Gun rights protected, criminals prosecuted An alternative to a gun control bill

GOCRA Posted: 06 Mar 2013 07:42 PM PST   Today, DFL Representative Debra Hilstrom and a bipartisan coalition of legislators and sheriffs introduced a new bill which will address the very real issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, without infringing on the rights of law abiding Minnesota gun owners. Republican Rep. Tony Cornish, the House’s leader on gun rights, joined Hilstrom at the press conference to speak in favor of the bill. Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson, Press conference YouTube video View the press conference on YouTube The bill’s co-authors comprise more than half of the representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, in the Minnesota House. There were so many authors that Rep. Hilstrom had to introduce three identical bills to fit the names of all the co-authors! HF1323 focuses on forcing government departments to quickly and accurately report criminal convictions and mental health and chemical abuse commitment data to the state and federal background check systems. The bill also add a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership for perpetrators of certain violent domestic felonies, and makes it easier for counties to prosecute the straw purchasers that the federal government won’t. GOCRA is proud to have worked with Rep. Hilstrom, Rep. Cornish and the NRA to craft real solutions to real problems. The bill has been referred to Rep. Michael Paymar’s Public Safety committee. Unfortunately, Rep. Paymar has suggested that he won’t give the bill a hearing, preferring instead his own bill, HF237, which includes many infringements of your rights, including universal registration disguised as background checks. Please call and email Rep. Paymar, and insist that HF1323 be heard without delay. Representative Michael Paymar (DFL) – Chairman 651-296-4199 E-mail: rep.michael.paymar@house.mn The bill will also need a Senate companion bill. Please call YOUR senator and ask him/her to sign on as an author of this important legislation. We’ll have more later, including a breakdown of every element of the new bill. Please forward this email to gun owners and civil rights supporters, and ask them to sign up at http://www.gocra.org/join.html

My guns and spoons are a danger to law abiding citizens

  Author unknown  

______________________________________________________________

Today I swung my front door wide open  and placed my Stevens 320 right in the doorway.  I gave it 6 shells, and  noticing that it had no legs, even placed it in my wheelchair to help it  get around.

I then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the  neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog  down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign right in  front of our house.  After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn’t rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise,  with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it’s the misuse of guns by PEOPLE  that kills people, or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

Alright, well I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.

TS Radio: Minnesotans for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms

Join us today February 22nd, 2013 at 4:00pm CST!

2:00 pmPST … 3:00p pmMST …4:00 pmCST … 5:00 pmEST

Listen live HERE!

Minnesota: Universal Gun Registration Bill – Hearings Thursday and Friday

The most dangerous bill this session is not a magazine ban, or an “assault weapon” ban. It’s universal registration, masquerading as “universal background checks.”

It’s called SF 458, and it will be heard on THURSDAY at the state capitol. GOCRA will be there to fight it. Will you?

SF 458, among other faults, would make you a criminal, punishable with up to a year in jail, if you buy or sell a pistol or cosmetically frightening rifle without doing the transfer through a licensed dealer (who will charge you $25 to make a permanent record for the federal government) or without the buyer getting a purchase permit (for which the police chief or sheriff will charge another $25).

Of course, these costly “background checks” won’t stop criminals from stealing guns, buying them on the street, or from sending their girlfriends and sisters (who have clean criminal records) into gun stores to buy the guns for them.

That’s because, of course, criminals don’t obey laws.

The gun banners know this any step to make guns harder to own and easier to take away is a win for them.

Whether you can come to the hearings or not, email and call your Minnesota senator and representative and tell them you won’t stand for it.

It’s time to let your voice be heard at the Minnesota Capitol!

We need you to once again show the Minnesota Legislature that real Minnesotans oppose infringements on Second Amendment rights!

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Ron Latz, a consistent voice against gun rights, has scheduled three hearings next week to discuss the numerous gun control bills introduced this session. They hearing times are:

Thursday, Feb. 21, Noon to 2:30 p.m.

Thursday, Feb. 21, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Friday, Feb. 22, Noon to 6:00 p.m.

While Senator Latz delayed public announcement of these hearings until Wednesday night, he apparently tipped off anti-rights groups early Wednesday morning!

We don’t know yet which bills will be heard when, but there are plenty of bad bills to go around.

We will watch the committee schedule for any last minute changes.

Please call and email members of the committee and urge them to OPPOSE infringement of your rights:

New York fights back against 2nd Amendment infringement

 

In Albany, New York, officials were confronted by 2nd Amendment advocates.  Realizing that the recently passed legislation infringed on their constitutional rights, these guys stood up and talked back!

One very important question was asked by one man in the crowd:

IF, as Bloomberg has said, these guns are weapons of war, why do the police have them?  Who are they at war with?

