Freedom

What if the Government Fears Freedom?

/in /by

What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president?

What if the current massive spying on Americans began with an innocent secret executive order signed by President Reagan in 1986? What if Reagan contemplated that he was only authorizing American spies to spy on foreign spies unlawfully present in the U.S.?

What if Reagan knew and respected the history of the Fourth Amendment? What if the essence of that history is the colonial revulsion at the British use of general warrants? What if general warrants were issued by a secret court in London and authorized British agents in America to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found? What if the revulsion at this British government practice was so overwhelming that it led to the Revolutionary War against the king?

What if the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw general warrants? What if the Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees the right to privacy to all in America in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?

What if, in order to emphasize its condemnation of general warrants, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant from a judge before invading the persons, houses, papers, or effects of anyone and lays down the preconditions for the issuance of such warrants? What if those preconditions are individualized suspicion and articulated evidence of crime—called probable cause— about the specific person whose privacy the government seeks to invade?

What if these principles of constitutional fidelity, privacy, and probable cause and the unlawfulness of general warrants have been regarded universally and publicly as quintessentially American values, values that set this nation apart from all others?

What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq—which had nothing to do with 9/11—and a pernicious private war against American values by unleashing American spies on innocent Americans as to whom there was no individualized probable cause so that it could create the impression it was doing something to keep America safe from another 9/11-like attack?

What if the Bush folks took Reagan’s idea of spying on foreign spies and twisted it so that they could spy on not just foreign spies, but also on foreign persons? What if they took that and leapt to spying on Americans who communicated with foreign persons?

What if they then concluded that it was easier to spy on all Americans rather than just those who communicated with foreign persons? What if they claimed in secret that all this was authorized by Reagan’s executive order and two federal statutes, their unique interpretations of which they refused to discuss in public? What if the Reagan order and the statutes authorized no such thing?

What if The New York Times caught the Bush administration in its massive violation of the Fourth Amendment, whereby it was spying on all Americans all the time without any warrants? What if the Times sat on that knowledge during, throughout, and beyond the presidential election campaign of 2004? What if, when the Times revealed all this, the Bush administration agreed to stop spying? What if it didn’t stop?

What if President Obama came up with a scheme to make the spying appear legal? What if that scheme involved using secret judges in secret courts to issue general warrants? What if the Obama administration swore those judges to secrecy? What if it swore to secrecy all in the government who are involved in undermining basic American values? What if it forgot that everyone in government also swears an oath to uphold the Constitution? What if Edward Snowden violated his oath to secrecy in order to uphold his oath to the Constitution, which includes the Fourth Amendment, and spilled the beans on the government?

What if all this spying by the feds has spawned spying by the locals? What if more than 50 local police departments now have received false cell towers from the FBI, but have sworn not to tell anyone about them? What if these towers trick cellphone signals into exposing the content of cellphone conversations to the police? What if the police have done this without the knowledge of the elected representatives who are their bosses? What if they do this without any warrants? What if the Supreme Court last year outlawed police invading cellphones without warrants?

What if both Bush and Obama have argued that their first job is to keep America safe, and they will twist, torture the plain meaning of and even break laws in order to accomplish that job? What if the presidential oath is to enforce all laws faithfully, including ones the president may hate?

What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president? What if the president’s first job is to preserve the Constitution? What if that includes the Fourth Amendment? What if the president keeps us safe but unfree?

What if invading our freedoms keeps us less safe? What if the president has failed to keep our freedoms safe? What if the government doesn’t like freedoms? What if the government is afraid we will exercise them?

By Andrew Napolitano | February 26, 2015 in Reason.com

Freedom

“Black Lives Matter” or “How To Further Divide Us”?

/in /by

racial equalityIs our country continuing to do the “DC back-step” in regards to racial division?  It seems like some are further perpetuating the tensions we felt when our country finally stepped out of the dark ages and began the road to healing. For those of you who believe this new media-hyped nonsense, remember back just a few short years ago and admit that electing a black President actually happened.  Would that have been possible 100 years ago?  How about 50 years ago? Do you think a man of color (any color other than white) would’ve beat Kennedy in an election?

