http://youtu.be/gHJWofb5M_k
:D

I'll have to use that one in future...who could possibly misconstrue such a simple word?

Here comes my new year's word, Mor..., nope it speaks for itself.

His YELLOW, RED and DEAD LINES I totally agree with. We can all see this happening across America. The chipping away of freedom in a subversion and sabotage style that in under the radar for most.

I think Switzerland and Israel or better examples of nations that have good gun-control and citizens that understand the use of guns.

Switzerland been moving in the other direction lately. More restirctions on FA and you can not carry period so my friend there tells me.

CD

Hell yeah
 

Looks like someone took a page from our book.

http://www.examiner.com/article/conn...e-new-gun-laws

Gun design evolves a little every year...

n Open Letter to Lt Vance of the CT State Police
 

In reference to Examiner article.

When all this started many of the Sheriffs in Montana got together and went on all the local News to let everyone know "we won't enforce any gun law that 'infringes' on the 2nd Amendment". It was the wisest thing to do there.

Hmm there's some other simple words...
"Shall not be infringed" wtf

Proud of you Connecticut, very.

I'm curious if any Staties signed it, and how many of them feel?

interesting ...in this recording the Conn. St. Police Lt. Vance says the letter was sent basically saying "that we know you have the weapon". But we do not have weapon registration, really?

Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson, a real idiot
 

http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-w...nfiscate-guns/

First, I don't like Infowars but I've no doubt that any other MSM would not have run this story. If you read the exchange you'll see that Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson is quite overzealous in his comments and his lack of understanding concerning the 2nd Amendment.

What Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson (and the Connecticut leadership) doesn't understand is the bigger picture and what is actually at stake. You see Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson once you start physically confiscating guns of law abiding Americans you will start a war and one that you and your liberal/progressive/socialist puppet masters will not win.

When you Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson (and those like you) decide to take action by confiscating weapons of law abiding Americans so will I take action, but unlike you I can wait and I will be planning. You see officer Joseph Peterson it's been stated that only 13% of the firearms owners of Connecticut have complied, they are the sheep. But that 87% that did not comply, they will stand with me and I with them.

This is not about income inequality or the redistribution of wealth, it's not about corporate greed, greenhouse gasses or global warming, its defiantly not about race, creed or gender, it all about individual human Freedoms. A concept that is too difficult for most to understand, until they lose it and why we have a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution to protect our citizens against government tyranny.

You see Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson, when the confiscating of guns of law abiding Americans begins I will continue to fulfill my obligations as a soldier and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

All very well-written Team Sergeant.
And the moment the door begins to move off its hinges Officer Joseph Peterson and his fellow lackeys have lost all standing and will own whatever follows.

Funny, I see the Linkedin profile of Connecticut police officer Joseph Peterson is no longer available as referenced in the article. Hmm.

1st US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ification.html

TR

III%

Roger

I'll leave the light on for them....

No worries, his address and phone numbers have been posted on the net.

Update on CT
 

There have been reports that Navy veteran John Cinque has been receiving threats because of his stance on the issue of Connecticut's gun registration law. Apparently those reports are due to a misreading of a piece by the New Haven Register in which Cinque said, "There have been threats made — that I found out about today." Freedom Outpost reached out to John Cinque, who spoke with us this morning and confirmed that the threats he was speaking about were towards the Branford Police, not towards him.

"The cops are having the threats…. they are scared," he told us.

According to Cinque, Officer Joseph Peterson, who made comments in interaction on Facebook while off duty that he would "give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…" has been placed on 24-hour guard due to threats on his life. This information came directly from Police Chief Kevin Halloran.

Mr. Cinque told us that he had a two and a half hour "sit down" with the Branford Police Department on Tuesday. He said that the Branford PD was supposed to come out with an apology for Peterson's comments and wanted Cinque's endorsement of the apology in an attempt to cool things down.

"The first words out of the police chief's mouth… were 'How can you help us with this?'" Cinque said. "They're getting killed over there. They said they can do nothing but deal with this."

Cinque's endorsement would not be automatic. "There are some things here that need to be addressed before I endorse the apology," he said. "Don't make the apology to me. The apology has to be to the residents of Branford and to the citizens of the State of Connecticut."

"If we are looking to tamp this thing down…none of us need violence here," Cinque continued.

"We're winning this thing; we're winning this thing hard here," Cinque said, referring to the efforts to ignore unconstitutional and unlawful legislation that seeks to have citizens register their semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

"That's the last thing we need," he added, referring to violence.

"We're going to try to throw water on this thing and get it calmed down ..." Cinque said. "The whole premise of where Joe's coming from has to be addressed, and now it has been ... Now it's time to calm it down ...

"The problem now is, we have a forest fire burning, and we've got to see how we can go about extinguishing it," he said.

John Cinque stressed that threats and violence on both sides is not what will win the day. "None of us wants violence anyway."

Cinque also pointed out that no ex post facto laws or retainers can be instituted, and that doesn't apply to just guns.

For his part, Cinque said there would have to be several things in the apology before he would endorse it. One of those things would be remedial training in the United States Constitution for Officer Joseph Peterson and the other officers of the Branford Police Department. Another would be a stand that the Police Department would not be involved in the enforcement of the gun registration law.

Branford Police as scheduled to contact John Cinque today. At the time of the writing of this article, they have not done so. The purpose of the contact, according to Mr. Cinque, is to get his approval of their apology, which they will seek to have broadcast via television with Mr. Cinque lending his approval to the apology.

While Mr. Cinque has been thrown into a whirlwind of news publicity in the past week, he is confident that cooler heads will prevail and wants to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That solution is to have constitutionally educated law enforcement officers, who also understand the history of gun registration / confiscation, and a citizenry who elect lawmakers who understand the same.

Mr. Cinque has said that he will update us on any progress of the Branford Police apology. If, and when, it becomes public, we will provide our readers with that information.

This is a lesson in how to deal with this issue in your own town, county and state. The people must be vocal and they must not back down. Threats of violence are not the way to go about things. Citizens are to remain vigilant, and the only proper use of force would be defensively. I applaud the efforts of patriots like John Cinque and others who have drawn a line in the sand, and unlike a certain occupant of the White House, don't blink when the line is crossed.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/th...2zo7jwYAgeZ.99

Stilletto, thanks for posting.

It appears they are stuck in the OODA Loop, confused as how to proceed.

I have been racking my brain to come up with a viable solution to this issue (2A encroachment), and other issues plaguing our way of life as Americans. That is why I am a member of this forum, because I am interested in the SF way of life, and from what I understand, problem solving is a big part of that way of life. As I see it, we have some enormous problems that need solving.

In regard to the highlighted portion of the article, I am having a difficult time understanding the phrase “cooler heads will prevail". From my view of outside looking in, voting and educating haven't done squat but allow the powers that be to further diminish our Constitutional rights by way of the death by a thousand cuts method to satisfy greed. So how do we, as a Nation, either regain our rights, or cease the actions being taken to whittle down those rights? Judging from the last two Presidential elections and other elections across the board, the vast majority of people in America don't give two pennies about what happens to the Nation as a whole, so long as it doesn't interfere with their TV reception. So how will you convince millions of sheeple to wake the hell up? I don't have the answers, and that is why I pose these questions. It just seems apparent that being the cooler head gets you pissed on to warm it back up.

Americans have short attention spans. You can give the best speech or show the best TV ads and two minutes later, after that trip to Wendy's, all is forgotten. I saw this country band together for the most part right after 9/11, and it stayed that way for a few years. Is that what it will take? Will it take another outside attack that destroys American lives and families for people to realize just how precious our liberty is? I certainly and sincerely hope that does not happen again, so what can we do? There are enough great minds on this board to come up with alternative solutions that we can maybe forward to elected officials and get real results instead of empty promises.

The letter in the original post of this thread is a great start, but outside of a few websites, I haven’t seen it mentioned by anyone it was directed to anywhere else. So now what? How can we get our elected officials to really listen? The dissent shown in Connecticut is also a great start, but those individuals who defied their leaders are now felons. Will America get up in arms when they start kicking in doors and dragging these newly minted criminals out to the patty wagon? I doubt it.

A compilation of ideas has led me to a solution, albeit it may get me arrested for thoughtcrime. Here goes the "what if...?". What if, we had a person or a handful of intelligent, charismatic, and articulate people who hold a "Million man march" rally of sorts in DC while Congress is in session? While having personnel in the crowd to self-police, we move the crowd to the U.S. Capitol. We then physically open the doors, and with a list of those seated who are blatantly opposed to the Constitution, start systematically offering the ultimatum of either "get out, or we'll throw you out".

With sufficient numbers, I believe this could be a solution without a shot being fired. We would keep those who have the core beliefs this Nation was built on to aid in the reconstruction of Congress, and hold emergency elections in each district not represented any longer to repopulate the empty seats. The voting tickets would have no party affiliations listed, just a limited number of candidates who have 48 hours to state their case via televised town hall style forums.

This would be an "action" that Americans would pay attention to, while simultaneously reverting back to the way business should be conducted according to the provisions outlined in the Constitution. It sounds crazy, but I'm just spitballing here to see what others think.

First of all, a person is not a felon unless tried by his peers and found guilty. There is no such thing as a expost facto felon or paper felon. Secondly, I can't agree with the idea of marches, letter writing, hearings, phone calls etc. It was already done and didn't work. The legislature and Governor of CT got their marching orders from DC. Gun Control is an agenda that does not include rational thinking. It is put in place for a reason and the reason is one of disarmament and disarmament alone. Do not be fooled. The line has been drawn and the actors will take their course. Not a rant just some thoughts on the subject.

Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.

I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?

I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............

"So at this point, what difference does it make".........

The propaganda campaign rolls on and gun owners and guns in general are being characterized as evil and the sheep eat this stuff like its candy. Connecticut politicians thought that everyone would just obey and that was a miscalculation based on arrogance and a thirst for power. There are plenty of keyboard warriors who talk tough until it is time to go to the fight. I saws them in line registering mags and rifles. Time will tell but I hope that all freedom loving individuals gun owners or not will band together for a common cause....Freedom. We live in precarious times.

I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....

Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.

Then can we put them on boats and planes to Europe and take away their f'in computers? :@-;&%:(*

I hope you're right.

I hope the Supreme Court supports the 2A on this one. The ONLY thing I miss that NJ has is their beaches.


Case to Watch: Drake v. Jerejian
by Allen Thompson, Esq.

By Allen Thompson, Esq.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided not to hear several important firearms rights cases this year, setting aside such issues as: whether a concealed carry permit-holder residing at a house creates an exigent circumstance in which police do not have to announce their presence, and whether a 10-round magazine, deemed protected by the Second Amendment, can be prohibited as a safety measure. However, one case is still standing and the Supreme Court is still receiving briefs on the merits.

Drake v. Jerejian, Docket No. 13-827 (which started out life as Drake v. Filko), challenges New Jersey’s impossibly restrictive carry permit requirements. In order to gain a carry permit in New Jersey, one must first demonstrate “justifiable need.” To many people’s surprise, one can only show “justifiable need” in one of two ways: a specific threat against the person, or a significant enough history to demonstrate that need. In addition, one must show that carrying a firearm is the only way to prevent harm from the attack. Once local law enforcement signs off on the permit, an applicant still needs approval from the New Jersey Superior Court. And, as Mr. Drake found out, even if the local law enforcement authorities grant the permit, the New Jersey State Police is still likely to appeal.

John Drake, Gregory Gallaher, Lenny Salerno, and Finley Fenton, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, filed suit challenging the essential ban on carrying in New Jersey. John Drake, who operates a business restocking and servicing ATM machines, necessarily carries large amounts of cash on him and desired to carry a firearm for protection. After initially being approved by the local law enforcement agency, the New Jersey State Police appealed and the Superior Court reversed the LEO’s approval. The current lawsuit was then filed and the denial was eventually upheld by the Third Circuit. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case currently sits, awaiting its fate.

To date, numerous heavy hitters have entered the arena as amici, or third-parties with some interest in the outcome of the case. The NRA, the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Cato Institute have all filed briefs in support of the challenge to New Jersey’s law. Nineteen states* also filed to support the challenge, as well as the Judicial Education Project. A single brief was filed on behalf of the following: Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Policy Analysis Center. Members of Congress submitted a brief, as well, urging clarification on firearms laws.

Respondents (those defending New Jersey’s law) had until March 14 to file a response. Although nothing has been posted on the docket as of yet, it is quite possible that, because March 14 was a Friday and Monday saw inclement weather in Washington, D.C., the docket simply does not reflect the submission yet. We will keep you posted as this case progresses.



*The following states joined Wyoming in filing the amicus brief in support of the Petitioners: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.


New post on Prince Law Offices, P.C.

The letter is in the news again
http://madworldnews.com/green-berets...ond-amendment/

This comment was interesting... How would you respond?

1. That decision is made by Congress, not the military itself.

2. Contrary to Washington's wishes, the US has a number of treaty commitments for the defense of allies around the world. As the militia is limited by the Constitution to repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections, and enforcing the laws of the union, those defense commitments must be met with the use of regular and volunteer forces.

Thanks for that link BS; a perusal of the comments also yielded a more diverse group that read it than I would have supposed.

A major influence in New Jersey is that the NJSP and other Police Agencies bellieve only they as LEOs have the authority and right to carry a firearm. They are so indoctrinated that any Citizen that owns a firearm is suspect.

The other angle on this is that if the ATM Technician needs protection, the NJSP believe he should hire an off duty Police Officer. Some towns have local laws specifying that you must hire an On Duty Police Officer, using their Office of Outside Employment or such thing. What a small business owner can do as part of his/ her business costs, now shoots through the roof. Many of these towns charge hundreds of dollars PER HOUR for services.

Shocking, NJ has a racket going. Take away citizens rights, so LE can make more money. Ridiculous

Hawaii Now a 'Shall-Issue' State
 

Common Core's version of the 2nd Amendment
 

It looks as if this is Common Core's version of the 2nd Amendment. If this is their version of the 2nd, I'd hate to see what their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 14th and 16th look like.

You certainly do.

What is the original definition of a militia?

TR