DFL’er Alice Hausman launches an ex post facto attack on gun rights

Marti Oakley        copyright ©2013

Follow @MartiOakley

____________________________________________________________

Below is the video of Alice Hausman DFL, 22A, MN, delivering her opening attack on the 2nd Amendment in the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee of 2/6/13.  Sighting gun deaths from countries such as Japan which does not have the right to keep and bear arms, Hausman makes no reference to that fact that these countries are defenseless while the US citizens have more than 500 million privately owned guns.  Or, that gun deaths in the countries she alludes to are usually the result of government attacks.  Furthermore, I know of no one on either side who is remotely concerned with what are most likely fictionalized stats from other countries.  After all I doubt few of the countries she mentions keep actual tally’s on the number of people the governments execute routinely.  Obviously, our own government doesn’t keep any records either and they have empowered themselves to kill us for any, or no reason at all.

The remainder of Hausman’s remarks are nothing more than a re-hash of UN Global Small Arms Treaty mandates which OBama is desperate to implement.

As Hausman concludes her attack on the 2nd Amendment, she quickly folds up her tent and scurries from the room, leaving her lobbyist to listen to public comments….AS DID EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT.

For some reason, violating the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, as well as your 4th and 5th Amendments in addition to the gross infringement on the 2nd Amendment is okay…….but staying to face the people whose rights you are violating knowing that you your self have violated the very premise under which you were elected is too much to ask.  Cowards are like that.

From Powerline

Under the Democrats’ legislation, no one can buy or possess an “assault weapon” in Minnesota. If you already own one as of February 1, you can keep it. But you have to register it, and give the state permission to inspect your home–which is the only place you can keep the “assault weapon”–to make sure you are storing it properly, and undergo annual background checks. You can’t sell the firearm or give it away, and when you die, your heirs are required to either destroy it or “surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction.” So the statute represents a ban, followed by confiscation.

If people actually read the bills, especially HF 241-244 they will find out it actually turns many lawful gun owners into felons. HF 241 calls for registration and annual back ground checks and home inspections, by force if necessary.

So how many of you are willing to comply? And why is no one moving to recall this woman from office?

Minnesota H.F. 419: Declaring federal laws restricting gun rights unenforceable

www.nationalgunrights.org

(Graphic by MrConservative.com)

Despite this week’s assault on your gun rights, there is some good news.

At least a few Minnesota lawmakers are standing up to protect your right to keep and bear arms.

State Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-21B) and 17 co-sponsors have introduced a bill — H.F. 419 — that would declare any new federal laws or executive orders restricting your Second Amendment rights unenforceable in Minnesota.

Unfortunately, this bill will go before the very same anti-gun Public Safety committee that is pushing forward with the largest assault on your gun rights in state history.

Five State Representatives — hell bent on destroying your right to keep and bear arms — even got up and walked out before opponents could speak against the anti-gun bills during yesterday’s hearings.

Since they refused to listen to you, it’s now up to you to give them an earful.

Call them at 651-296-2146 or scroll to the email below for their direct contact info.

Demand they apologize for ignoring Minnesota gun owners. Tell them to abandon their anti-gun agenda then schedule a hearing for H.F. 419 and pass it immediately!

Then when you are done, please thank Representative Steve Drazkowski at rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn for standing up for your Second Amendment rights.

To kill the 2nd Amendment: The overthrow of the Constitutional Republic

Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

________________________________________________________________________

It was with a great deal of sadness and disappointment that I viewed clips of Obama shilling for the United Nations Global Small Arms Treaty (ban) and even more disappointing to see police officers and sheriffs lined up behind him as he smiled and sold his attack on the 2nd Amendment.  I predicted back before the election that the UN Small Arms Treaty would be shelved until after the election, only to make sure Obama didn’t get a political black eye that might have turned the tide against him.  Sandy Hook made the perfect opportunity to bring UN Small Arms mandates out into the public after the election. But you are not supposed to realize that the Obama wish list for gun control and eventual confiscation comes right out of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

With most all the gun owners of America poised and ready to fight back against any infringement on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, Obama appeared in Minnesota Monday claiming that the NRA members support his attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Uh….no they don’t! And neither do the majority of us out here who don’t even own a gun.  All the fake public polls, all the talking points delivered via MSM, will not change the fact that as Americans, we are well aware of the federal governments historical desire to disarm us.

Minnesota DFL’er Alice Hausman: Busy Trashing the 2nd Amendment

Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

__________________________________________________________________

In my humble opinion, the failure of Representative Alice Hausman (DFL)MN, and other elected officials to honor their oaths of office, to defend the Constitutions, both state and federal, is grounds for recall from office.

Representative Hausman has helped author a bill which is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.  This bill also calls for the violation of due process and establishes police powers far beyond the scope of law.  The last thing any of our communities need is the aggrandizement of power in local law enforcement now that they are under Homeland Security control and exist as para-military organizations, and no longer exist to protect and serve their communities.

Ms Hausman, like so many others in the legislature, is apparently oblivious to standing laws, SCOTUS rulings and the Constitution.  Apparently believing that due to her office, these issues should not concern her, Hausman has authored one of the most egregious assaults on the 2nd Amendment.  Neither does Ms Hausman seem to understand that it is illegal to try to pass ex post facto laws and that just because she does not adhere to any sense of law, does not mean that the rest of us lose our rights.

What it should mean is that she automatically is unseated and removed from office for failing to act in defense of her district and for willingly and knowingly violating her oath of office.  At the very least, Hausman and others are guilty of malfeasance of office:

mal·fea·sance

/mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA

noun Law.

the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).

___________________________________________________________________

Authored by  anti-gun St. Paul State Representative Alice Hausman, H.F. 241  would:

*** Ban the sale, transfer, possession and  manufacturing of ALL semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine and at  least one “characteristic” — which means just about anything that makes a  gun “look scary.”
(This includes rifles AND  pistols!)

Minnesota DFL’ers begin 2nd Amendment assault

Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

_________________________________________________________

“I have no doubt that chapstick is being widely used today by those we elected in the Minnesota legislature, in preparation for Monday’s lovefest with Obama .  Maybe someone will think to pass out knee pads, also.”

_________________________________________________________________________

In anticipation of the appearance of King Obama on Monday, February 4th, four DFL’ers here in Minnesota submitted their [coincidentally identical to Obama’s]  proposed legislation that infringes on the 2nd Amendment.  Not only have these people decided that they are not constrained by the Constitution for the United States, Supreme Court rulings or any other lawful obstacle to infringing on the 2nd, they also seem to have forgotten the oath they swore upon taking office declaring that they would defend that Constitution.

Republicans had this same selective amnesia during the Bush/Cheney Crime Administration and worked tirelessly to strike down not only our rights, but the Constitution in total.

Sec. 8. Oath of office.

Each member and officer of the legislature before entering upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability.

Apparently, judgment and ability is in short supply in the Minnesota House and Senate.  What a surprise!

SF 235: Modifying the lawful possession of firearms

This bill is on the hotlist of bills in Minnesota and is an ex post facto law.

Ron Latz, the DFL senator from District 46, appears to have no knowledge whatsoever about the 2nd Amendment or previous SCOTUS rulings or even the state constitution and also appears to be suffering from selective amnesia with regards to that oath of office he and several other DFL’er’s took.

Gun control state by state

On Monday, Obama is to appear in what is billed as a public meeting (that really isn’t unless you support his desires) in the Minnesota legislature.  Once there, his mere presence will cause the bending of many legislative knees, and from this position, that great sucking sound you will hear will be the result of numerous legislative lips, both Democrat and Republican, puckering in supplication and submission as he promotes his state-by-state efforts to pass the beginnings of gun banning and confiscation. 

Guns v Vioxx: Murder is ok if you are big pharma

Marti Oakley (c) copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

____________________________________________________________________

Where is your outrage over the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year that result from FDA approved and declared safe, pharmaceuticals?  Where is your outrage and your demand for change regarding the drugging of our children and the elderly: many to the point of death.  Why are you not outraged over the use of psychotropic medications that cause suicidal and/or homicidal ideation in children deemed too young to be forced onto these drugs, and what is referred to as brainstorms that cause aggressive, violent and psychotic behavior?  Why are you not outraged and demanding change over the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year from the use of known toxic pharmaceuticals?

__________________________________________________________

With sheriff’s across the country lining up, drawing a constitutional line in the proverbial sand, this will be an all out power struggle to retain the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.   Homeland Security Terrorism Department is arming itself to the teeth in preparation for what can only be a potential attack on America; we need to preserve our 2nd Amendment.

What is missing from the gun debate?

Just imagine for a moment, that congress and the president and all his czars and UN buddies had to publicly acknowledge the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries caused by toxic pharmaceuticals each year!  All approved safe and effective by the FDA!

Gun deaths accounted for in the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 ,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms.  Its unfortunate that we cannot get the FBI to do a Uniform Deadly Medication Report.

Total 2006-2010 deaths: 270,827 and, 1,702,973 serious injuries from toxic pharmaceuticals as reported on DrugWarFact.org , taken from the AERS [FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System] Patient Outcomes by Year Causes of Death   (See graph below)

Guns vs Vioxx !!

In the period between 2001 and 2004, Vioxx, manufactured by Merck killed a hundred thousand individuals.  Actually the death toll from Vioxx is still rolling.

Conservative writer and activist Ron Unz  has concluded that data indicate that the death toll from Vioxx was closer to 500,000 just in 2004.

What?  No fake public polls saying the public was in favor of Vioxx control?

Did no one think to print up t-shirts with the slogan “I don’t want to be Vioxx’ed”?

Wounded Knee….Lessons to be learned

  We were unable to determine who the actual author of this piece was, initially.  If anyone knows who was the original author please send that info along so that we can appropriately credit this piece.

**************************************************************************************************

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heros” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

2013: The end of freedom rings

Marti Oakley (c) copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

________________________________________________________________

I have spent several days saying “Happy New Year” to people who have called from all over the country.  It is a hollow and meaningless greeting.  Without exception, everyone I have spoken with realizes that 2013 will be the year that the official end of the formerly free nation known as the United States, will occur.   I have not spoken to one person who holds out any hope that congress or the president will act to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the fifty states.  They haven’t got the time.  They are far too busy assembling the police state and preparing to displace the population of the US with illegal immigrants, and removing any right to self-defense, even against government.