We all know the answer to that question, but we as a Nation felt it was time in 2008. Many of us were ready to put our past behind us and move forward.  Of course many now regret that decision and feel betrayed as the man trusted to further unite our communities has done nothing but further divide them through, once again… RACE.

Now I know there are many that will say; “Well you’re a man of privilege. You’re white and have never felt the sting of prejudice.” I have felt the sting of prejudice through my friends.  I was taught to be color blind when it comes to others, and judge them not by their looks, position or beliefs, but rather their actions. I have been judged many times throughout my life based on the position of my parents or myself in the small local community I grew up in, yet I overcame those biases and moved forward knowing the majority of people will respect me for my actions.

Now after so many years of watching the racial tensions of the 60s start to fade, we have those who lived through those times, beating the drums again, in hopes of “stirring a new generation”.  Principal Nathaniel Rouse hosted a “Black Lives Matter” rally to discuss racial equality, with students and parents from Oak Park and River Forest High School in Illinois on February 27th 2015.  Although, he banned all white people from attending the event, reports The Chicago Tribune.

I can appreciate the desire to discuss racial tensions, since this administration has managed to drive a bigger wedge between our citizens, making this chasm wider and deeper than it has been in the last 30 years, but this discussion should’ve included ALL those concerned with this division. The Aryan Brotherhood was not lined up at the door wanting to gain admittance to this event, it was students (friends with those in attendance) wanting to show support for their fellow classmates and learn about how they can be a part of helping quell the new fires this administation seems to have fanned.

Rouse claims that further division of students into “Affinity Groups” is necessary and allows them to talk freely among those who look “similar”.  This sounds fine in theory, but as we know, it allows lies to be further propagated as well.  My daddy taught me that in order to get to the truth of the matter, you needed all people involved, present.  If you want to find the truth, you have to be willing to stand in front of it and face it head on.

The “truth” as it relates to this new rise in “racial tensions” is one of namby pamby coddling. We are ready to put the sordid past of our forefathers to bed and move forward with eyes blinded to race, color or creed. We need to get over ourselves and move forward without the need of a tissue to dry our tears of hurt. Whoever told you that life wasn’t full of “hurts” was lying to make you feel better. It’s time to put your big boy/girl panties on, dry those tears and get r done!

I will respect you based on your actions as I would hope you would do for me. I will do so, even if you are not as self-regulating, responsible and self-efficient as you should or could be.  I will lend a hand to all my brothers and sisters and help them overcome any adversity they may encounter in life, as long as they are continually trying to rise above on their own power and are respecters of others right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”.  Make no mistake about it though, if you ever view my kindness as weakness, you will have made a very grave mistake.

So let’s all take some time to start “walking in the shoes” of others, before passing judgement.  Let’s try to treat others as you wish to be treated.  This doesn’t mean one has to turn the other cheek.  It doesn’t mean you have to be a “doormat”, but it does mean we shouldn’t “judge a book by its cover”.  We all have to understand that this hate for others is not always racially motivated.  It is not always a “black and white” issue.  Evil walks the face of this earth and men of every color, race and creed do its bidding.  The way to stop it is for good men and women to stand up to it, period!  Let’s all work together with the intent of restoring our country, creating a safer environment for our kids and grandkids to enjoy the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” our Framers intended… for all.

 

patrickjamesPatrick James is the creator and founder of Cold Dead Hands and CDH, Inc. He is an author, gun enthusiast and avid outdoorsman who can be found chasing his passions 24/7. “I’d rather enjoy my life and skid sideways into the grave, worn out and beat up screaming that was a “helluva” ride than to never take chances and risk it all just to arrive in one pretty piece. Passion in all things is the key to a successful life.” ~ Patrick James

Having worked as a firefighter/EMT for several services throughout the years, he has also worked as a custom metal fabricator, certified personal trainer and chef. Growing up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, it was during his frequent trips to Northern Michigan where he learned of his love for hunting and fishing. Spending several of his adult years in upstate South Carolina, his love of extreme sports took root in the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains as he learned to rock climb and kayak.

“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and vanish into air.” ~ John Quincy Adams

You can find his published work A Frail New World: Digital Conspiracy at: http://goo.gl/XNaDMe

You can also find more information regarding Mr. James at:

https://www.facebook.com/colddeadhands

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjames2a

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjamesphotog

https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickjames2a

Freedom

Why background checks don’t work

/in /by

Psychologists and social scientists have long understood that people are inclined to stick to a belief even when they are presented with clear evidence that their belief is incorrect. In short, people are obstinate. Recent research has shown that this is not just a psychological issue, but also has a physiological basis. Our brains are actually wired for this behavior, and it accounts for a great deal of the strife and conflict we see in politics, religion and our regular daily lives.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work. At least they don’t work the way people think they do. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the population can’t get past their initial conclusion that background checks make sense. That’s why I want to ask you to make a conscious effort to suspend your own presumptions and beliefs for a moment and try to maintain an open mind as you read this column.

Not only is common sense not that common, it often doesn’t make much sense. Along with the obvious, there are almost always peripheral issues that come into play on any given subject. What we see on the surface is usually only a small portion of the picture. Ulterior motives, mitigating factors and the law of unintended consequences are always in play.

A great example of this is the “child-proof” caps on medicine bottles. The government started requiring these devices in the early 1970s. Common sense tells us all that making it more difficult for a child to get into dangerous medicine bottles will reduce accidental poisonings and save children’s lives. But in the years after introduction of safety caps and resistant packaging, poisonings not only continued, they increased. A major factor identified was what researchers called the “lulling effect.” Parents were apparently lulled into a false sense of security by the child-resistant packaging, and, therefore, they took fewer common sense safety precautions in how they stored and controlled dangerous products. Major public education campaigns had to be launched to teach people to do what their parents and grandparents did – store dangerous things out of sight and reach of small children – even when child-resistant packaging is used.

One is left to wonder how many lives, and hundreds of millions of dollars, could have been saved if the focus had been on education from the beginning, rather than blindly embracing a government-mandated engineering solution.

In the case of mandatory background checks on gun purchasers, first, keep in mind that it is already illegal for a “prohibited person,” someone who has been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors, or “adjudicated mentally incompetent,” to purchase or possess a firearm. Most of those people know they are prohibited, and, therefore, those who want to obtain guns get them through illegal means – theft, straw purchases or from the same guy who sells them their drugs. In 2010, only 13 people were successfully prosecuted for lying on a gun purchase form.

The second thing to keep in mind is that most people who legally buy guns already own guns. It is estimated that between 80 and 100 million people in the U.S. own something like 300 million guns, and millions more are sold every year. Estimates suggest that better than 80 percent of all guns sold in this country every year are purchased by persons who already own at least one gun. That means that fewer than 20 percent of background checks have any potential to “keep guns away” from someone who doesn’t already have one, and better than 80 percent are just a waste of time and money.

The third thing that is important to know is that the people and organizations pushing background checks are the same people and organizations that have pushed for complete bans on certain types of guns and “ammunition feeding devices,” pushed for registration of all guns and gun owners, and pushed for all manner of restrictions, limitations and controls over guns and gun owners. Their agenda hasn’t changed.

Also remember that background checks are not a free service; they cost money – a lot of money. At this point, the U.S. has spent, and is spending, billions of dollars to build, maintain and operate the federal firearm purchase background check system. And of course, the vast majority of that money is spent verifying that someone like me, who already owns a number of guns, is not prohibited from buying another one.

Finally, consider the civil rights aspect of this issue. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few rights originally enumerated and attached to the U.S. Constitution. This was done long before the right to vote was even considered a universal right. Yet many of the same people who tell us that even requiring identification to vote is a violation of civil rights. But these same people insist that paying a fee, filling out an extensive questionnaire, presenting picture ID and having a criminal records check before being allowed to exercise the enumerated right to arms is just “common sense” and definitely not a violation of civil rights.

