J. B. Kasper-Outdoors

The Second Amendment

ATF and EPA quietly working on gun control with ammunition bans
Liberty Alliance, February 20, 2015

About a year and a half ago, we wrote a story about the closing of the Doe Run lead smelting facility, the last primary lead smelter in the U.S. and whether this was a “backdoor effort” to control guns. After all, no lead means no ammunition, which means your gun becomes about as lethal as a ball-peen hammer.
Naturally, we were roundly attacked by leftists who said that was ridiculous, because most ammunition comes from secondary lead, and there’s still plenty of that around.
Unless of course lead is banned.
On a related theme, we wrote yesterday about how the FCC and FEC are preparing a noose to tighten around our First Amendment rights.
Now we find out the EPA and FTA may be doing the same on the Second.
Writing for the National Review, Kevin Williamson provides a detailed explanation of how that might occur.
It all starts in 1986, when “Congress revised the Gun Control Act, inserting prohibitions against the manufacture and import of “armor-piercing ammunition.” Armor-piercing ammunition does not mean ammunition designed to defeat body armor — that would be too simple. It means, most broadly, ammunition that could defeat the soft body armor of the sort that was cutting edge in the 1980s.”
This ammunition was made of certain materials (tungsten alloys, steel, etc.) that could also be fired from a handgun.
The aim (pun intended) was to ban ammunition for the much-maligned AR-15 (mainly the .223 caliber) to therefore control the AR-15. However, the ATF provided exemptions for “single shot handguns” (which can accept certain rifle cartridges) and certain other “sporting exemptions.”
At the same time, environmentally-minded hunters and manufacturers have been looking for alternatives to lead-based bullets because they can poison animals who may ingest them – such as the California Condor. Williamson writes, “these non-lead bullets made of steel or alloys are not designed to pierce body armor; they’re designed to keep unnecessary lead out of the environment and out of the alimentary canals of wild animals. But their composition means that they can be classified as armor-piercing rounds, if the feds can find an excuse to do so.”
And they can.
You see, many people prefer a short-barreled rifle for home defense, and are using the AR-15 for that purpose. But they get around additional taxation and required permits for short-barreled rifles by removing the shoulder stock. Voila! It’s a multi-shot handgun. But that’s also verboten.
So the ATF is intending to revoke the sporting exemption for certain kinds of non-lead .223 ammunition, allowing it to be classified as armor-piercing.
Does that mean everyone can just go back to using lead ammo? Nope!
Williamson says “environmental groups have been pressuring the EPA to begin regulating — or to ban outright — lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They lost their most recent round when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate lead ammunition, but when has statutory authority stopped the Obama administration? The FCC has no statutory authority to enact net-neutrality rules — that’s why it has reached back to a 1930s, New Deal–era law for justification. You can be sure that the campaign to use the EPA or other federal agencies to ban lead ammunition is far from over. The U.S. Humane Society already is petitioning the Interior Department to ban lead ammunition on public lands.”
So there you are. The ATF will ban non-lead ammunition as “armor-piercing” and a threat to police officers, and the EPA will ban lead ammunition as a toxin.
Better stock up folks (like you haven’t been already).
BAD IDEA: Mall Doubles Down on Gun Ban, In Spite of Terror Threat
Clashdaily, February 25, 2015

Gun free zone with terrorist threats? I think online shopping is sounding like a really good idea. Todd Starnes talks about the ridiculous gun ban despite the terrorist threats facing the Mall of America.
Read the transcript below:
Hello, I’m Todd Starnes.
There may or may not be a terrorist attack at the Mall of America. But the Obama Administration says don’t let that stop you from heading on down to the Pottery Barn.
The warning comes after the terror group Al Shabaab released an online video calling for attacks on western shopping centers. These are the same Islamic Radicals responsible for a deadly attack on a Kenyan mall in 2013.
So what better time for the Mall of America to remind shoppers about their gun ban? Because the last thing you want when the bad guys start blowing stuff up is a pistol-packing clerk at the Shoe Carnival.
Here’s what Minnesota State Representative Tony Cornish had to say about the gun policy:
“The situation with the mall of America is completely ridiculous. It is just the opposite of what they should be doing. If we’re threatened with an attack of any kind, the last thing you ever  want to do is disarm citizens.”
Industry Happenings
Outdoor Wire, February 22, 2015

With the announcement that the dockworkers on the west coast have reached a tentative agreement between their union and their bosses, there's a sigh of relief being heaved across the manufacturing sector.
Despite campaigns to the contrary, a large number of products everyone presumes to have been made in the U.S.A. aren't. They're assembled in the U.S.A. but a portion of their internal components may have come from almost anywhere. And many of "anywhere's" component parts have apparently either been bobbing offshore in idled container ships or sitting idled in shipping containers caught in the "slowdown" in this latest battle between union and management.
I've been told that somewhere between the coast of California and the horizon, there are also millions of rounds of ammunition that were caught up in that labor dispute. But the question of how much they may help alleviate continuing shortages in the supply of several popular calibers like 5.56/.223 still remains to be seen.
Should the ATF reclassify surplus -and widely used- M855 and SS109 ammunition as armor-piercing - it would then be illegal for consumer consumption. Ditto the manufacture, distribution or resale of that ammunition. In other words, it might as well stay offshore permanently if the ATF is allowed to make the change.
This weekend, we received word that apparently many gun owners didn't find this to be a compelling reason to record their objections with the federal government. With only a few days remaining in the ATF's solicitation of comments, fewer than 6,000 shooters have registered their displeasure with the proposal.
That, as one of my least-favorite instructors used to say, is simply unacceptable. So, too, is the ATF's description of criminals as one of the "consumer groups" that is a prime consumer of the ammunition they seek to ban. Since we've rolled out the answers to those ridiculous claims before, I won't keep beating up on that straw argument. Criminals still don't care about the rules; it's why their called "criminals".And we received a note over the weekend seeking to clarify what appears to be misperception regarding the brace built by Sig Sauer for shooters who would have a difficult time grasping one of today's AR-style pistols.
Rather than paraphrase their position, here's the verbatim info:
SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces.
BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product "which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol." SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter's experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.
So there you have it on that one- it's still legal-until you decide to use it as a pseudo-stock. At that point, you apparently have created two things: 1) a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) as defined by ATF regulations and, 2) the potential for a huge problem between yourself and the ATF over said mis-usage.
Now you know where the ATF stands on a couple of things...it's time for you to let them know where you stand on their proposed changes regarding their "reclassification" of the affordable -and currently attainable - "green tip" ammo.
Until March 16, 2015, the ATF's still accepting public comments on their proposed reclassification. And you still have time to make your opposition known. If you're unable to use anything but email (Washington puts a much higher emphasis on faxed or mailed comments) you can use APAcomments@atf.gov.

Oppose 5.56 M855 Ball Ammunition Ban
NSSF, February 17, 2015

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced it is seeking to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." ATF is seeking public comment on the proposal, so all industry employees, target shooters and gun owners should contact ATF to oppose this unnecessary ban, which is truly a solution in search of a problem and that raises serious questions about executive agency attitude and overreach. Stopped cold on Capitol Hill, this action appears to be the Obama administration's attempt to pursue gun control by other means.
Commonly available steel-core, "green tip" M855 and SS109 rifle ammunition that is primarily intended and regularly used for "sporting purposes," like target shooting, has been exempt from federal law banning armor piercing ammunition for decades. There is no question that the 5.56 ball ammo has been in wide use by law abiding American citizens for sporting purposes.
It is with the increasing prevalence of handgun versions of rifle platforms, that ATF now apparently sees an opening to now ban the widely used M855 and SS109 ammunition.
It would be legally permissible to continue to possess and use so-defined "armor piercing" ammunition currently possessed. However, rescinding the decades-old exemption will have a major impact. It will become illegal to manufacture, import, distribute or sell at retail this very popular rifle target ammunition.
ATF's proposed "framework" for applying the "sporting purpose" exemption test rewrites the law passed by Congress to disregard the manufacturer's intention that a projectile or cartridge is "primarily intended for a supporting purpose." ATF inappropriately places the focus on how criminals might misuse sporting ammunition in a handgun.
Just as disturbing, language used by ATF in its long white paper refers to criminals as a "consumer group." The implication that the industry purposely sells firearms and ammunition to criminals is misleading and echoes the shopworn charges of the gun control lobby.
Manufacturers will face serious limitations in their ability to develop and market alternative ammunition in other popular hunting rounds, such as .308 rifle hunting ammunition, if ATF's so-called "framework" is adopted. This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide, especially in California where a total ban on traditional ammunition for hunting is being phased in now.
ATF is soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while "minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety". Under the proposed framework, 30-06 M2AP cartridges would continue to be exempt because there are no multi-shot handguns generally available that accept such ammunition.
The proposal is useless since standard lead-only 5.56 ammunition is "armor piercing" simply due to the round's velocity. Rifles in this caliber, or any caliber for that matter, are rarely used in crimes.
ATF will accept comments on this proposal until March 16, 2015. Email or write ATF today and tell them you oppose this unnecessary, misguided and damaging ban on commonly used ammunition for America's most popular sporting rifles.
Ammo Ban - the New Liberal Plan to Push Gun Control
Eagle Rising, 17 February 2015 
So the Obama administration can't get what it wants in place by taking things head on, as demonstrated in the delicious defeat it faced following the Sandy Hook incident and subsequent pretended legislation that fell flat on its face. Now, the administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under B. Todd Jones, is unconstitutionally considering a ban on the M855 AR-15 round by categorizing it as "armor piercing."
According to the ATF:
To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of "armor piercing ammunition" as defined by the statute. The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes." Interpreting the meaning of this statutory language, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has developed a framework that will apply to requests seeking a determination that certain projectiles qualify for this "sporting purpose" exemption. The framework is intended to uphold the requirements of the statute and its goal of protecting law enforcement while respecting the interests of sportsmen and the industry. This notice is provided to ensure that the regulated industry and members of the public understand the statute and relevant legislative history, and have an opportunity to review and provide comments or suggestions on the proposed framework. It is important to note that only projectiles that meet the statutory definition of "armor piercing" – i.e., those made out of the specific listed materials that may be used in a handgun – are subject to the statutory restrictions. As a result, manufacturers are, and will continue to be, free to manufacture projectiles from non-restricted materials, completely independent of the application of this framework or any exemptions. ATF will accept comments for 30 days from the date this notification, which will be considered prior to finalizing the framework.
Hmmm, interpretation, eh? How about interpreting the Second Amendment's "Shall not be infringed" statement. For any federal official that is reading this, it simply means you have been given no authority in the area of arms by the people you serve. That would include any and all ammunition to be used by those arms. The ATF, however, goes to great lengths citing history and legislation, but never once do they deal with the specific restriction of infringement cited in the Second Amendment.
Take a look at what the ATF is proposing. Sadly, the agency thinks it has the constitutional authority to determine what ammunition is to be used by the military and what is to be deemed for "sporting." Notice that the Second Amendment says nothing about "sporting," but it speaks of militia, the ability to keep a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In fact, our Constitution gives no authority to even have an ATF! They are unelected bureaucrats seeking to impose non-law upon America citizens.
If the Obama administration can't come for your guns directly, they'll target your high-capacity magazines and ammo.
The National Rifle Association spoke out on this move by the ATF on Friday. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action wrote:
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ammo-300x169.jpg
ammoIn a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." The decision continues Obama's use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn't even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated "manufacturing" of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered "pistol." Now, BATFE has released a "Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are 'Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes' Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)", which would eliminate M855's exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium." Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it "may be used in a handgun." It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered "armor piercing." Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be "armor piercing ammunition," but granted it an exemption as a projectile "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."
However, the benevolent dictators in the ATF added:
Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles
A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.
Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles
guncontrolliarExcept as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a "sporting purposes" exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.
Consider that this is the same agency that threatened whistleblowers, trafficked weapons across the US/Mexico border to aid Mexican drug cartels and subsequently use the move to impose more gun control legislation, which would lead to more gun confiscation in the US.
Katie Pavlich comments with some questions I had:
A few questions come to mind as this new proposal gets more attention. 1) Why now? 2) Is "armor piercing" .223 ammunition really being used at epidemic rates against our law enforcement officers? The answer is no.
Over the years, pro-gun control, big city police chiefs have argued that "assault weapons" are the main firearm being faced by law enforcement officers everyday. That just isn't true. In fact, when Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2013, he grossly misled the country when he said his officers were regularly facing this type of firepower in the streets. As I reported at the time:
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gunviolent-300x190.jpg
gunviolentAfter the hearing Johnson told reporters, "Police officers face these weapons either in seizure cases or crimes of violence everyday. Dozens of police officers have lost their lives due to an assault weapon and a criminal adversary."
According to a Baltimore County Police Department report obtained and requested by Townhall, Johnson misled the public with his statement about assault weapons seizures. Townhall requested detailed documentation of weapons retrieved by Baltimore County Police Officers between October 1, 2012 and January 30, 2013, the day of Johnson's testimony. The department provided data from September 28, 2012 through February 5, 2013. The report not only shows that firearms aren't being seized on the streets "everyday" in Baltimore County, but that assault weapons in particular are hardly ever found in criminal seizures.
Out of approximately 600 guns seized only 26 of them were assault weapons under the Clinton era definition, of which included AR-15s, a few AKs/SKSs and a TEC-22. Less than 5 percent of guns seized in Baltimore County are assault weapons, despite Chief Johnson's statement to the press and implied statements before Congress.
So, now the ATF is "considering" things for 30 days before imposing their illegal ban, something that is not part of law. Remember, only Congress has legislative power, not the Executive Branch, and the Federal Congress has been given no authority in this matter. Want to let your voice be heard in this matter? Here's your opportunity and the contact information:
ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202)
Realistic Gun T-Shirts Have Good Intentions but Dangerous Risks
Last Resistence, February 16, 2015

Paul Liebe has started selling realistic gun T-shirts from his Colorado business, Nitelife Billiards. The T-shirts, with realistic prints of guns in holsters, are designed to be conversation-starters about the second amendment:
    “Freedom of speech, it’s your right, and it just has a little kick on the side,” Liebe said.
    Among the cue balls and pool sticks are open carry custom shirts sporting a realistic gun in holster and shoulder strap that make it appear the person wearing it is carrying openly.
    Liebe says the shirts started as friendly gifts around town, but soon orders started coming in from all over the country. Now they have gone global with boxes of orders stacking up.
They also come with a warning about how to wear the realistic gun T-shirts. Police, according to the warning, are likely to overreact to the T-shirts. You think? The warning mentions the obvious: Don’t reach for the printed gun or put your hand near it when confronted by police, and listen to and comply with all police orders.
These seem like no-brainers. And they bring up the obvious question: Are these realistic gun T-shirts even worth the risk? Sure, they’re cute. And they’re not illegal, yet. But why not just actually carry a weapon? And is it even a terribly good idea to open carry? It makes people unnecessarily uncomfortable around you in many cases. It puts police on super high alert. And it could make you a target for gang violence and the like.
This is especially the case since most open carry laws prohibit having a loaded firearm unless the carrier also has a concealed carry permit. If you already have a concealed carry permit, it seems like a better idea to just conceal your loaded weapon.
So, at the end of the day, these realistic gun T-shirts seem to have all the controversy and risks of open carrying without any of the benefits. They may make a statement, but it’s not one that seems terribly prudent given the risks.
Blumenauer’s Gun Confiscation Con Seeks to Make Doctors Expert Gun Advisers
Patriot Update, February 16, 2015

The circus never ends in Washington, DC. Ringling Brothers/Barnum and Bailey missed a golden opportunity to tap into the “clown” show of the elected officials that make up the House and Senate. Case in point is the “clown” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Blumenauer has introduced his “Enough is Enough” plan that calls for “‘more research on the health effects of guns.'”
According to CNSnews.com:
Blumenauer’s “Enough is Enough” plan looks back to how the U. S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.
“The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns,” according to the plan.
First of all, many in America could save the “researchers and the federal government” millions of dollars when it comes to the “health effects of guns.” Guns have no bearing on the health of the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country. Gun owners are not eating bullets or ingesting any part of a gun. So, in comparing guns to tobacco, that should answer that question.
‘Beware of New Jersey’: 72-Year-Old Man Facing 10 Years in Prison Over a Gun — but Not Just Any Gun
Patriot Update, Feb. 16, 2015

He had an unloaded antique 300-year-old flintlock pistol in his glove compartment, and he told a sheriff’s deputy about it.
That was his undoing.
Gordon van Gilder admits he may have run afoul of the law — but, “as a wise man once said, if that’s the law, the law is an ass.”
The retired teacher is facing a possible 10 years in prison — and the jeopardization of his pension — all because New Jersey state law classifies antique firearms the same way it classifies regular guns, meaning the state views van Gilder’s possession of an antique on par with him possessing a .44 Magnum.
The day after van Gilder told a deputy during a routine traffic stop about his antique gun, four law enforcement officers showed up at his house to arrest him.
Van Gilder said he’s fighting the felony gun possession charges, but the whole experience has soured his impression of the Garden State.
“Beware of New Jersey,” he told the National Rifle Association. “Don’t come here. Don’t live here.
Oregon Democrat Wants Research on “Health Effect of Guns”
Last Resistence, February 17, 2015

Oregon Democrat Representative Earl Blumenauer thinks guns are a health risk like tobacco. In the same way that doctors would encourage their patients to stop smoking, doctors should be able to question their patients about guns and make “appropriate” recommendations. CNS News reported:
Blumenauer’s “Enough is Enough” plan looks back to how the U.S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.
“The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns,” according to the plan.
The plan also increases the role of doctors and nurses in the debate on guns. “Our doctors and nurses should be part of the efforts to increase gun safety. Just as your physician would encourage you to stop smoking, or to put your child in a car seat, they should be able to ask questions and give advice about guns. People know and trust their doctors; when doctors encourage safe gun practices, people listen,” the plan says.
His plan also uses Australia as the bright, shining example of what gun bans can do to curb “gun violence.” Watch this 6 ½ minute video to see what happened in the “land down under” when law-abiding citizens were forced to give up their guns. Here are some highlights:
    Armed robberies up by 69%
    Assaults with guns up by 28%
    Gun murders up by 19%
    Home invasions up by 21%
ATF To Ban AR-15 Ammo
Conservative Byte, February 15, 2015

Outrageous. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The federal government is violating the constitution and must be stopped.
Check it out:
In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.     
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
Pennsylvania Town Signs:  This is Not a Gun-Free Zone
Last Resistence, February 12, 2015

What do you think would be more likely to deter a criminal: a sign that reads “This is a gun-free zone,” or one that reads, “This is not a gun-free zone”?
I think it’s pretty obvious that if a criminal is given the option, he’d much rather go to a place where there aren’t people who can defend themselves. He’d rather go to a “gun-free zone.”
Whether this sign will help the crime rate go down (or stay down) in this Pennsylvania Township remains to be seen. But I think if they’re going to post any signs about guns, this is the one to use. Breitbart reported:
Pennsylvania’s Conoy Township has posted anti-gun control signs throughout the township that read, “Welcome To Conoy Township: This Is Not A Gun Free Zone.”
The goal is to let criminals know they will not find a township full of empty homes or sitting ducks.
According to Ammoland.com, “Police in the township aren’t taking a position on the signs themselves, but say they’re for anything that deters crime.”
Undergirding the decision to post the signs is the observation that “whenever criminals are made aware of the possibility of resistance, they tend to look for easier targets.”
Dave Kopel has explained this in scholarship that shows the lengths to which burglars will go to avoid contact with homeowners in America. In “Lawyers, Cops, and Burglars” he writes:
It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology text book explains, “Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success.” Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. But this happy fact, so taken for granted in the U.S., is not universal.
The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.
In the U.S., would-be victims are likely armed, but that’s not so in Canada. That’s a contributor to the differing crime rates.
Conoy Township hopes criminals will take note.
This goes for businesses, schools, movie theaters, etc. If these places had signs posted stating that they’re not gun-free establishments, I think that would have an effect on how often they’re targeted by armed robbers or murderers.
Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country
Patriotupdate, February 13, 2015

Have gun will travel, Check it out:
Gun owners with legal permits would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under a bill introduced in the Senate — a measure that previously came just three votes shy of passage in a Democratic-controlled chamber.
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act “operates more or less like a driver’s license,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told The Hill about the measure introduced Thursday.
“So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states.”

NRA: Gabby Giffords’ Gun Control Group is “Just Making Stuff Up”
 Patriot Update, February 7, 2015

Former congresswoman and gun control poster girl Gabby Giffords’ gun control group has been caught doing what all gun control groups do: Lying.
Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization operated by Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, recently made some absolutely ridiculous claims. ARS made the knowingly deceptive claim that “2015 will be the first year young Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than from car accidents.”
According to the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action:
The gun control supporters at Americans for Responsible Solutions ought to rename their group Anti-Gunners for Irresponsible Statistics after the bogus claim they made this week about the number of firearm and car accident deaths among young people each year. The group claimed that there are more than 30,000 firearm-related deaths, plus more than 30,000 car accident deaths among young people each year.

Racist Bloomberg and Crony Come Out and Say Guns Are Only For Whites
Tony Oliva. Feb 9, 2015

In a couple of the more incredibly honest moments from gun controllers, Former Mayor of NYC Michael Bloomberg and his ally, former Allentown city council member Michael Donovan have stated rather succinctly their views on race and gun control.
At the Aspen Institute last week Michael Bloomberg was asked about education and spun the question directly into promoting gun control.
    Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive.
So…even if you are of legal age, area  law abiding citizen but live in a city and happen to be black or hispanic or something that Bloomberg views as a minority, he thinks the government should deny you your 2nd Amendment rights.  A right that might actually SAVE your life against some criminal with ill intent.
There was someone else who felt almost EXACTLY the same way some 80 years ago.  Ironically THAT dictator would have a problem with someone named BLOOMBERG having a gun.
Not to be outdone, in Pennsylvania, radical gun control zealot, Bloomberg supporter and apparent racist Michael Donovan echoes Bloomberg’s sentiment.  Donovan was a former city council member of Allentown who supported the illegal city ordinance requiring residents to report their lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours or face prison time.
Now that the state has taken the steps to reign in these rogue cities, Donovan has voiced his opinion about to whom gun control is REALLY directed:
    “Allentown is the third largest city in the state. It is claiming a renaissance for wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to join the fight against this law.”
First off, if Donovan wasn’t a Democrat and said that we need gun rights to protect wealthy, white individuals the lamestream media would have made this a national story and would have made calls to have him burned at the stake.
Alas, apparently its socially acceptable to be racist so long as you are a Democrat and in favor of gun control.
I mean seriously, on one hand you have Bloomberg saying that the government should seize firearms out of the hands of minorities in cities and on the other you have Donovan stating that we need more gun control to protect the wealthy whites.
Gun control has finally grown out of its dye job and its racist roots are showing.

GUNS SAVE LIVES: 11-Year Old Girl Fends Off Home Invaders With Her Shotgun
Clash Daily, Posted on February 3, 2015

The Left would prefer she was unarmed and vulnerable to her attackers.
    LAPEER COUNTY, MI — An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect — later taken into custody — during a home invasion in Lapeer County’s North Branch Township.
    Deputies from the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Department responded around 3:45 p.m. Friday, Jan. 30 to a Five Lakes Road home where the girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway.
    A Lapeer County Sheriff’s Office news release states one person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun.
    The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home.
    Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter.

2nd Amendment threatened in Obama's trade plans
 http://www.wnd.com, January 30, 2015

UNITED NATIONS – Giving President Obama fast-track authority to conclude an international trade agreement is like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in the chamber, says one of America’s leading gun rights organizations.
Gun Owners of America is blasting a congressional proposal that empowers Obama to unilaterally negotiate international agreements as “a ‘bait and switch’ scheme that could seriously impact the Second Amendment.”
House and Senate committees are currently preparing to hand Obama so-called “fast-track” trade promotion authority. It would enable the president to unilaterally negotiate the TransPacific Partnership, a trade and global governance agreement with the U.S. and 11 other nations bordering the Pacific Ocean.
Under fast-track rules, Congress would not be able to amend or even vet the completed agreement. It could only approve everything that Obama has included, including anything tucked away in the 99th page that no one really wants to talk about, or kill it.
Gun Owners of America warns fast track “delegates to Barack Obama the legislative authority to do anything he wants – absolutely anything – so long as he includes it in a ‘trade agreement.’”
Second Amendment defenders worry, for example, anti-gun measures such as gun or ammunition import bans could be relegated to the bowels of the so-called “trade agreement.” They say Congress would be unable to stop it “when every Establishment interest in Washington starts pushing Congress to immediately approve this ‘up-or-down’ deal.”
They point to the experience with the recently approved trillion-dollar “Cromnibus” spending bill, which included the largest funding increase in history for the federal gun database, empowered states to impose gun bans based on doctor’s orders and increased the budget for the ATF.
Fast track “is the same dynamic as the Cromnibus, and if we hadn’t just gone through that we wouldn’t see what will happen if they give him fast track,” Michael Hammond, legislative counsel with Gun Owners of America, told WND.
“Republicans whine about Obama usurping legislative authority, so why in heaven’s name are they thinking of giving him unlimited legislative authority to do anything he can put into a trade agreement?” Hammond asked
Supporters of fast track, including Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, say it allows Congress to set goals for an agreement the Obama administration will negotiate.
But Hammond points out the TransPacific Partnership agreement “has already largely been negotiated and is being kept secret only for the sole purpose of getting us to give it a rubber stamp.”
“What kind of idiot would bite on that deal?”
The Obama administration has been negotiating the TransPacific Partnership without congressional input for the past six years and acknowledges the deal is near completion.
“I don’t think it’s wise to allow Obama to promulgate any law he wants as long as he succeeds in sticking it in this agreement and then gets Congress’ assent on an up or down vote without any possibility for amendment,” Hammond said.
“It’s playing Russian Roulette with a gun with six bullets in the chamber,” he said.
Gun Owners of America is urging everyone to contact their senators and representative and ask them to oppose giving fast-track authority to Barack Obama.
WND has reported extensively on the TPP, including when Obama traveled to Asia to promote it last year.
TPP has been described as the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing 12 participating nations representing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. It’s the frontrunner to the equally under-the-radar Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TIPP, between the U.S. and the European Union.
WND reported that the White House, without much fanfare, wrapped Mexico and Canada into the TPP negotiations as a continuation of an effort regarded by critics as a move toward a European Union-style integration of North America.

DEA and ATF cooperated to record gun show attendee license plates
1/28/15 | by Chris Eger

According to emails obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, federal authorities planned to monitor gun show parking lots with automatic license plate readers.
The insight comes from a damning report released by the ACLU this week on a secretive program by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to build a massive database of license plates images collected by automated license plate reader devices. As part of this investigation, emails released through the Freedom of Information Act detailed a planned cooperation between the DEA’s National License Plate Recognition initiative and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to scan and record the plates and vehicle images of gun show attendees.
“DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with ATF on attacking the guns going to [redacted] and the gun shows, to include programs/operation with LPRs at the gun shows,” reads an April 2009 email.
The time and place mentioned in the email coincides with known information on the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious operation, a controversial “gunwalking” scandal that possibly transferred as many as 2,000 guns to drug traffickers in Mexico. That program was run out of the Phoenix ATF Field Division office, just two miles from the DEA office.
However, DOJ officials were quick to issue denials this week following the release of the story, advising that the ATF did not in fact engage in tracking gun show attendees.
“The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,’’ according to DEA administrator Michele Leonhart, the Wall Street Journal reported.
While there may not have been any gun show surveillance, federal agencies have nonetheless built an immense database.
An undated DEA slideshow released to the ACLU mentions that, at the time, 100 plate readers were deployed in eight states to include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Georgia and New Jersey. These readers were a mixed of fixed, portable and mobile devices that could scan and record as many as ten images per vehicle.
The extensively redacted presentation states that the then-current database held some “343+ million” images and that cleared law enforcement personnel from other federal, state, local and tribal agencies could access the archives.
This information alone brought concern from the ACLU.
“Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation’s highways,” the group stated in its report. “Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance.”
Sheriff urges New Yorkers: 'Throw gun renewals in garbage'
Gun control advocates in New York State’s bureaucracy are requiring firearm owners to send in renewals for their gun registrations, but one Fulton County sheriff is advising state residents to throw them in the garbage.
Back in 2013, anti-gun establishment officials in New York successfully pushed for the adoption of statewide legislation called the SAFE Act, which concentrated on enforcing a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity clips. However, many didn’t realize that hidden within the new law was a lot of red tape and added requirements, making it that much more difficult for citizens to bear arms in compliance with state bureaucratic standards.
But a little-known provision of the bill requires every handgun owner to recertify their permit with the local sheriff or clerk’s office by 2018, reports WND’s Leo Hohmann. The counties are then required to upload the permit information to a statewide digital database that is being created. The process must be repeated every five years.
Now, in order to update its system in accordance with the SAFE Act, state officials are hitting up gun owners to renew their gun registrations in a number of counties throughout the state by issuing them 500 invitations, via an early pilot program. The state is asking these gun owners to participate by uploading their gun registration information online for every firearm they own.
In order to make a loud and clear statement to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other bureaucrats at the state Capitol in Albany, Fulton County Sheriff Thomas Lorey volunteered his county to take part in the pilot program to bring its problems to light. He’s now asking gun owners to take a stand with him.
I’m asking everyone that gets those invitations to throw them in the garbage because that is where they belong, Lorey told conservative activists at a recent meeting. They go in the garbage because, for 100 years or more, ever since the inception of pistol permits, nobody has ever been required to renew them.
According to Lorey, the new online registration database is slated for a February launch.
I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it, Lorey argued. Let’s have everybody’s permit expire the same day and let em see what they’re going to do with it.
Lorey insisted to local residents within the county that his sheriff’s department will not hold them liable for any gun registration violations.
I want to assure you that everyone in Fulton County has nothing to fear from the sheriff’s office, Lorey promised. We’ve got real crime and real criminals to occupy our time with.
Gun control activists seizing a crisis for their cause
In January 2013, Cuomo signed the NY SAFE Act” an acrostic for New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act” into law to assuage the gun control movement at the time, which used the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to garner popular support.
Jumping on the anti-gun rights bandwagon following the December 2012 Newtown massacre were Connecticut, Colorado and Maryland, which also passed similar legislation tightening firearm regulations.
Similar resistance to gun control laws has been witnessed in Connecticut, where thousands of firearm owners have stood together in noncompliance to the relatively new legislation.
The revolt is underway, Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt told WND. Tens of thousands of people in Connecticut have intentionally missed the deadline.
Pratt insists that gun control legislation has simply gone too far and Americans aren’t putting up with it.
They are not registering, Pratt continued. Some of them actually said they would not when they were at the hearing when the law was being considered in the legislature.
Sticking to their guns
Connecticut’s rebellion against heightened gun control regulations is being mirrored by Lorey’s call for resistance in New York. Getting all of the state’s counties to update the new online database has been more than challenging” with most reporting major delays, according to Albany’s Times Union.
It reported that clerks have not been informed by state officials about the cause of the delays in the pilot program, with many thinking that the slow rate has been caused by problems the state is having putting the database system together.
They didn’t anticipate the amount of time it was going to take to establish that digital database, Cortland County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin told the Albany paper.
Gun rights leaders are standing behind law enforcement that champions the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
Sheriff Lorey is a patriot, Sercond Amendment Foundation> President Alan Gottlieb told WND. His stand in defense of the Second Amendment is an example for all law enforcement.
The New York State Sheriffs Association and individual sheriffs have already taken a stand against gun control laws by filing a lawsuit against Gov. Cuomo to stop enforcement of the new Act, reports "Reason" magazine. They are in direct agreement with Lorey, who belongs to Oathkeepers” an organization of police officers and military personnel that vows to uphold the U.S. Constitution by refusing to bow down to unconstitutional orders given by the government.
Smooth or not-so-smooth sailing for the program?
Despite reports to the contrary, state officials maintain that the new gun control policy is moving forward according to plans, noting that they are merely finding better ways to streamline the state’s procedure for renewals. According to a spokeswoman for the New York State Police, they are working on ways to handle a greater amount of guns into the system. She insisted that pop-ups on the state’s website will make it easier for gun owners to renew their registrations.
However, a report from the Times Union (newspaper) indicates that the assembly of the expansive database system spanning the entire state of New York has been plagued with problems” as different components of the NY SAFE Act are being examined.
A system allowing background checks for all ammunition sales was originally supposed to be in place by Jan. 15, 2014, but its rollout was postponed amid reports the database isn’t ready, Hohmann reports. The county clerks were told in the spring-summer of 2014 that the pace of work on the beefed-up handgun registry would pick up at the end of 2014 and into 2015” strategically delayed until after the November elections.
According to Lorey, the intentions behind putting the new gun permit law in place throughout New York State were not to make owning a gun more difficult for residents. But after seeing the way the SAFE Act is being enforced, he recognizes that the new rules are vulnerable to being abused because they can be applied in such an arbitrary fashion.
The judges of the state of New York have gotten together and thought this up on their own, Lorey attests. It’s just a little device that helps them revoke your permit if they should suddenly get mad at you.
Lorey also asserts that the way the new law is being administered, it will most likely be manipulated by many county bureaucrats to bring in more money” citing a $15 recertification fee one county has already charged gun owners. The patriotic sheriff contends that the new law is being abused by the state so that citizens now have to pay for a right that the U.S. Constitution has already guaranteed them.
The state of New York now wants to charge you for a renewal permit, for a right you already have, Lorey points out.
The contrast between gun laws in Left-leaning states, such as New York, and more conservative states, such as Georgia, is briefly outlined by one gun rights leader who notes that the state officials in the Empire State and other blue states can deny residents gun permits for any reason. On the other hand, in the Peach State and other states that fully honor the right to bear arms, residents don’t need to have a permit to possess handguns in their homes, workplaces or vehicles. They just need permits to carry firearms on their person.
Georgia is a shall issue state which means if you pass a background check the probate court must issue a permit, GeorgiaCarry.org Executive Director Jerry Henry explains. New York is a may issue state, which means the state may issue you a permit if you pass a background check.

OPINION: Nazi gun laws a model for New Jersey
 January 30, 2015, daily record

The Jan. 27 letter, Resisting gun control is for the weak-minded, by Bill Thompson, is full of absurdities.
The letter writer failed to do any research or conduct any thought process in his anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment zeal to have national background checks on firearms.
There are already FBI background checks. Nothing further needs to be done. He then goes on and says background checks on everything else, including boarding a plane, buying a home, buying a car, has always been an integral part of our government system of protection. .
Really? No, it hasn’t. It’s always been about collecting taxes and fees. Government does nothing altruistically.
Governments, in the 20th century alone, killed over 200 million innocent people because of gun control and confiscation.
All one has to do is look at the 1938 Nazi Weapons law to see how background checks were used to confiscate all firearms from the people and then caused the deaths of 12 million, and compare them to New Jersey gun control laws taken verbatim from the Nazi law.
The 1938 Nazi Weapons law targeted ordinary citizen gun owners, manufacturers, and dealers, rather than criminals; required any private person to prove himself fine reliable before being allowed to own a firearm; presumed that gun ownership was a government-granted privilege, not a right; gave the government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could or could not be owned by citizens; defined hunting weapon as a special class; forced all firearms manufacturers and dealers to obtain a government license; and required all firearms dealers to record all sales and to turn over those records if the business closes.
The Nazi law also allowed for police inspection of records; required all firearms to bear a serial number and maker’s or dealer’s mark; required all gun owners to identify where all firearms were in the house to allow for police or government officers to enter home and go right to the location of the firearms.
Current New Jersey legislation (A-3676) would require police/government inspection of gun owner’s residence and where firearms will be located.
Bruce Eden
Lifetime Member
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Firearms enthusiasts crash gun buyback to hunt bargains
Fox News January 24, 2015

A recent gun buyback event in Oregon, aimed at curbing the number of weapons on the street, turned into a planned profit making opportunity for a group of firearms enthusiasts.
The Jan. 17 event was co-sponsored by Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon and the Newport Police Department, who offered gift cards to superstore Fred Meyer in return for guns, no questions asked. A sliding scale meant assault rifles fetched $175 gift cards each, and high capacity magazines were worth $25 credits at the store, which ironically sells firearms.
Second Amendment supporters took to OpenCarry.org’s forum to spread the word about the event, and to plan out their attendance to make maximum profit.
“A $25 gift card for "high capacity magazines - like the ones you can buy for $8?” questioned one forum member.
Another forum member, named "We-the-People," explained he would be attending the event to “make $200 profit off of the two junker pistols that I purchased for the purpose.”
Members also planned to intercept attendees bringing in valuable guns, offering them cash before they could go inside and accept the gift cards.
“I picked up five weapons including a Model 11 Remington SemiAuto 12-gauge from 1926, a Mossberg bolt-action 20-gauge from 1947-1950… AND a pre-1900, 12-gauge breech action with Damascus barrel......AND....... a couple of 22 pistols,” wrote the member.
Lauded by organizers as a way to “avoid an unexpected tragedy, and show support for victims of gun violence,” the event netted a total of 138 guns. Those that pass background checks will be melted.
A blogger named ‘Tom in Oregon’ took toTheTruthAboutGuns.com to discuss his experience at the turn-in event.  In a post titled “Who Says Gun ‘Buy Backs’ Are a Bad Thing,” he writes about how he gathered up his “jam-o-matics” to cash in.
“I walked up to the first table and handed a Newport P.D. officer my grocery sack with the three zip-tied pieces of pot metal disguised as pistols. He didn’t take a second look at them as he piled them on a cart that probably had 75-100 guns of all flavors of rust,” wrote the blogger.
"Tom in Oregon" wrote that the event was so popular, organizers actually ran out of gift cards. However, they promised to mail them to those who traded in guns and ammo.
“So I had a nice drive to the coast, spent about $25 in diesel, and in a couple weeks should have $375 in gift cards that I will turn into either ammo, or a subcompact carry piece of a more modern and reliable nature," he wrote. "I love it when a plan comes together.”
Julie Wheeler, president of Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, acknowledged that a profit can be made through these events, but insists that is not always the case.
“The opposite is also possible," Wheeler told FoxNews.com in an e-mail. "Some firearms come in that are much more valuable than the awarded gift cards. The turn-in does not pretend to be a market value exchange.”
A 2004 study by the National Research Council cast doubt on whether the programs actually make Americans safer, finding the “guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities,” explains the study
“In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs," the study said.
Government Wants Citizens Disarmored as Well as Disarmed.
Political Outcast, January 26, 2015

Politician makes new attempt to leave Americans disarmed — by banning body armor.
Back in the beginning of 2013, Gary DeMar wrote an astute post entitled, “It’s OK to Kill When You’re the Government.” Among other things, he said:
In 1992, the government went after Randy Weaver on trumped up charges. The story is long and involved. You can read a fair account of it here and here. In the end, Vicki Weaver was shot dead as was the Weaver’s son. Fourteen-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back by a Deputy United States Marshall. Vicki was shot in the head while she was holding her infant daughter. “In the out-of-court settlement, the government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.”
Only because of a public outcry did the government suffer any consequences of this tragedy.
Our government is daily emboldened. There is talk of President Obama issuing an Executive Order banning certain guns. The President has been in the Executive Order business with nary a peep from the Republicans.
I have several reasons for bringing this up in relation to a new bill that is being brought to the House. The main point I want you to think about is that the government is already more than capable of killing you no matter how well armed or armored you are. This is just math. The government leverages you as a taxpayer and uses a funny money debt system to spend trillions on building a foreign and domestic arsenal. You can’t beat that. Forget about it. The Weavers were better armed than many and they had no chance. The Branch Davidians in Waco had no chance.
The government already has you outgunned.
In order to really wield power, a government needs to increase the advantage of its agents over the people it wishes to dominate to an exponential degree. It is not enough to simply be able to win. It wants to be able to win easily, do what it wants, and never worry about the possibility that there could be any consequences.
The government’s dream for the future can be seen when it sends a SWAT team to point guns at workers in a guitar factory who have no arms and no armor. That’s its vision for the perfect future—a land where its jackbooted, armored, armed thugs can terrorize you without any kind of possible resistance. Even the option of deciding to die for a cause is too much freedom for you to possess; they must take that remote possibility away from you.
So while they continue to try to make weapons illegal, they are doing more.
According to Reason.com,
Rep. Mike Honda (D-YouGottaBeKiddingMe) offers up HR 378, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. Yes, it is in fact a bill intended to limit people’s ability to own gear that reduces injuries and death caused by bullets.
While the text of the bill isn’t yet available, it looks like a rehash of legislation introduced last year that would ban “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.”
Now, Type III armor isn’t standard stuff, nor is it cheap. Designed to stop rifle rounds, it carries a pretty price tag and is cumbersome as hell. But police locks, alarm systems, and related security equipment are pricey and cumbersome, too. When I lived in New York City’s East Village in the ’90s, I could pretty much smoke a cigarette in the hall while waiting for some of my friends to unlock their apartment doors. But if you perceive some danger in your environment, you just might want some protection. Even if that protection incidentally makes it more difficult for police officers to kill you if they feel the need.
And whatever the motivation of the user, this stuff is defensive. The only way to hurt another person with body armor is to take it off and beat them with it.
Of course, Rep. Honda isn’t satisfied with restricting body armor; he also want to ban gun components kits and require guns made on 3D printers, CNC machines and the like to have serial numbers. You didn’t think he liked armed civilians better than he liked them armored did you?
This is just sick and evil. The government wants you completely and totally at their mercy–even though it puts you at the mercy of criminals. Wrongful deaths occur at police hands all the time, but they want to make sure you don’t have the remote potential to be protected.
And just like gun laws, hardened cop-killing criminals will have no problem getting body armor. Evading the law will be part of the business model.
This is aimed at making the law-abiding populace more naked, more compliant, and more hopeless.
Hopefully the GOP Congress will kill this, thanks to pressure from the NRA. But I have no idea what to really be certain we can expect from this Congress.
Sandy Hook Commission says Screw the Constitution - Confiscate Guns!
Eagle Rising, January 27, 2015

Just a little over a week ago the Sandy Hook Commission presented its recommendations to Communist Governor Daniel Malloy (D-CT). Among those recommendations were to confiscate all guns that had the capacity to fire more than 10 bullets without reloading. They further showed their disregard for the law by stating that it wasn't their job to determine constitutionality.
Following the Sandy Hook shooting, in which it is alleged that 26 people lost their lives, people across the political spectrum sough to blame everything under the sun for the shooting except the shooter. Communists and socialists blamed guns (as though they had legs and arms and could get up on their own and kill people) while so-called "conservatives blamed anything from violent video games to music to mental health to anything in between. One thing is for sure, it wasn't the guns that were the problem and I won't say there isn't a certain influence of games of music, but those things are relative. The real reason, at least according to the reports we've been given, that Sandy Hook happened was a guy who had crime on his mind.
Though it is questionable about some of the things that are alleged to have happened surrounding Sandy Hook, one thing is clear, Socialists and Communists set their sights immediately on disarming the American people.
Connecticut, being Ground Zero, has felt the brunt of the knee jerk reaction of Communists in their state.
Governor Dan Malloy passed legislation that criminalized law-abiding citizens if they did not register their guns, something eerily reminiscent of the Weimar Republic and eventually the Nazis in Germany. When tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners refused to comply with the law, it took some time, but now the commission has come up with new proposals.
First the commission decided to recommend a ban on "the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading."
Though the Connecticut legislature decided to ban AR-15s and issue a 10 round limit on magazines that just doesn't seem to go far enough for these people. Remember, the only way these people will be happy is when the American people have absolutely no arms at all. The goal is complete and total gun confiscation and don't let anyone tell you different. If they do, ask them how much legislation would be enough?
Though the legislature allowed citizens (that sounds like they are issuing privileges rather than recognizing rights, doesn't it?) who had banned guns and magazines to keep them as long as they registered or declared them, the commission is out for those guns without any grandfathering. They want total confiscation of any gun that can fire more than ten round without reloading.
Commission members said it was parents' testimony that convinced them to recommend gun confiscation.
"In one of the classrooms, when the shooter stopped to remove a magazine and put another one in, children escaped from the classroom," said Norwalk Fire Chief Denis McCarthy, a commission member.
"The single biggest common denominator between them is not mental health, it's not the structure of the school, and school safety issues, it's access to, possession of, and use of these weapons of war," said Dr. Harold Schwartz, Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hartford Hospital's Institute of Living.
The only problem for Dr. Schwartz is not one shooting, including Newtown involved "weapons of war." The Bushmaster AR-15 is not carried into battle by our soldiers and it isn't the state's place to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms… of any kind!
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/confiscate-guns-300x201.jpg
confiscate gunsOne member of the commission, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, said, "Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide. The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons."
It's worse than just what these people label "assault weapons," which are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. They want handguns too.
"I believe that if we're serious about banning assault weapons, it shouldn't just cover long guns," former Hartford Chief of Police and member of the 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Bernard Sullivan recommended at a meeting in March 2014. "It should also cover handguns because the weapons of choice in the urban environment are primarily the 9-millimeter Berettas, Sig Sauer, whatever you want to call them, that have high-capacity magazines that can fire 17 or 18 bullets without reloading because of the magazine."
However, note their blatant hypocrisy in the fact that, according to the Connecticut Post, "Commission members stressed that the manufacture of such weapons in the state would not be banned."
Well, why not? Couldn't people like Lanza break in and obtain these weapons and cause the same damage? Isn't that what they are selling the people? It's because there is money involved. That's why! These people are hypocrites, nothing more.
It seems that the commission came together, determined that mass shootings always involve guns and that they should be confiscated and banned. They failed to address how those guns were obtained. For instance, Adam Lanza allegedly murdered his own mother to steal her guns. He didn't own any of his own. So all the hoops they have put up for law abiding citizens to jump through would not have stopped Lanza in any respect.
This commission completely ignores not only the US Constitution, but more specifically the State Constitution of Connecticut which reads:
    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
That's more specific than the US Constitution! Yet, these tyrants claim it isn't their duty to determine whether they are recommending something lawful.
But apparently this commission believes it will not answer to the people and gave excuses for their claim that they aren't interested in determining whether their recommendations are lawful or not.
Commission chairman and Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson said, "We're not writing proposed legislation. We're writing end results."
Just keep in mind that though these people claimed to listen to parents testifying, they never mentioned the testimony of Mark Mattioli, who lost his six-year-old son at Sandy Hook, who said the problem wasn't guns, but "a lack of civility." They also ignored this testimony and this one.
This commission is not interested in the truth. It's interested in creating more victims and granting more power to an already tyrannical state. They are interested in good intentions, but it seems to me they are merely paving the road to Hell.

Politico Magazine: Idea of ‘Defensive Gun Ownership’ a ‘Tragic Myth
by AWR Hawkins 16 Jan 2015

On January 14, Politico Magazine (PM) ran a story suggesting the claim that guns are used for defense purposes more often than ill-intent is wrong, and the whole idea behind “defensive gun ownership” is a “tragic myth.”
PM defined the “tragic myth” as the belief “that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.” They pointed to the dearth of academic support for defensive gun uses (DGUs) in “public health literature” and listed three instances in which a homeowner fired a gun in what they thought was a self-defense situation, but which later turned out otherwise. The gunshot wound was fatal in one of the three incidents.
PM also points to a 1992 study by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Mark Getz, the findings of which established an “estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million DGUs per year.” PM says that study is no good—that it has been been debunked, is “utterly false,” and “gun owners are more likely” to end up shooting someone who wasn’t really a criminal in the first place.
Here’s the kicker: Even if we set Kleck and Getz’s work aside—and that’s not the same thing as accepting the claim that it’s been debunked—but even if we set it aside for the sake of argument, PM does not say anything about other polls/studies/surveys suggesting 760,000 defensive gun uses a year. Breitbart News previously reported that this figure—drawn from the LA Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates—equals 14,615 DGUs a week and slightly more than 2,082 a day.
Moreover, by opening their argument against DGUs with anecdotal examples from three gun owners who allegedly made a mistake, PM passed over an untold number of anecdotal examples were having the gun was the only thing that saved the homeowner or individual’s life and/or the life of his/her family.
Here are some examples of DGU stories that PM missed just over the past 6 weeks:
(Nov. 30) A Washington state mother shot an alleged home invader to save her children.
(Dec. 8) A veteran confined to walker used a gun to stop home invasion.
(Dec. 9) Antioch, California, homeowner opened fire on two home invaders.
(Dec. 19) A 14-year-old shot and killed an intruder to save grandparents.
(Dec. 20) A man used a handgun in self-defense when confronted by an armed robber outside an Ohio mall. He killed the would-be robber, ending the attack.
(Dec. 26) A Good Samaritan witnessed domestic attack, pulled pistol, and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Dec. 27) A home invader put a gun to a woman’s neck in Memphis. The invader was shot and killed by the homeowner.
(Dec. 28) A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, resident shot an intruder who broke through the glass door on her apartment.
(Dec. 29) A home invader was shot and killed after a pregnant woman helped fight him off.
(Dec. 30) A pastor shot a man who attacked him inside the church.
(Dec. 30) A Texas fireworks stand owner used a gun to shoot and stop armed robbers.
(Jan. 9) Four armed robbers stormed a women’s gun store in Shawnee, Kansas, and the co-owner’s life was spared when her husband intervened by opening fire on the suspects.
(Jan. 10) A California homeowner survived an initial attack by a home invader, retrieved gun, and held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Jan. 11) A man put a gun to a Papa John’s Pizza delivery woman’s head; she pulled her own gun and shot him in the face.
(Jan. 12) An armed robber in a Milwaukee barber shop was shot and killed by a patron with a concealed carry license/handgun.
(Jan. 13) An armed Taco Bell robber ordered would-be victim to drop his pants, but the victim pulled his gun instead and shot the robber dead.
  1. these are but a fraction of the DGUs we could list from the last six weeks alone. These are all part of the “tragic myth” of gun owners “successfully using their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.
National Rifle Association suing Pittsburgh and Philadelphia over gun laws
Pittsburg Post Gazette, January 14, 2015 11:29

NRA meetings handguns Pennsylvania has long barred its municipalities from approving ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition.
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.
“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”
While state law has barred local officials from passing their own gun laws since 1974, many municipalities have rules that, for example, ban firearms from public property. But last year’s passage of Act 192 gave the NRA new firepower in overturning such measures.
The law, which went into effect Jan. 5, allows any Pennsylvanian eligible to own a gun, or a group with such a person as a member, to challenge any local gun ordinance in the state. If the suit is successful, the municipality must pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
Mr. Goldstein said the complaint names a handful of ordinances. One prohibits carrying firearms in a vehicle or in person without a state permit to do so. Another prohibits discharging a firearm except at target ranges, or in cases permitted by state law. A third requires gun owners to report the loss or theft of firearms.
In a statement Wednesday, the NRA said “a patchwork of local gun-control ordinances creates confusion” for citizens and police. But Act 192 is itself the subject of a legal challenge now in Commonwealth Court joined by Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Philadelphia — the three municipalities the NRA is suing.
“The NRA are bullies, and they don’t like to be challenged,” said Shira Goodman, executive director of gun-control advocacy group CeaseFirePA. The lawsuit “is a way to punish and strike back.”
“The largest cities [are] the ones that take these actions, and they are the ones who receive these actions,” responded Mr. Goldstein of Berwyn, Pa. “If we get these three municipalities to yield, it will convince others to do the right thing.”
It’s unclear how the NRA lawsuits would be affected by the challenge to the law that made them possible. Bruce Ledewitz, Duquesne University law professor, said a judge could put the NRA’s case on hold until Act 192’s validity is decided by a higher court. Optionally, he said, a judge might reason that “if the legislature gave people rights against the government, you should allow those rights to be exercised.”
While the city couldn’t comment directly on the lawsuit, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto told reporters, “We will not be deterred, and we will keep our lawsuit going” against Act 192.
“We’re not taking away anyone’s right to own a gun,” he added. “What we’re saying is when a gun is lost or stolen, you’ve got to report it.”
Still, it’s unclear what impact such laws have had. The city has never charged anyone under the lost-and-stolen law. Spokesman Tim McNulty couldn’t provide information about whether anyone has been charged under the other ordinances at issue.
But Mr. Goldstein said that merely “the threat of being charged for exercising a lawful right is too much to take.”
Others seem to agree. Another gun-rights organization, U.S. Law Shield, sued the city of Harrisburg on Tuesday, while Kim Stolfer, founder of Firearm Owners Against Crime, said his group had sent letters warning other communities of potential legal action. He said 22 have responded either by saying they’d rescinded their ordinances or needed time to do so. But as many as 300 municipalities may have ordinances subject to challenge, he said.
“We don’t want to go to court,” Mr. Stolfer said. “We want them to do the right thing. But some of them aren’t.”
Mr. Goldstein also wouldn’t rule out future NRA suits against other Pennsylvania communities.
“I haven’t been given direction either way,” he said. “But it’s very tempting.”
Anti-gun group will teach journalists how to report on gun violence
Michael Dorstewitz  January 14, 2015

An anti-gun group, backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is funding a workshop that purports to teach journalists how to report on guns and gun violence issues.
This is akin to Al Gore instructing meteorologists how they should report the weather.
The workshop, to be held in Phoenix on April 17-18, will be conducted by the Columbia Journalism School-affiliated Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, according to its website.
“The workshop, funded by Everytown for Gun Safety, will offer independent expert briefings and specialized reporting skills training to enhance the practical ability of journalists to report on guns and gun violence knowledgeably, ethically and effectively,” the Dart Center’s website posted Thursday.
It’s difficult to fathom how a workshop funded by Everytown can offer “independent expert briefings” on the issue of firearms, an item Everytown was expressly founded to combat.
As for teaching the journalists “specialized reporting skills,” the only skills they need are research techniques designed to uncover the truth. That’s the job of a reporter; mouthing the agenda of an anti-gun group is not.
And what is Everytown’s agenda? The Washington Times reports:
Everytown for Gun Safety is headed by John Feinblatt, a former top aide to Mr. Bloomberg. The group claims to have 2.5 million supporters and over 40,000 donors, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
The Bloomberg-backed group bills itself as “a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.” Its website states “For too long, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.
Bloomberg’s push for stringent gun control measures has assumed the aura of a sacred quest, with an intention to “punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own,” The New York Times reported in April.
“We’ve got to make them afraid of us,” he said of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers.
So much for objective journalism.

Paris...A Lesson, But in What?
Shhooting Wire, January 13, 2015

Last week's terrorist attack on a magazine that specializes in insulting everyone, kicked off more pointless media pontification about the savagery of radical islam.
It was as if everyone was shocked at what happened. After all, this intellectual publication "only" insulted Islam's sacred leader. They'd already done far worse cartoons, multiple times, about Christians, too. Some of them represented the rankest form of blasphemy to even the most casual Christian.
What's my point? Our society's inability to differentiate a difference between the "appropriate responses" of two groups: the Islamic extremist and those of us who comprise the group those same groups of "saddened" journalists permit to be slandered as "desperate, bitter, gun-toting, Bible-clinging, right-wing extremist"-that group would be, of course, Christians.
Rather than sit at home and pounding out insults and idle threats under an internet pseudonym, the radical Islamics shaved, bathed and prayed (as they're apparently taught in martyr school), then rucked-up and headed out to hand-deliver their considered response.
In Christian circles, that's called putting "feet to their faith."
"Radical" islam, it seems, has considerably less difficulty spurring followers to action than "radical Christianity." And a very obvious difference in the definition of "appropriate response."
A similarity exists only in the fact that following their call makes them minorities. Failing to recognize their fundamental differences, especially when engaged in nearly incessant slander, can -and in this case, did- have fatal consequences.
Radical Christianity calls for giving yourself in the service and betterment of others.
Radical islam requires the willing sacrifice of self for the unconditional elimination or subjugation of all unbelievers.
That's not a religious call to action, that's an action plan for world domination. That's a gigantic difference.
One common belief for both true believers is that the best is yet to come. One group wants to serve while waiting; the other wants to serve you- and themselves if necessary- up in pieces as a sign of their dedication.
Their unshakable belief in that higher power encourages both to action -as unequal as their responses may be, they are inevitable.
Unfortunately, other members of society don't need anything except their unshakable belief that they're smarter than the rest of us. That's enough for them to work to impress their will on the rest of us.
Ultimately, that group includes many of our so-called "leaders" who feel (I intentionally didn't use the word "think") disarming everyone (everyone else, actually) removes danger for everyone.
Sound familiar? It should.
It's the faulty, but unshakable argument they use to create harvesting pens for the less-intelligent, but far more motivated killers in one of the other "extreme groups". The service-based "extremists" meanwhile, are barred from those "gun free zones" in a sign of religious "tolerance."
It's time someone recognizes that the people who champion "gun free zones" are driven by their ego, not their intelligence.
For years, I believed I could go shirtless in the summer sun with no consequence. Today, I know the consequence of my ignorance. But cancer wasn't the consequence of my ignorance- I was warned to wear sunscreen. It was belief that I knew better than everyone else what was best for me. In my case, ego caused cancer.
The world today isn't vastly different from the world since its beginning. There is no shortage of evil, nor of those who prey on the unaware.
Sure, some may be smart-mouthed mall rats or droopy-drawered "gangsters" who hang around in groups, insult shoppers and laugh at "mall security" but others are equally disenfranchised, but far more motivated terrorists, but they're everywhere.
If you believe your quiet little town with a "small" rather than a massive "mall" is any different, you're disconnected from reality.
Evil is. And it seeks the unaware.
As my friend Michael Bane wrote last week:
And yet, people die from lightning strikes every year."
(read his entire post at: www.Michaelbane.blogspot.com).
The capability of evil to act beyond any measure of "reasonableness" by the rest of us is what surprises and shocks "civilized" leaders.
After all, the Charlie Hebdo drawings were insignificant when measured in "real" terms. Those dead cartoonists had drawn things far more insulting to others with no response beyond than an occasional "tsk-tsk" from equally "sophisticated" fellow Parisians.
The shock is at the response to something "normal" people had allowed to slide many times before.
The outrage is the equivalent of the cartoonists having shoot an air rifle and received .500 nitro recoil in return.
Or was it?
What the shooters did was cold-blooded, barbarism. That's by any standard except their own. But isn't it realistic today to expect that response by motivated extremists to what was the equivalent of intellectual taunting?
The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - safe to that point while using the camouflage of "wit" to insult others with impunity - appear to have underestimated the recoil of their pens.
Do some research on the magazine and you will find the ultimate consequences disproportionate, but really not considerably more shocking than a big kid finally slapping the crap out of a "smarter" kid who had been warned to stop his merciless taunting.
If it was a total shock to you after countless bombings, beheadings, executions and torture scenes, you may need to adjust your world view.
Mine adjusted -radically- after I found myself staring down the gun barrel of a home invader. I managed (largely through dumb luck) to survive. But "oblivious" stopped being my normal state of awareness. Fortunately, the experience didn't manage to transform me into a frightened victim or a knee-jerk reactionary.
In retrospect, it was the same kind eye-opening reality check I required as a kid; just amped up to an adult dosage.
Awareness is the same whether you're shopping, riding a horse, paddling a canoe or shooting on the range. It should be your constant state of mind -and it doesn't mean a gun-slinger's mentality. It means being aware of your surroundings.
Not sitting flat of your butt on the trail looking for your horse means you noticed the garter snake crossing in front of you and acted appropriately. Sitting in your canoe instead of floundering around under it after your passenger leaned over one side meant you notices and counter-balanced their movement.
In all situations, life requires awareness. Unless you want to find yourself standing in an open field during a lightning storm, at sea in a tropical storm, stranded on a mountainside at night or unarmed in a gunfight.
In all those situations, the correct answers are the same: if you're already not there-don't go. If you're there; leave.
Awareness may be conscious or subconscious (after enough training), but it had better be . Because unaware and dead exist, as they have since time began, in very close proximity.

New York Vet Has Guns Confiscated by Police Because He Had Trouble Sleeping
Last Resistence, January 6, 2015
A man had his guns confiscated on a crazy pretext.
This is supposedly New York’s attempt at keeping guns out of the “wrong hands.” Under New York’s SAFE Act, medical professionals have to report to police if they believe one of their patients poses harm to himself or others. This particular guy U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery saw his primary doctor voluntarily for insomnia. Not long after, the Suffolk County police were at his door, ready to take his firearms away. Now, he’s suing them. The Blaze reported:
It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6 and complained about trouble sleeping, the Daily Caller reported. He claimed to have been suffering from insomnia since moving from a different state. Montgomery then returned to the hospital again days later for the same problems, except this time he was diagnosed with “Depression; Insomnia” by hospital staff.
On May 23, Montgomery returned to the hospital yet again with the same symptoms. He reportedly stayed at the hospital for 48 hours voluntarily for treatment.
In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York earlier this month, Montgomery alleges that his visit was wrongly recorded as an involuntary stay.
Under New York’s SAFE Act, mental health professionals are required to report patients who are determined to be threats to themselves or others. Regardless, the lawsuit claims the veteran was cleared.
“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.
Montgomery was said to be “mildly depressed” by hospital officials, but they found “no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms.” The notes also asserted, “Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.”
Still, Montgomery’s records were forwarded to Mental Hygiene Legal Service for further review.
Four days after leaving the hospital that last time, the state police sent notice to the Suffolk County PD, telling them that Montgomery “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution,” even though everything was voluntary, and having trouble sleeping hardly constitutes being a “mental defective.” But I’d guess they’d argue that’s “splitting hairs.” They’re only concerned with finding any excuse necessary to take a person’s guns away from him.
The next day, Montgomery received a call from the Suffolk County PD, informing him that his guns would have to be confiscated. And on May 30th, they showed up and took his weapons. The Daily Caller reported that his firearms included the following:  a Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, and a Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.
Kerry Lied: National Gun Registration Is Part of the UN Small Arms Treaty
Freedom Outpost, December 6. 2015

Ever since September 2013, the day Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, I have been bothered by the complete disingenuous concern he presented and outright lies he told to those gathered to witness the signing, and the American people. Here's the video of the signing and his remarks.
The first thing I thought of was that this is a former senator who is signing a three inch document, which I'm sure he has never read. This is the disingenuous part of what he is doing.
Second, in discussing what the treaty is not, he declares "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution."
I would have to ask him for the specific citation on the specific page for how he can claim these things. I'm sure he wouldn't be able to do it.
However, in January, William F. Jasper wrote at The New American:
    The UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain. Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty. What does it actually say?
    Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and "small arms and light weapons."
    Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on "ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2."
    Article 4 puts all "parts and components" of weapons within the scheme.
    Several places in the treaty text, including Article 5, require all countries to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list." Moreover, it declares, "Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms."
    Article 5, Section 4 says each State Party "shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties." Which means our federal government will provide the guns and ammo registration list to the UN, which will provide it to Russia, China, Cuba — any and every State Party that wants it.
Do you get that? There's a national control list. We might reference it as a national gun registration list. This will not only be provided to the federal government, something they have been given no authority over, but will also be provided to our enemies abroad, including the United Nations (Yes, friends, I do not consider the UN to be the friend of the United States).
Kerry has insisted that this treaty is about "keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors."
"This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," Kerry added. "This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security."
Ask yourself this question, "Do you believe John Kerry?" Furthermore, do you believe Barack Obama after all his lies? How about Hillary Clinton?
If you are among those who want to support the Obama administration at every turn, I ask you, if this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors, why has the Obama administration funneled money and weapons to our enemies abroad? Let me ask you an even more disturbing question, in the Obama administration, who is considered terrorists? Who are the rogue actors? Any answers will have to deal with the documentation that this administration has put out and the results are that the terrorists are patriotic Americans, which can only mean one thing: They are after your guns.
Finally, don't forget that the push is on for microstamping of ammunition (recall Article 3 above). Despite their claims, they are looking to control the flow of ammunition.
For more on what this has looked like in history, I highly recommend Stephen P. Halbrook's excellent work Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State."
Gun Control Group Targets Alan Jackson, Jeff Foxworthy For Agreeing To Speak At NRA Conference
Patriot Update, January 2, 2014

More people can fit in a telephone booth than are in ‘Mom’s Demand Action.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is targeting country music star Alan Jackson and comedian Jeff Foxworthy for agreeing to appear at the 2015 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibitions, April 11 in Nashville.
In response, Moms Demand Action posted an announcement to Facebook saying: “Alan Jackson and Jeff Foxworthy agreed to open [the 2015] NRA convention after the NRA pushed to arm convicted criminals, blocked federal gun violence research, and [their] board members promoted armed insurrection.”
They then called on gun control supporters to “educate these celebrities on the dangerous and irresponsible policies of the [NRA].”
Moms Demand Action attached a second page where gun control supporters can gather talking points to use against Jackson and Foxworthy. Among these are claims that the “NRA fights to arm terrorists,” the “NRA fights to arm criminals,” and suggestions that the NRA “[scares] people just to boost gun sales.”
Tickets for Jackson and Foxworthy go on sale January 15.
Gun Rights Group Names 2014's Top 10 'Anti-Gunners'
Town Hall, Dec 29, 2014

From being an advocate of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty to pouring money into Washington state’s victorious I-594 gun control campaign, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has come up with a list of the top 10 ‘anti-gunners’ for 2014.
Not surprisingly, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the top spot this year for dumping millions into creating Everytown for Gun Safety and also helping to finance the I-594 effort in Washington.
The other nine are:
    Paul Allen– The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and principle owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers, he dumped a half-million dollars into the I-594 gun control campaign inWashington State.
    Steve Ballmer– Another Microsoft alumni and owner of the L.A. Clippers who added more than$1 millionto the I-594 effort to criminalize perfectly legal activities in theEvergreen State.
    Hillary Clinton– The former First Lady and Secretary of State suggested earlier this year that gun owners "terrorize" people by vigorously defending the Second Amendment. She also supported the unratified UN Arms Trade Treaty.
    Andrew Cuomo– TheNew York governor who championed that state's Draconian SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act, which is responsible for job losses in addition to penalizing every gun owner in the state.
    Rahm Emanuel– The vehemently anti-gun mayor of Chicago whose administration has stubbornly resisted adoption of rational gun policies that would allow citizens to defend themselves against out-of-control violence in the Windy City.
    Bill Gates– This billionaire Microsoft co-founder and his wife contributed more than$1 millionto the I-594 gun control effort, thus helping to pay for one of the most insidious political campaigns inthe United States.
    Nick Hanauer– Another elitistSeattle-area billionaire who launched the I-594 gun control campaign and poured more than$1 millioninto the effort. His deplorable effort to exploit the Pilchuck High School tragedy by sarcastically suggesting that, "We need more school shootings" was an offensive new low in anti-gun politics.
  Eric Holder– The outgoing U.S. attorney general fought to stall release of thousands of documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, final losing his battle in federal court this past fall.
    Shannon Watts– As founder of the Bloomberg-supported Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Watts has spread disinformation about gun crime and campaigned against laws that bolster personal protection outside the home.
And the ‘dishonorable mentions’ go to:
    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for wanting to resurrect one-gun-a-month legislation in his state, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who both have pressed their gun control agendas, driving businesses and jobs out of their states; California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has steadfastly defended arbitrary and discretionary concealed carry permits; former CNN commentator Piers Morgan for continuing his anti-gun
rhetoric even though it forced his program's cancellation. Also on the list, Gerald Ensley, the Tallahassee Democrat columnist who wrote in November that handguns and semiautomatic modern sporting rifles should be banned, and that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote earlier this year that he would like to see the Second Amendment changed to confine the right to keep and bear arms to people serving in the military and state militia.
"The people on this list have worked very hard to undermine the civil rights of every American citizen who owns a firearm, or may one day want to, and they deserve vilification," CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement.
Homeowner Shoots Home Invader Holding Gun To Woman’s Neck
Conservatve byte, December 27, 2014

Great story! There is one part I didn’t like though. Check out the “cleared of wrong-doing” part of the story. I’m probably getting caught up in semantics here, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Being cleared makes it sound like you were guilty until proven innocent.
Check it out:
A suspect in an armed home invasion is dead after he was confronted by an armed homeowner.
Two men began knocking on the front door of a North Memphis, Tenn. home on Tuesday. When a woman answered, the men barged in, and one of them — identified as 22-year-old Nico Carlisle — held a gun to the woman’s neck.
A male homeowner also inside the house heard the commotion, retrieved his own handgun, and fired several shots at the two men, hitting and killing Carlisle.
Carlisle’s accomplice left the scene and has not been found. Police said Carlisle had an extensive rap sheet that includes charges for burglary and assault. Police also cleared the homeowner of wrong-doing.

GUN CONTROLLERS: They Promised Us Peace

Clashdaily, by Rob Morse on December 26, 2014
They promised us peace if we would accept a little regulation. We barely paid attention, but we said “Sure, that sounds good. Where do I sign?” The latest promise was that armed assault would stop in Washington State if we only had “universal firearms background checks”. Unless you’re a stupid Washington voter, it shouldn’t surprise you that armed robbery didn’t stop. Crime continued as if the new law didn’t exist.
It was a Washington fantasy to think criminals would obey the next gun law after they ignored the thousands of gun laws that came before. But, it is easy to sell fantasies at the Washington ballot box when you have tens of millions of dollars on your side. Are stupid Washington voters surprised or embarrassed that criminals don’t obey the newest gun laws? That still leaves honest gun owners as the victim of another insane firearms restriction.
That was the plan all along. We were sold peace if only we would accept one more firearms regulation. Criminals would stop using firearms if we only had better firearms registration. There would be fewer victims of violent crime if we had stricter licensing of firearms. We were promised peace with every new law.
And now, 20 thousand gun laws later, there is no peace. Instead, it is harder than ever to be an honest firearms owner. It is harder than ever for the peaceable to protect themselves. Disarming honest men and women only makes it easier for criminals. Even an idiot could understand that.. if they try.
With 20 thousand gun laws in the books, it is easy for the police to say a non-violent gun owner might have violated one of their many regulations. Oh, the horror, he might have an unregistered empty shell casing.
Most police don’t even know intricacies of firearms laws. Instead, the cops take the easy way out. They perform a “no-knock” raid and then let you sort the problem out with a judge.. if you survive the raid.. and after you get out of jail.
Since the last 20 thousand gun laws have not brought us peace, then let’s repeal a few thousand of these laws that criminalize non-violent behavior. Let’s try a little more freedom before we pass another gun-control law that is sure to fail. We really don’t need a gun owner strangled because he had an unregistered shell casing.
Let’s be clear. Gun owners are extremely law abiding and moral. They have never been the source of public violence. Anti-gun groups keep selling the next gun law as if that law will stop crime.. and, unfortunately, the casual voters believes it time after time. Our rights of self-defense are being strangled. If you don’t believe me, try to buy a gun and learn to shoot in Washington State. Just don’t touch a gun as you do.
Will Our Scofflaw President Try to Enforce an Unratified Arms Trade Treaty?
Eagle Rising, December 26, 2014

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.  It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  —William Pitt, the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
On the One Hand . . .
Obama has sold guns to Central American gangs and Mexican drug cartels—courtesy of Operation Fast & Furious—and has opened our southern border to ingress by these very criminals as well as Muslim terrorists and others. Obama also works daily to give the worst kinds of weapons to the Muslim fanatics running the nation of Iran.  Nuclear weapons!
On the Other Hand . . .
When it comes to the American people, Obama has signed executive orders and presidential memoranda aimed at infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.  Obama plans to use medical doctors as his agents, under the aegis of Obamacare, to create a national registry of gun owners.  And he also plans to use medical reasons to disqualify Americans, under un-Constitutional Obamacare rules, from gun ownership, creating the conditions for an unprecedented federal gun-grab.  (See my article concerning this issue at http://eaglerising.com/12893/obama-use-obamacare-doctors-infringe-right-bear-arms/).
The Pattern
UN GunThe disturbing pattern that emerges, from Obama’s policies and practices, indicates a president who wishes to empower those who break US laws and constrain those who follow the laws and want others to follow them as well.  This goes for everything from immigration laws to drug laws, and even extends to free-speech and self-defense rights under the US Bill of Rights.
How Our Scofflaw President Might Attempt to Enforce an Unratified Treaty
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs has announced that the Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the international trade in conventional weapons from small arms to aircraft carriers, officially takes effect on December 24, 2014.  Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty on Obama’s behalf in September of 2013, but 54 US Senators immediately released a statement at that time urging the Obama Administration not to try implementing the treaty without first getting Senate approval to do so.  But the fact is that, while Obama has paid lip-service to the Constitution on occasion, he has actually never let the Constitution restrain him in practice.
Treaty Provisions
Article Two of the UN treaty delineates the treaty’s prohibitions, which includes a prohibition, to civilians, of the right to purchase, own, sell, trade, or transfer every kind of weapon that could be utilized for armed resistance—which means handguns, among other things.  This would leave all American citizens at the mercy of criminals and, potentially, a tyrannical government.
Article Three puts the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article Two” under the auspices of the treaty, as well, allowing their importation and sales to be regulated, or even banned.
Article Four places all “parts and components” of weapons under the same-style regulation of the state.
Article Five has a “General Implementation” section that orders all countries signing onto the treaty to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”  This registry would exist to “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
Article Twelve of the treaty adds the record-keeping requirement that the list indicate “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the names of their ultimate recipients, referred to as “end users.”
hands off gunAnd, ultimately, the treaty demands that national governments enact “appropriate measures” to enforce the treaty, including civilian disarmament.  If these countries cannot get this done on their own, however, Article Sixteen of the treaty provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”  UN peacekeeping forces could help signatories of the treaty to disarm their citizenry.
A Possible Role for INTERPOL
Although the US Senate has not ratified the treaty, President Obama has signed Executive Order 13524 to give INTERPOL full authority to conduct law enforcement activities inside the United States with full immunity from US laws and with complete independence from American oversight.  This means that INTERPOL is to be allowed to enforce international law (possibly to include UN treaties, with INTERPOL agents deputized as UN peacekeepers) on US soil, without any check on its activities by US authorities who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  This is a possible work-around in President Obama’s efforts to enforce an illegal treaty through the use of a cleverly-designed executive order that will certainly require court rulings to overturn.  The order was issued by President Obama on December 16, 2009, as an amendment to Executive Order 12425.
Obama’s use of this executive order in this fashion would create a Constitutional crisis.  This would be a clear violation of the Constitution, but, while the American people wait for the courts to clarify it as such, they could easily be subjected to a process of mass gun confiscation in the meantime.  The loss of self-protection capabilities, due to the victim-disarmament that would ensue, would certainly result in significant losses of life to criminal elements, during the time that all of this is playing out on the national level.  And the upshot of all this could well be that many Americans will never see the return of their self-defense weapons, due to overhasty destruction of them by the state, actual loss or theft of the weapons while in custody of the state, or even corrupt pushback from state authorities claiming that they never took the weapons in the first place.
Chipping Away at Freedom
In the end, Obama will have created more instability and increased the incentives for Americans to divest themselves of self-defense weapons.  This would achieve Obama’s goal of increasing the dependence of Americans on the state for everything from relief money to police help (even though police help from a 9-1-1 call has less than a one-in-twenty chance of saving the life of the victim).  A gain in dependency and a loss in self-sufficiency among members of the citizenry would be assured.
To prevent Obama from fully exercising his propensity for executive overreach, the Senate and the House of Representatives should hold hearings, once the new Congress is called into session, to make it clear that this UN treaty will have no effect on US policy, domestically or internationally, unless the treaty is properly ratified by a 2/3 vote of the US Senate.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama is becoming perhaps the greatest teacher to Americans of a very important life-lesson: For the US Constitution to work properly, the president and Congressional leaders must act with integrity, according to the rule of law; the election of a fully-vetted chief executive is required, and he must have a reputation for trustworthiness.
Gun Control PSA Encourages Kids to Steal Guns
Last Resistence,  December 23, 2014

A controversial gun control PSA depicts a glum-faced child stealing his parents’ hand-gun, taking it to school, and slamming it down on his teacher’s desk crying, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house!”
As you might expect, this gun control PSA has not been lightly received on either side of the gun control debate. Numerous laws are being broken in the video, as one commenter pointed out:
    Weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing.
It’s hard to determine what the gun control PSA is actually lobbying for. Surely it doesn’t want all children to steal guns from parents and bring them to school? That would be madness. And it has the faint flavor of an Orwellian call to children to rat out their parents for “crimes” against the State.
The anti-gun lobby has lost its mind if this is the best they can come up with. The production company that produced the gun control PSA is trying its best to pick up the pieces after the intense backlash against the video. The video’s director is still telling people to share the video, even implying that it is cowardly not to. I fail to see why it is brave to share the video. Gun control is in itself rather cowardly—refusing to take responsibility for your own safety and cowering behind the skirt tails of an increasingly ineffective and tyrannical law enforcement bureacracy.
No thanks. Those of us who still retain our sanity will do what we have been doing. Protecting ourselves by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights, teaching our children how to view and use guns responsibly, and denouncing the idiocy of gun control propaganda.
Website Builder