Second Amendment

From My Cold Dead Hands

Northeast Senators continue to press anti-gun agenda

Gillibrand, Kerry & Schumer scheme to expoit campus shooter fears

by  Raquel Okyay

08/30/2011

North East politicians are rabid about gun control and are unafraid to act.  Let’s take a look at the three U.S. Senators that have co-sponsored the most recent anti-firearm legislation submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, S.436 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.  This proposed duplicative law seeks to place the same legal restraints on private sale and purchase of firearms that is encompassed in the Federal Brady Law, together with some new and so-called improved restrictions.

Senators Charles E. “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., and Kirsten E. R. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and John F. Kerry, D-Mass., the co-sponsors, proudly boost their, urban-style, anti-firearm positions without regard to the limitations set forth in the Second Amendment, to hell with the rest of the country.  They base their anti-firearm goals, as always, on the false premise that less gun sales is equivalent to less violent crimes, when the stats say — not true.

The story continues here.

 

Self-Defense Against a Violent Flash Mob

Use the A.W.A.R.E. principles to keep your senses, skin

by  Bruce N. Eimer, Ph.D

08/30/2011

Wyatt Earp disbursed many a lynch mob with his resolute demeanor standing behind his Colt .45 six shooters or a shotgun. Was his threat overkill? I don’t think so! It worked and usually, not a shot was fired. Check that thought. What about a “flash mob?”

Are they less or more deadly than what Earp encountered? And do you have the reputation of a Marshall Wyatt Earp?

The story continues here.

Trusting Your Gut and Staying Alive

There is a reason they are called “survival instincts”

by  Mark Walters

08/30/2011

Self-defense is more than just carrying a firearm, a stun gun, being a black belt or carrying mace. It starts with trusting your gut.

Have you ever had “that feeling” in the pit of your stomach, that feeling deep down in your gut that tells you something just doesn’t feel right?  Have you ever ignored that feeling only to regret your decision later to learn that your gut instinct was in fact, right?

Of course you have, probably many times. You have also probably told yourself that you are going to start trusting that feeling more often only to make the same mistake over and over to be reminded almost every time that you should have trusted your gut in the first place.

Learning to do so may save your life.

The story continues here.

Anti-Gun Groups To Buy
The Passage Of A Global Gun Ban?

EXPOSED: Pro-Gun Groups Blocked From Arms Trade Treaty Discussions

ALERT: Anti-gun groups are flooding the UN with bucket-loads of cash to make sure the UN Arms Trade Treaty is passed ASAP.

FAX All 535 CONGRESSMEN
Stop The UN Arms Trade Treaty & Defend Your Gun Rights!

Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to stop the world-wide gun ban. Newly elected Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, has vowed to fight to end Obama and Hilary Clinton’s work with the UN to pass the “Arms Trade Treaty.” Paul said, “Disguised as an ‘International Arms Control Treaty’ to fight against ‘terrorism,’ ‘insurgency’ and ‘international crime syndicates,’ the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, global gun control scheme.”

Here We Go!!! Shotguns Coming Under Fire From The ATF And Obama!!!

Basically this targets tactical shotguns as the problem.
There by outlawing many guns that people use for home defense.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-your-shotgun-soon-be-outlawed/

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smooth bore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

National Guardsman’s career destroyed by ATF

Posted: March 18, 2011
11:34 am Eastern

© 2011

In recent weeks I have focused on a variety of stupid gun laws. This week I want to look at an example of how application of these stupid laws has seriously harmed one individual.

Albert Kwan lost his small firearms business and his commercial real estate business along with his 25-year career in the National Guard, much of his extensive and extremely valuable firearms collection and all of his life savings. He currently works for a Christian mission program in China and owes his attorney something in excess of $400,000 – all in the name of stupid gun laws and over-zealous enforcement.

Kwan came to the attention of the FBI as they were investigating the 2001 murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wales. Kwan’s name showed up on a shipping manifest for a company that sold a particular style of replacement barrel for Makarov pistols – an inexpensive Eastern Block pistol. The company’s sales records were sketchy, but the FBI had managed to track down about 1,700 of the over 3,600 barrels the company had sold over the previous decade.

The story continues here.





Feds sneaking around Congress to regulate firearms

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, has a long history of excess and overreaching … and they’re at it again.

Using exaggerated reports of gun smuggling from the U.S. into Mexico as their justification, the agency has filed for an emergency regulation requiring gun dealers to keep track of their customers and file special reports to ATF whenever a customer purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within any 5-day period. Such special reporting is already required for multiple sales of handguns and has proven to be thoroughly useless as a law enforcement tool.

ATF’s requested regulation – which is unconstitutional, violates a statutory prohibition against firearms registration schemes and was obviously filed as an “emergency” simply as a means of bypassing Congress – would be “temporary,” meaning that it would have to be renewed in four or five months, and is said to only apply to gun dealers in states bordering Mexico, though the regulation, as submitted, seems to be missing that specific limitation.

At this point the proposed regulation is awaiting approval from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Political observers will recall that OIRA is headed by President Obama’s old friend Cass Sunstein, who famously advocated for the abolition of all hunting and for the extension of legal rights – including the right to have a court-appointed attorney – to animals.

While Mr. Sunstein is an attorney and college professor specializing, in part, in constitutional law, his record shows that his Constitution does not include the Second Amendment. It is expected that Sunstein’s office will approve ATF’s Emergency Regulation by the first week of January unless there is immediate and vehement objection from members of Congress and the public.

Click here for the rest of the story

Firearms and the Constitution
Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties
Lesley Swann Tennessee
Tenth Amendment Center August 19, 2010 
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under that Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so.

Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban
Sheriff says he’ll undermine gun ban  Anti-gun theorists impose dangerous policy
February 23, 2010 6:10 PM
The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.
Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.
CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.
“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”
Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.
Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.
“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.
Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.
At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers.
“This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”
Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.
“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.
(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)
The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.
“God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.
Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff’s to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.
“If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said.
In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.
“They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.
That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

Ammunition Control
Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration
by A.W.R. Hawkins
12/22/2009 
Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.
Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

Guns Save Lives
College student shoots home invader, saves 10 livesYet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .Several months ago, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.

After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.

Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believe the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.

However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.

(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.

The student continuing on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.

The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.

One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point

A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder … and he did it with a handgun.

This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?

Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.

Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: