to require that all gun owners in New York “obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” Failing this, a gun owner will face “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm. Privilege? Our copy of the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of New York, numerous gun manufacturers and sellers are refusing to sell to law enforcement officers or government agencies anything that can’t be legally bought by the average citizen. This move applies to any other state that bans weapons or magazines while making exceptions for law enforcement officers. So far, none of the big three law enforcement suppliers — Smith & Wesson, Glock and Sig Sauer — have joined the effort, but Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical and several others have announced the policy change.

We greatly respect and appreciate our nation’s law enforcement officers, but if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer. And if civilians can’t own modern muskets, police shouldn’t either. Civilians and law enforcement personnel are fellow citizens, not subjects.

State news isn’t all bad, however. Ten states have proposed legislation to preempt federal gun bans and protect lawful gun owners. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have all proposed legislation to protect firearms made and kept within their borders. Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Tennessee have already passed such laws.

Finally, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks state guns bans will reach the Court. We agree, and we don’t doubt Scalia is itching to reiterate that the Court meant what it said in its Heller and McDonald rulings, and that the Second Amendment also means what it says.

During the debate in Colorado about concealed carry on campus, Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar explained why women don’t need guns for self-defense against would-be rapists: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Hot Air’s Mary Katherine Ham retorted, “Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment!”

Never fear, the University of Colorado posted some safety tips for avoiding rape, including “kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.” Failing that, “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” They conclude, “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Well, unless you decide carrying a firearm is appropriate. Call boxes, whistles and vomiting are peachy ideas, but a handgun would be far better. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Another legislator, Democrat State Senator Jesse Ulaberri, contended that people don’t need guns for self-defense because that just leads to a “whole crossfire.” And besides, the people in Tucson “stood up to defend themselves … and they did it with ball point pens.”

These are the people who think they know what’s best for you.

The Patriot Post

Wyoming Poised to Stand up to Federal Bans on Most Guns

February 15, 2013
Law Enforcement Torch Run_IMG_2879

Law Enforcement Torch Run_IMG_2879 (Photo credit: CBP Photography)

At a time when Barack Obama is pushing legislation to ban millions of shotguns, rifles and handguns that Americans legally own — and possibly 100% of all magazines of whatever size — the Wyoming House recently said “no” to Obama’s gun control.
By a vote of 46-to-13, the state House passed House Bill 104, which would:
(1) Prohibit Wyoming law enforcement from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun bans with respect to semi-autos or Wyoming intrastate guns;
(2) Prohibit federal law enforcement from pursuing its unconstitutional ban in Wyoming; and
(3) Allow the state attorney general to defend Wyoming residents unconstitutionally persecuted by the federal government.
The ability of Wyoming to resist unconstitutional federal actions has always been important.
But now, with Obama legislation on the table which would ban most guns –- although Obama won’t admit it -– it becomes critical.
ACTION:  Contact your state senator.  Ask him to support House Bill 104.
HOW TO CONTACT/WRITE YOUR STATE SENATOR:
  1. Go to – http://capwiz.com/gunowners/state/main/?state=WY&view=myofficials
  2. Enter your zip code in the box provided under “enter your zip code”
  3. Scroll down past the alerts till you find “Governor and State Legislators” (on the right) and there are your state senators.
  4. Click on the name of the desired senator
  5. Click on the “contact” tab.
  6. Click on the “<name of Senator> by email”, this will bring up a webmail form. Then, take the pre-written letter below and cut-n-paste this into the editable text box on the page.
  7. Fill out the sender information
  8. Click “Send Message” (blue button at the bottom)
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Senator:
At a time when Barack Obama is pushing legislation to ban millions of shotguns, rifles and handguns that Americans legally own — and possibly 100% of all magazines of whatever size — the Wyoming House recently said “no” to Obama’s gun control.
By a vote of 46-to-13, the state House passed House Bill 104, which would (1) prohibit Wyoming law enforcement from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun bans with respect to semi-autos or Wyoming intrastate guns, (2) prohibit federal law enforcement from pursuing its unconstitutional ban in Wyoming, and (3) allow the state attorney general to defend Wyoming residents unconstitutionally persecuted by the federal government.
The ability of Wyoming to resist unconstitutional federal actions has always been important.
But now, with Obama legislation on the table which would ban most guns –- although Obama won’t admit it -– it becomes critical.
Therefore, I am asking you to support House Bill 104.  Please let me know about your position on this critical legislation.
Sincerely,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: