None taken, but money corrupts and the NRA in my opinion plays chess with the political hacks in DC. Gun Owners of America is, again in my opinion, an organization that will stand fast on the Constitution and not waiver. If you give them an inch they take a mile. We have already seen it the encroachment over the years since the Firearms Act (forgot the year). What defines "Infringement?" BTW, I am a Life Member of the NRA and I do hope they win their cases, the issue is there shouldn't be any cases.

Help! Send Guns! - John Marshall
 

From The American Rifleman (Nov40)

An interesting article and great reminder.

Compare and contrast the British experience described in the subject article to our American experience - one of a gun culture...

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

ETA although the quote above is often attributed to Yamamoto there seems to be some discrepancy whether Yamamoto said this...I don't know. But, I do know that there is unquestioned pragmatism in such an observation.

Hollywood producer to attack NRA in new film.
 

An anti-NRA movie is being planned by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and will star Meryl Streep.

I am a Meryl Streep fan no longer.

And Weinstein? He said that if he would have been alive during the Holocaust he would have armed himself against the Nazis. What a hypocrite.


http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/anti-...1/16/id/547460

An excellent article
 

The following is an excellent article. I must admit I was thrown off a bit by the title; but when I read the entire article and the author's rationale, I couldn't help but agree.


Why I Cannot Support Concealed Carry Weapons Permits (And Why You Shouldn’t Either!)
Posted By Mac Slavo on Jan 17, 2014

John Filippidis is a Concealed Carry Weapons permit holder, which means he can carry his firearm on his person or in his car legally. He followed all applicable laws in the State of Florida to obtain his permit, and has been a lawful citizen since being “given the right” to retain a firearm when in public.

Recently he was driving through the State of Maryland on a family vacation when he was stopped, for no apparent reason, by a law enforcement officer who had trailed his car for at least ten minutes.

According to his family, this is how the stop went down:
The officer was from the Transportation Authority Police. ??? :confused:
He asked Filippidis for his license and registration. Around ten minutes later, he returned and asked John to exit his vehicle.
“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”
Filippidis told the officer his gun was at home in his safe.

Apparently the officer didn’t believe Filippidis, because he began questioning his wife, Kally, next:
“Your husband owns a gun. Where is it?”

First Kally said, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later to the Tampa Tribune, she said, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove... Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

That’s when things escalated. The officer confronted Filippidis:
“You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course a gun could not be produced, since it was home in Filippidis’ safe.
Because Mrs. Filippidis told a different story from her husband, the officer said he had probable cause to search the vehicle. And he did just that. He called for backup and they literally took the vehicle apart in an effort to find the weapon that Mr. Filippidis left in his safe back at home in Florida.

The gun, of course, was never found. After 90 minutes of having their personal property violated, the Filippidis family was released without charge or citation. Since Mr. Filippidis was driving according to all traffic laws, there was absolutely no reason to pull him over. And this is where our problem starts. Why did he get pulled over in the first place?

It turns out that when you register your weapon as a CCW holder you get flagged and tagged in the system. And, apparently this crosses over state lines, because the Transportation Authority Officer who pulled Mr. Filippidis over did so because he suspected there was a firearm in the car. That’s it – there was no probable cause of wrong doing and no other possible reason this car should have been pulled over.

Remember that whole ridiculous argument about registration of guns eventually leading to confiscation like it has in so many other countries in the past? Turns out there may be something to that. Mr. Filippidis and his family were, by all accounts, considered as, and treated like, criminals for legally owning a firearm, even though that firearm was not in their possession.

The chief of TAP has apologized to the Filippidis family, but no action has been taken against the officer that, in no uncertain terms, illegally detained and violated the rights of this family and did so at gunpoint.

As noted by Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, this illegal stop highlights the key problem with CCW permits and gun registration initiatives in general, and he argues why such registration requirements need to be repealed.

Denninger: Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits
There is only one solution to this problem folks — it’s none of the government’s damned business if you’re carrying a weapon or not. It’s none of the government’s damned business right up until you do something unlawful with it, at which point it becomes both reasonable and appropriate to search, arrest, charge, whatever — for the unlawful act.

But the bottom line here is that the fact that this individual registered his ownership and intent to carry for personal protection of himself and his family in the places where it is lawful to do so with the government meant that he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched by a ****head who has faced no penalty for the violation of peoples' Constitutional right to be left alone absent evidence of, or probable cause to suspect, actual unlawful activity.

The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first. It is only if and when you commit a crime with a weapon present and in some way related to the offense that the government gains the ability to intervene in yourpersonal decision to not be a victim and protect both yourself and others near you, most-particularly your family.

There is no means to solve this problem any other way, as despite whatever sanctions Florida may apply to its peace officers for abusive acts of this sort, the very act of registration exposes you to abuses by other political subdivisions in the United States. Therefore, the only means of stopping this crap is in fact to get rid of any such requirement of registration — period.

We’ll repeat that again in case you missed it: The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry.

Can we all agree that a criminal who intends to do harm to others will never register their firearm? They will be carrying concealed regardless of the laws of the state in which they reside. So, if the intent of these CCW laws is to prevent gun crimes instigated by gangs and others, then it is a total failure.

What these laws do in actuality is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own self defense weapons and, as the case in Maryland shows, to track those citizens across the country. Of course, the government would never overstep its bounds like the peace officer in Maryland did. That was just an isolated incident, right?

They’ll have us believe that officials having knowledge of every gun owner in their state, city or neighborhood poses no danger to the freedom of American citizens. Perhaps today it doesn’t (unless of course you’re John Filippidis on a family vacation). But consider what will happen should more restrictive legislation be passed – or if the President of the United States signs an Executive Order outlawing the ownership of certain types of firearms or their accessories.

It should be crystal clear: Gun registration in any form, even CCW Concealed Carry Weapons permits, pose an immediate and distinct danger to the liberty of the American people.

Editor’s Note: If you want to voice your concern over this illegal search and seizure, even though there was an apology (and I suggest firing the officer since he is supposed to know the law), here is the contact information for Maryland Transportation Authority:
2310 Broening Highway, Suite 150 – Baltimore, MD 21224
Local: (410) 537-1000 – Out of Area: 1 (866) 713-1596
mdta@mdtransportationauthority.com


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/su...ouldnt-either/

A two sentence federal law would take care of that BS. Any legal owner could carry ccw anywhere. No it won't happen, and not for the right reasons - for control (attempt to).

The protect the children statement you hear from political and t.v. folks is a cop out
. Simple generalized statement to give them a 'winning' fallback for those disagreeing with their views. They have similar ones for being racist or being against women. Hearing these should turn a light on.

Anyone see Wiener on the Kelly File? He's a real nut ...:)

Remember the people put in office are supposed reflect and support your beliefs and morals, what they do also reflects on you and your judgment or lack thereof.

Amazing & Eloquent Constitutional Law & Our History Shows Federal gun Control Is Unla
 

Amazing & Eloquent Constitutional Law & Our History Shows Federal gun Control Is Unlawful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FasYi_vqdWY#t=375

I really like this lady....

So do I.

She should be recruited by every attorney arguing for the 2nd Amendment.

Can I get an Amen !

She is a quite articulate speaker.

Right to the point, most men today have no balls.

Well, you "nullification" guys must have no problem with what O and Holder are doing, then. How about what CA, NY, and IL will do if we ever get control back? In fact, lib judges use nullification every day. Prop 8 in CA, voted in by the "people", was tossed by a judge. Why have laws? Heck, why have a constitution if you are just going to ignore the parts you don't like?

Pat

I'm confused, we still have Our Constitution? Oh! My bad you are talking about one those documents that are under glass in the National Archives. :cool:

You know, the one written by the old, dead white guys...........

Look up the New States Constitution.

I'll quote part of email that an constitutional attorney sent to me.

I’ve read the email you posted several times and I can’t really tell which side of the nullification issue he comes down.

Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she? I can’t find a real name for her. Her bio on her blog:

OK, fine. So, a “strict constructionist” is saying that we need to ignore a provision of the Constitution that may help solve the problems we face to solve those problems? Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution?

I’m not against nullification, per se. When we moved here to SE AZ, after the Monument Fire, Tombstone’s aqueduct from the Huachuca Mountains had been damaged and they needed to repair it. The Feds said that they could only repair it using the methods that were used to build it in the 1800s. At the time, Sheriff Dever was still alive and I felt that he should have challenged (nullification of law or policy), with a posse if necessary, the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it.

That said, why is she throwing out the Constitutional provision rather than adopting both options? The Constitutional provision is explained, and amendments offered, in Mark Levin’s book. He started The Landmark LegalFoundation in 1976 fighting against abuses of the Constitution and worked in the Reagan Administration. Publius Huldah has done what, exactly?

I'm sure Mr. Levin would love to know that.

This guy does a pretty good job of saying what I wanted to: http://www.redstate.com/roguepolitic...ntion-process/

In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?

Pat

I asked Richard Fry that question. His answer is the name is a, quoted "Her pseudonym is Publius Huldah. Publius is the pseudonym for Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist papers and Huldah is prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 34. " Sorry if that doesn't help.

Not being an attorney, I'd say most of this is found in the 10th Amendment.

"Michael Boldin is the founder and leader of the TAC, a national group. He is the number-one spokesperson on behalf of TAC. Boldin believes he and TAC are the leading entity and spokesperson educating and promoting "state nullification".


I like your story about rebuilding the dam. Maybe some nullify effects in that The People took care of business.

To make this more a layman's term, I'd say nullification is that which the government, state, local cannot enforce because those laws are not ethical or not moral as to the Oath we all took when held up our right hand. I think also part of this is the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States. Just my thoughts.

Our rights are from our Creator not the government.

As an SF soldier you would rather the enemy die for his country than you die for yours!

"the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it."

True American spirit...

The fed land managers in southern az are a good bunch too. Let me drive deep into one of the wilderness areas down their once to track a bad lion.

To be honest, the sidearms were not to intimidate the FS personal. It's pretty much daily wear wherever you go here and defiantly when going into wilderness areas. Then again... ;)

Pat

I believe you, there are some Bob Munden(rip) types here that need special single actions. Actually getting in the market pretty soon myself for a 3 1/2 birds head - mine broke in Montana (blew up - nice scar on left side of face too) - don't have a few thousand to spend on a new one yet - gettin' alittle out of practice %^#. A good single can shoot faster than a 1911 - for me two at a time - Munden types scary fast. Good for critters :D

Love Arizona!

Crap ten of the Worlds best shooter's are in New River alone - Whoever said don't mess with Texas?

I missed this the first time. I am not, and was not, SF. But, as a former Soldier, I agree.

Pat

Printz v US may prove to be quite significant.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1294p.pdf

This bill has teeth:

Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.


Molon Labe!

California ban on concealed weapons overturned by 9th Circuit appeals court
 

California ban on concealed weapons overturned by 9th Circuit appeals court

Did hell freeze over and I missed it? :confused:

Pat

Interesting...it must have

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.

Morons! 'Bear' means: (of a person) carry. bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug...pretty straight forward to a dumb ass like myself.


Do they really need the Supreme Court to figure that out :eek:

Sorry, I'm a pessimist; especially WRT the 9th Circuit. We live in troubled times and this does not follow the established pattern. Given that it conflicts with two other Federal Circuit decisions it might be a strategy to force the Supreme Court to review the case law. That concerns me.

The middle finger was given to an overreaching government...civil disobedience has often played a very important roll in the evolution of this nation.

Don't know where I could of put it, did I sell it at a gun show, honey where's my rifle - did you throw it out again?

I hear boating accidents are not uncommon...even in AZ.

Lol, that's a good one.

I think you are wrong. Unless each weapon was registered to a specific owner and previously required notification of ownership changes, the only way to find these weapons is a 4473 search of the original purchasers, which would require Federal assistance and IMHO, should be illegal. All the owner has to say is that he has disposed of the weapon(s) and no longer owns them.

They will offer several amnesty periods and make dire threats, much as the Canadian government did. Our own government did this with Class 3 items.

In the end, most owners will choose not to register them, as this is clearly an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. The owners problem will be that the weapon will only be secure from legal attention as long as it is kept out of sight. No more range days, gun shows, etc. Even driving around in the car with it will be risky. And disgruntled spouses and ex-spouses have a new, very heavy weapon of their own.

But the state has now created, overnight, tens of thousands of well-armed felons.

TR

TR, Better to have and not need than to need and not have. If you read the full story you will see they are amazed that there would be civil disobedience and even claimed ignorance on behalf of the gun owners not knowing the law was passed. Is that arrogance or what?

Connecticut gun owners opinion on the law:
"We can do whatever we want."

Turnabout is fair play...

Isn't that what the politician @ 1600 Penn. Ave pretty much said too? Now how does that shoe feel on the other foot pols?

The Hartford Courant editorial page is calling for aggressive enforcement of the recently passed CT registration requirement.

NY and CT represent the current front line on an undeniable assault on otherwise lawful firearm ownership.

<snip>

"And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?"

<snip>


Courant demands on gun enforcement present dilemma for state
February 15, 2014
David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner

Decrying estimates that “scores of thousands of Connecticutresidents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31,” The Hartford Courantpublished an editorial Fridaydeclaring “State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook.

Aware that “willful noncompliance ... is doubtless a major issue,” The Courant floated the wishful thinking “that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

“But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” The Courant concluded, calling on the state to use the “background check database” to identify who has not obeyed, and to go and get them.

"If ever there was proof that citizen disarmament demanders are lying when they scoff at legitimate fears that background checks providing a registration capability, this is it. And if ever there was further corroboration that they intend using that registration to enable confiscation, The Courant just removed all doubt."

“If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences,” they pronounce.

Perhaps The Courant's editors and those they’re egging on would do well to also consider consequences those who want to enforce the law should be prepared to face, as Mike Vanderboegh explained in an open letter to the Connecticut State Police posted this morning on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

Citing a Feb. 10 article in which The Courant estimated “as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals -- perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000,” Vanderboegh went on to note “CSP currently has around 1,248 troopers.”

Simply as a matter of resources and logistics, the state will be hard-pressed to allocate the manpower, budget, jail facilities and court case load capabilities to do more than scratch the surface to try to frighten everyone by making examples of a few. If The Courant is going to demand they apply those resources to all, perhaps the editors would flesh out what compliance with their call to action consists of, starting with realistic costs to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate every noncompliant gun owner, the number of total hours and dedicated personnel needed to execute that plan, how many decades it will take to accomplish, how many businesses will be disrupted by losing valuable employees, how much tax revenue the state will lose by taking productive taxpayers out of circulation and turning them into dependents, how many families will be forced into dependency to further burden assistance rolls, and what violent criminals who prey on victims are going to be doing while the state dedicates all those resources to destroying all those principled citizens their edicts turned into overnight “felons.”

Logistical considerations aside, have The Courant editors got an estimate for how many heretofore law-abiding gun owners the state will need to actually kill before their demands can be met? And that’s all assuming those defying the edict on principle are willing to allow a force they so demonstrably outnumber to destroy their lives. When faced with utter financial ruin, the effects of punishment extracted on themselves and their families, the lifetime criminal record, the lifetime ban on a right that supposedly “shall not be infringed,” and the prospects of being locked up for years with psychotic and dangerous violent criminal scum in institutions where terrifying brutality, prison rape, head-busting guards and total loss of personal freedom are all daily realities, it’s not unreasonable to ask why would anyone go gentle into that good night.

Well, they could just surrender and save themselves all that, some will no doubt answer.

True, and some no doubt will. But then, what good would the Second Amendment be if Americans just surrendered their guns when ordered to? The lesson of Captain Parker is not lost on some.

Has The Courant got a plan for when a percentage of Connecticut gun owners -- and it needn’t be more than, say three percent -- meets the order to surrender or be destroyed with defiance? Have they, along with Gov. Malloy and his enforcer Mike Lawlor, considered what their next move will be when that determined minority answers back that the state is going to need to do things the hard way?

And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?

<snip>

http://www.examiner.com/article/cour...alerts_article