That oath they all take says that they will defend the US from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  The problem with this lies in the fact that the enemy we need to fear most is right here inside the gates. We have looked the enemy in the eye……and looking back at us was successive traitorous presidents and one collection after another of supposed elected officials we call senators and representatives who have actively and brazenly betrayed us as a nation while threatening us with terrorism from groups and individuals that either they can’t identify or won’t identify. The terrorists we need to fear are collecting paychecks at our expense.

Will all the traitors please stand up and identify yourselves?

UN Small Arms Treaty & Obama’s six-point plan for global war

Marti Oakley     © Copyright 2012     All Rights Reserved  **See Reservations below.

Follow @MartiOakley_______________________________________________________________________

A war of lies on a global scale

Most Americans have their eye on the UN Small Arms Treaty; a treaty intended to circumvent our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  The backlash against this treasonous treaty is massive, not only because it is a direct assault on the 2nd Amendment and our right to defend ourselves against an increasingly tyrannical government, but because it also is the final act in handing over control of our military to a foreign government: the United Nations.  This submission of US military forces to UN control was exposed in the recent testimonies of Panetta and Dempsey in front of the Senate committee, claiming they go to the UN for approval for war, not to congress.

The absolute silence from the Senate committee members regarding this claim, and the subsequent refusal and failure of the Senators to have  Panetta and Dempsey immediately arrested and charged with treason, spoke volumes about who and what these Senators actually represent.  To have this declaration of subordination to the UN expressed by these two jackasses was then followed up by Hillary Clinton joining the fray at the UN on the Small Arms Treaty.

Hillary Clinton has said she will sign the treaty, although she has no constitutional authority to do so, and Obama has said he will second that signing, also an act of treason, not to mention unconstitutional. Supposedly, the treaty can then be handed over to the State department for enforcement, bypassing the Constitutional requirement that any such treaty be ratified by the Senate.  The problem is, it would not be a constitutionally recognized treaty and would not be the supreme law of the land trumping states laws and rights, but it will be sold to the public as if it is and all your state officials will submit your state to it.

The UN Small Arms Treaty: Negotiating with an enemy

Marti Oakley     © Copyright 2012     All Rights Reserved  **See Reservations below.

 Follow @MartiOakley_______________________________________________________________________

On May 3rd, 1994, then President Clinton signed Presidential Directive 25 (PDD-25).  This directive placed US military commanders under the jurisdiction of the United Nations if the UN was conducting an action of some kind, anywhere.  The actual text of the directive remains sealed and classified.

PDD25 was originally written as PDD-13.  The re-write of PPD-13 and conversion to PDD-25 was needed to exclude a disclaimer from General Colin Powell, the 1993 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  This disclaimer made certain that US commanders would not have to comply with UN orders which were:

• Outside the mandate of the mission or,
• illegal under US law or,
• militarily imprudent or unsound.

PDD-25 of course, removed these provisions.

#25 also makes no distinction as to where UN meddling might be taking place, and no provision was included to exclude any actions by the UN within the geographical United States.  What may keep the UN and its “peacekeeping forces” out of the US is that if they show up here, they will not get a glowing reception.  No one would be happy to see them and we would not greet them with flowers and garlands, nor would we cheer their arrival.  It is however, a distinct possibility that they would be greeted with massive amounts of fireworks.  And that appears to be a long-standing concern for those dedicated to disarming the world so that only they and their armies have weapons.  It makes overtaking one country after another so much easier if you are the only one who is armed.

The 1946 battle of Athens, Tennessee…How veterans broke up a criminal government

Marti Oakley

Follow @MartiOakley

___________________________________________________________________

In 1946 the political corruption in McGinn County Tennessee was staggering.  A sheriff, a state senator and their followers had stormed the local post office, taking the locked voters ballot boxes as residents attempted to hold an election free from fraud.  What happened next is history.  Local veterans banded together and laid seige to the county jail where the sheriff and senator and various deputies had taken the ballot boxes to prevent any outcome that did not put them back in office.  In the gun battle that followed, the veterans were victorious.  It may be instances like this that cause Homeland Security to fear our returning veterans, labeling them [possible domestic terrorists]. Paranoia will do that to you.  Imagine fighting in those wars of aggression and then coming home and being treated suspiciously by the same government that sent you to war.

This is a 13 minute trailer on the “made for TV” movie, but it is inspiring in its content.  It just might help some of us understand why the 2nd Amendment is so vital to our survival.  It was the veterans who fought back against the corruption in Tennessee in 1946.

In England and Australia: banning guns

  John Boering

As one man in this video says: “once they start gun registration, they now know where your guns are and what you have.”  Once they ban one kind of gun, they will follow with more bans and eventually show up at your door to take all of your guns. Brittain and Australia began banning guns with the promise of a safer public.  As was predictable, a black market boomed and criminals of all stripes armed themselves. 

For decades, our own government has sought ways and reasons to ban guns.  Only a government fearful of its own people tries to disarm them. 

This video should be a wakeup call to America. 

Americans better pay attention and listen good!

Click here to view: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=X8kN-lcW_Nk

Dangerous Anti-government Revolutionaries!!!

Milo Nickels

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Six incidences in two years?  SIX?!?!  Of all the thousands upon thousands of violent crimes, murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, and atrocities that happened in America in the last two years, is Sullivan implying that these six are somehow symptomatic of a grand problem or a major threat”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Activist Post

Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy.  Quite the contrary.  Anti-government sentiment signifies attentiveness, understanding, and a love of liberty.  If you truly value freedom, then you absolutely must distrust and despise government with every fiber of your being.  Why?  Government has no ability, whatsoever, to give freedom to anyone.  Government can only take freedoms away.  Our founding fathers fully understood this fundamental truth.  They did not view government as a potential source of good, but as a necessary evil.  Although they understood that limited government would be necessary to protect individual citizens from each other, they also understood that the Constitution would be necessary to protect all citizens from the government.  Our founding fathers knew that if they did not restrain the government with the constitution, then nothing would stop it from taking all of our liberties away.  This is simply the nature of the beast.

The Ruthie Report: With BOB LESMEISTER

7/22/10

Please join me this week for

THE RUTHIE REPORT

(Click here)

http://www.BlogTalkRadio.com/TheRuthieReport

8:00 pm CST  

SPECIAL GUEST:   

BOB LESMEISTER of the Second Amendment Foundation and National Correspondent for The NEW Gun Week

www.gunweek.com

Bob’s Bio Below 

We will be discussing his recent article

“Sanctuary city honchos target guns but ‘comfort’ illegal aliens” 

other issues and items pertaining to illegal immigration and the Second Amendment

PEOPLE ASK WHY I CARRY A GUN!

 

author unknown (but obviously brilliant)    

My old grandpa said to me

 “Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.”

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.

I carry a gun to keep from being killed.  

Got ammo? Using the border drug wars to justify striking down the 2nd Amendment

 

 Marti Oakley (c)Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

_______________________________

“With the weaponry the military now has at its disposal, believe me, the last thing they are concerned with is you having what amounts to a flyswatter against what they have and intend to use should the opportunity arise.”

______________________________

I was amazed..sort of….to see Obama on TV recently speaking about the critical situation on our southern border.  According to the President one of the most critical issues that must be addressed is the smuggling of guns into Mexico from the US. 

Oregon man: confined to a mental hospital for purchasing firearms

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/Outrage.html

                          OUTRAGE!

“David broke no law. He committed no crime and threatened no one. Yet, with no warrant and no probable cause, David was dragged off into the night by heavily armed troops with no legal authority to do so and he was given none of the protections a common thief would get from the legal system.”

________________________________________

Imagine your telephone ringing in the middle of the night.  The caller informs you that he is a police officer. He wants to “get you the help and appropriate resources you need.” But wait, you have not asked for any help, don’t need any help, and certainly don’t want this “help” in the middle of the night.

Why The Gun In Civilization? “An armed society is a polite society.”

This article seems to have originated in 2007, but the original source and author seem to be somewhat of a mystery.  We have tracked back more than a dozen links all producing various authors names, but were unable to firmly identify who the actual and true author was.  Whoever you are….all credit is due you for this article.  Marti________________

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

Mexican drug cartels buying weapons from around the world: Far easier than running the border with a load

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved 

______________________________________

While our Border Patrol and law enforcement agencies along the southern border are attacked on a daily basis by drug cartels and others, our government sits idly by and does virtually nothing. Jim DeMint’s recent attempt to pass legislation to finish the fence was rejected; this while American citizens are kidnapped, tortured, harassed and terrorized and murdered in the war that is escalating on our southern border. 

Eric Holder, our current Attorney General, like all his predecessors, has refused to perform his duty under Title 8 of the USC and defend the border.  Instead our border agents and law enforcement are prohibited from taking any action in defense of that border, even as they and the communities around them are attacked in life threatening situations.   

The State Department and other government talking heads, along with a dutifully controlled and compliant MSM (for morons) continues its propaganda about how the cartels are armed with weapons supposedly purchased from gun dealers along the border or, that they are being bought off the streets elsewhere in the US and shipped down to Mexico.

2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii

By Sam Slom, 5/12/2010

Hawaii Reporter:  Gov. Linda Lingle today signed into law two important bills preserving 2nd Amendment rights passed by the recently adjourned 25th Hawaii State Legislature.

SB 358, SD1, HD2, which I introduced, is now known as (Act 96). This bill establishes provisions relating to prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster, suspension of permit or license. Prohibits any person or government entity to seize or confiscate, under any civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any civil defense emergency period, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, any firearm or ammunition and permit or license of any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State.

S 2820 “Preserving Records of Terrorists & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009″

Live Link:  AXxiom for Liberty

S 2820 “Preserving Records of Terrorists & Criminal Transactions Act of 2009″    “Its not a work of art” says King    

Senate Hearing Promotes Anti-American Watchlist Bills   Friday, May 07, 2010 

Excerpted:
“On Tuesday, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Lieberman held a hearing to give Lautenberg and King the opportunity to promote their bills S.1317 and H.R.2159, to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist,” and Lautenberg’s S. 2820, to maintain records of approved instant background check transactions for a minimum of 180 days. The watchlist bills further propose that a person seeking relief in court  from these new restrictions would be prevented from examining and challenging “evidence” against him, and that the judge deciding whether the person had been watchlisted for good reason be limited to summaries and redacted versions of such “evidence.”  

READ MORE

US gun owners: redefining legal gun owners as terror suspects: S.2820

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 __________________________________

S.2820 Protect act of 2009, introduced December 1, 2009 in the Senate is co-sponsored by Senators, Lautenberg, Schumer, Levin, Reed, Feinstein, and Whitehouse.  Stating their supposed political party affiliation is non-relevant; Each are members of the federal corporate government, and this bill is their effort to begin the process of disarming the American public using the terrorism/national security rationale which is the now common Ace –in-the-hole when the intent is to really screw the American people out of their Constitutional rights and liberties.

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Submitted by: J.S. Rugg

While you were watching the oil spill, H. Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.  This is one of the things Sheriff Mack has been telling people about.

“What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that permits firearms and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.

We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. “

_______________________________________ 

Read the Article:  

Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states

Live Link: Southcoasttoday.com

By Brian Fraga

bfraga@s-t.com

March 11, 2010 12:00 AM

The right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, so Massachusetts can regulate who can have firearms and how those weapons are to be stored, the state’s high court ruled Wednesday.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously dismissed two challenges to the state’s gun laws that require citizens to register with police departments before acquiring a firearm, as well as keeping guns stored in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock.

The court upheld the conviction of Nathaniel DePina, a New Bedford man who is serving a two-year jail sentence for carrying an illegal firearm. His lawyer, Paul Patten of Fall River, challenged the conviction on the grounds that the state’s gun licensing laws were unconstitutional.

The Dick Act of 1902 can’t be repealed…gun control forbidden

The National Expositor

American News – The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Dear Concerned American,

With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

This is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia.

I’m writing you to make sure American citizens are prepared to oppose this assault on our national sovereignty and right to keep and bear arms.

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment – Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

“When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.”

____________________________________________

10th Amendment Center – Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” (FFA) for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95).

While the FFA’s title focuses on gun regulations, it has far more to do with the federal violations of the commerce clause, which D.C. has used as an excuse to prohibit and regulate everything from wheat, to marijuana to guns.

If passed, the bill would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Wyoming joins 21 other states considering similar legislation – including New Hampshire, Virginia and Missouri.

Citizen Petitioning for the Constitutional right of redress: If Only!!

 by: Marti Oakley (c) 2010 All rights reserved

“You have condoned and encouraged the suppression of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to be secure in our papers, persons and property and these assaults on our freedom are non-stop.  From every corner, from every possible venue you attack us.  You create false crises’ and false remedies all the while threatening us with attacks from someone “over there” when it is you we need to fear. 

_________________________________________________

I would like to demand the presence of every senator, every representative so that I may enumerate my grievances while looking you in your faces, and for as much time as I may consume……and of course…… for other purposes.

Please be seated and end all your conversations; the doors are locked and you will not be allowed to meander outside chattering in your attempts to display your contempt for my presence here today.  Now sit down, shut your mouths and listen!

Now that all of you are seated I intend to bring to your attention many of the issues, the policies and laws that have been implemented by both your chambers, by both of the two major parties that have aggravated me greatly along with millions of other Americans.  You refused to listen when we called your offices; you cast aside without looking at, the petitions we heaped upon your desks with millions of signatures demanding that you not proceed with some piece of political quackery, and you proceeded to act as if you owed no amount of loyalty or concern to the people whose lives your actions were going to affect directly and immediately.  Today, I will attempt to highlight some of the most egregious actions having occurred in the last eight years and continuing into this new administration. 

2nd Amendment rights? I believe we do!

USA TODAY is conducting a poll determining whether we, as sovereign and free people, believe we have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Did they even really have to ask? 

Click on the link and vote ….

USATODAY.com – Quick Question

“NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES”

They knew even back as far as 1992 and in many cases even years earlier what the Federal Reserve was doing to destroy our Country.  And yet they allow this to continue……………………………..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES (House of Representatives – May 04, 1992)

 

[Page: H2889]

 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized for 60 minutes.

 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue on the subject matters that I have been discussing for some years, but with particular relevancy on two major concerns as a Member and also now as the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. This could be said to be about thievery in high places, national and international.

 

Before I go into that I want to sum up, for the sake of understanding and clarity, the limitations as well as the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. I also happen to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development.

The average citizen, and I would almost hazard to say the average Member of Congress, and not members of these committees in either the House or the Senate, would conclude that the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs has jurisdiction on matters that would seem obvious and commonsense to have jurisdiction, but we do not. As a matter of fact, there are areas of activity that I think the average citizen who reads his Constitution would absolutely conclude that the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House had jurisdiction, but it does not. Such things, for instance, as the constitutional mandate–not a privilege, it is a mandate–that the Congress control the purse, Treasury; that it also set and determine the value of its coinage or currency, as we say nowadays.

However, that is not really so, through a variety of things that I have discussed on prior occasions and only will sum up; for example, in the matter of affixing the value of the money and coins thereof, that was long abdicated by the Congress after the passage of the Federal Reserve Board Act of 1913 and the creation within the activities of that board of such a thing as the Open Market Committee.

Another anti-gun bill from the anti-gun extremists HR 2159

HR 2159

---

Another anti-gun bill from the anti-gun extremists

---

by David S
(libertarian)
Saturday, May 9, 2009

HR 2159 is another bill from the anti-gun extremists. It says;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.r.02159:

“The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

In other words if the Attorney General suspects that you are a terrorist then he can deny you the right to buy a gun. There is no trial and no due process of law. So not only does this bill violate the second amendment, it also violates the fifth and sixth amendments.

The author of this bill and the cosponsors all took an oath to support the constitution. And yet here they are happily proposing to violate it left and right. In my opinion that should be ample reason for removing them from office.

But there are other troubling aspects to this bill. If second amendment rights can be removed in this manner what about other rights. Could your first amendment right of free speech be revoked because you might be using it to conspire with others to commit acts of terrorism? Could your fourth amendment right to privacy be taken because you might have something dangerous on your person or your property?

This bill stinks to high heaven. All Americans should contact their representatives and tell them this bill must not pass.

Progressive View of Gun Rights: 2A All the Way.

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2A-All-the-Way-by-Rady-Ananda-090419-216.html

 by Rady Ananda 

Because this essay sparked strong reaction, OEN owner Rob Kall has convinced me that I could better make my case for Second Amendment advocacy if I clarified my politics: I am a progressive populist. As a progressive, I value, work toward, and believe in an ever-expanding recognition of equality for all peoples. I have no tolerance for intolerance. Owning personal firearms levels the playing field somewhat for those most vulnerable to abuse: women, the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped.  I’m a populist because I feel no allegiance to or from elites. Instead, I fear the vast expansion of governmental power over the past decade, at the expense of the Rule of Law, and at the expense of basic human rights — particularly the 800-year-old Magna Carta provision for habeas corpus. 2A advocacy is an egalitarian issue. ~ RA

 (Excerpted from the full article at  www.opednews.com)

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Gun rights are neither liberal nor conservative, feminist nor patriarchal, Democrat nor Republican, Left nor Right. Gun rights are populist at their core, in defense against government tyranny at their widest application, and in self-defense at their most personal application.  

The debate over gun rights is vast and well-documented. The basic arguments for an armed citizenry are:

  

To maintain political order and prevent tyranny;

To protect community from outside invasion;

Personal defense and crime prevention; and

Sport and hunting.

The basic arguments against an armed populace ignore history or adopt a Pollyanna view toward government. Plenty of folks, on the Right and on the Left, and those in-between, recognize the value of preventive armament. We recognize that bipartisan-passed legislation over the past nine years strips US citizens of their sovereignty and destroys the Bill of Rights. (All this legislation, because it’s unconstitutional, is void, in my non-legal opinion.) 

Some history – Jews and Other Genocides

In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first U.S. city to ban the possession of firearms. Next came Evanston, Illinois, which passed a similar ordinance without controversy.  But when the measure was proposed in nearby Skokie, it was soundly defeated.  Skokie, populated by Holocaust survivors, knew the merits of personal armament and the dangers of its lack. (Alderman and Kennedy)  

Some researchers took this argument on a survey of seven nations that committed genocide in the 20th century, determining that in each instance, citizens were legislatively disarmed prior to their mass extermination by their government.  In Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide, the authors demonstrated that these nations that perpetrated genocide had chosen a victim population which was disarmed.  If the intended victims were not already gun-free, then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they began the killing. 

READ MORE

The Supreme Court & the NRA’s Response

According to an article posted by Ohioans for Concealed Carry (June 28, 2008), written by Daniel White (NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling), The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Chicago to overturn their gun ban laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “decision,” last week, about the Second Amendment.

The San Francisco suit is brought under a ficticious pseudonym in order to protect the identity of the plaintiff, a gay man living in public housing.

On the surface, these actions seem to be a righteous response to the so-called “victory” for the Second Amendment – which is not a victory at all (see my article, What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means). Of course, this is by design, to project the continued camouflage the NRA needs in order to conceal the fact it has been working for gun control, not against it, for years. This is revealed in the language of the court document itself, which states:

“This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 to vindicate the rights of law abiding, responsible San Francisco residents and residents of public housing to keep firearms as guaranteed by Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to keep firearms in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.” (emphasis mine)

There are a few things wrong with this wording that you need to be alerted to, and which will make clear the NRA’s subterfuge. First is the term “law-abiding” or “law-abiding adults.” If the Constitution – not the several unconstitutional gun-control laws on the books – is the law of the land (as it is supposed to be), then the only law governing gun ownership that anyone need “abide” by is the Second Amendment of the Constitution itself, which clearly states that “…the right of the people [not some specified sub-set of the people, but all of the people] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What does this mean? It means that the Constitution makes no distinctions about who has the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it make any distinctions about what type of weaponry the term “arms” is supposed to denote, nor does it make any distinctions as to under what circumstances or in what locations a person may keep or bear arms. It is clear the founders intended that the absolute right of everyone to keep whatever weapons they wanted to and to be able to freely carry them as they see fit – anywhere, any time – is an existing right that the government may not regulate, curtail or remove in any way. Why? Because this right is fundamental to protecting us from a tyrannical government and, of course, if that very same government has the power to confiscate our means of protecting our lives and liberty, then our free republic as we know it is finished.

So, it is evident, then, that the NRA’s supposedly indignant defense of the right to keep and bear arms is not any such thing at all. It is, in fact, a smoke screen, a diversion to make us believe that the NRA is standing up for our rights, when, in fact, it is playing right into the government’s hands (and quite deliberately, as it has been infiltrated and subverted by those who seek to eliminate gun ownership) by acknowledging the very same “reasonable limitations” the Supreme Court spoke of last week when it rendered its decision (which was, in itself, an unconstitutional act, as it violates the court’s constitutional limitations of power).

The fact is, everyone has an unalienable right to possess whatever weapons they deem necessary to defend themselves with and there are to be no restrictions of this of any kind. That is the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment. To allow anything short of this is a direct violation of the Constitution.

 

What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means

Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment – the first of its kind in our history – has been hailed in the corporate media as a “victory” for the Second Amendment and its defenders. It is anything but. In fact, it is a resounding defeat of our constitutionally gauranteed right to defend our lives and liberty from an increasingly despotic government.

When the founders wrote the Second Amendment, their intent was clear: in order that we, the people, may be able to ensure the future of our liberty, we must have the means to defend our most basic and fundamental of all rights: the right to life.

Much obfuscatory ado has been made about the language of the amendment being “confusing,” and to the majority of today’s dumbed down public, it probably is. However, for anyone with the ability to think critically, the language is clear enough. The main point of the amendment is stated quite clearly in its second clause, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The preceding verbiage is really irrelevant to an understanding of what the amendment says.

One has only to consider that the Constitution was written, not to grant rights to the people and the states, nor to enumerate all of those rights, but to spell out the limitations of the government’s powers. It does so by clearly listing several existing rights that were recognized by the founders as necessary conditions of human life and that, among these is the right to keep and bear arms. Once one understands the purpose of the document, its “interpretation” is no mystery at all: the government cannot, under any circumstances, infringe upon the rights outlined and those left open to us by the Tenth Amendment.

By merely “considering” the Second Amendment and ruling on it, the Supreme Court has violated the very spirit, if not the exact letter of the Constitution, itself. The Constitution is the founding document of our nation, the only written guarantee we have of our freedom in the face of a corrupt and tyrannical government. For the Supreme Court to even assume that it has the power to revise, alter, or even reconsider what the Constitution says is, on its face, an act of high treason. By doing so, they have said, in effect, that the Constitution is null and void and that they will tell us what the law is.

The Supreme Court is not the law of the land – the Constitution is. It was intended to be followed to the letter, used as a guide by the court to determine whether any law or action is allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. That is the sole duty and responsibility of the Supreme Court and its own powers are also limited by the Constitution.

Having said all that, there is no way this “decision” – made in smoke filled corporate boardrooms, the White House and Congress and then handed down to the court as its instructions – is in any way a “victory” for the people. The actual language used by the court in rendering its opinion says that, while it acknowledges the people do have an individual right to own firearms, the court has added the terms, “within reasonable limitations.”

Let that sink in for a moment. What this really means is that, yes, you do have the right to own a gun, but the government will tell you under what conditions you can own and use it. It does nothing to strike down the existing plethora of gun control laws that have been accumulating on the books since 1933, and because it doesn’t, it also doesn’t really strike down the so-called D.C. handgun ban, as the media would have us believe. Think about it. If they have left the door open for further regulation, then the ban – being regulation, itself – does not “infringe” on your Second Amendment right, according to the Supreme Court’s twisted logic.

In other words, now that they have told us that further regulation of gun ownership is part of what the Second Amendment really means, then, by their interpretation, further regulation of any kind and to any extent or degree they choose to force upon us will be perfectly “constitutional.” After all, the Supreme Court has said so and who are we to question its infinite wisdom?

So, the end result of this devastating ruling is that, not only will our fundamental right to defend ourselves continue to be whittled away until it no longer is recognized at all, but so will all the other rights our constitution protects, now that the legal precedent has been set to allow the Supreme Court to dictate to us what the Constitution really means.