Background checks, like all gun-control laws, focus on the law-abiding while mostly ignoring criminals. The idea that it makes sense to expand these wasteful and ineffective money sponges to include private transactions between law-abiding citizens is ridiculous and an affront to liberty. The real objective is not reducing crime and violence, but rather to add impediments to legal gun ownership to discourage it and make it more costly, troublesome and legally risky. Anyone with an open mind and the capacity for rational thought should be able to clearly see that.

Posted By Jeff Knox on March 5, 2015 on WND

Freedom

Guns Across America Austin Rally: Gun Rights are not About Guns, They are About Liberty

/in /by

by Bob Price 21 Feb 2015 Austin, TX

“About two hundred gun rights activists gathered on the south steps of the Texas Capitol to show support for expanding gun rights in Texas on Saturday. While much of the talk was about gun rights, many of the speakers used the word that Governor Greg Abbott used in his State of the State address this week when he said, “Let me briefly follow up on a word I mentioned a moment ago – liberty. In a single word, it encapsulates what this country stands for, what Texas symbolizes. I will expand liberty in Texas by signing a law that makes Texas the 45th state to allow open carry.”

Pastor Terry Holcomb, Sr., president and founder of Texas Carry, echoed the Governor’s remarks when he said, “Gun rights are about more than guns – It is about liberty. Texas needs to lead on liberty.”
Pastor Terry Holcomb, Sr. Texas Carry Founder

Holcomb said that Texas ranks right up there with California, Illinois, and New York, when it comes to the right of citizens to openly carry a firearm for self-defense. He promised that some form of open carry will pass the legislature this session. He then challenged the crowd, “But, if we are going to have liberty, we have to elect liberty minded candidates.” He encouraged people to run for office and challenge incumbent elected officials who do not protect liberty.

Waylon Montague, executive vice-president of Gun Rights Across America told Breitbart Texas, “We are here today to promote teamwork among liberty minded people.” He said there are many separate organizations fighting for a variety of pro-gun bills. “Each organization has passion for their cause.”

“Some of these groups have an ‘all or nothing’ mentality about their issues,” he explained. “All or nothing often gets you nothing.” He made the analogy of a “hail Mary” pass in football. “How many times does that play not work? You must have a solid game plan.”

Breitbart Texas asked him about the controversial Open Carry Tarrant County group that many believe nearly killed the possibility of passing open carry in this session. “To each their own,” Montague said. “I don’t agree with some of their tactics. There are more appropriate methods to achieve the desired results.”

While he said he would not be satisfied with the passage of open carry for licensed holders, he acknowledged that it would be “a step in the right direction.”

Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham is a Fort Hood Master Sergeant who became famous after he was arrested by police when he was walking down a country road with his son while legally carrying a rifle across his chest. After a series of alterations of his charges and two trials, Grisham was eventually found guilty of “interfering with police duties.”
C.J. Grisham, Open Carry Texas Founder

Two months ago, Grisham was named as a “Texan of the Year Finalist” by the Dallas Morning News Editorial Staff.

Grisham told the crowd, “We have a lot of patriots and Facebook rangers. But how many people are willing to put some skin in the game.” He said Open Carry Texas has conducted more than 3,000 walks across Texas while openly carrying guns. “Not one person was injured, killed, raped, assaulted or robbed while we were carrying these guns,” he stated. “And we were carrying the scary looking guns.”

He thanked the attendees for their support. “Without you, I am just a crazy guy walking with his son while carrying a gun,” Grisham explained. “Our guns are meant to protect us against tyranny.” He said the open carry groups across Texas are now 60,000 members strong.

Pat Cook told the crowd he has a unique perspective on not being allowed to carry a gun for protection. The U.S. Army soldier who has served in combat in Iraq had the unfortunate experience of being on Fort Hood last year when Army Specialist Ivan Lopez went on a shooting rampage that left four people dead and sixteen people injured.
Patrick Cook, founder of Come and Take It Texas, being interviewed by local news media.

“I am someone who knows what it means to be stripped of their dignity,” Cook said in a highly emotional speech. “I was laying on my belly reaching for a gun I knew wasn’t there.”

Fortunately, Cook was not one of those who was injured physically by the attack, but the incident left him with clear emotional scars. “It is exhausting to have to watch everyone every single day,” he explained. “It’s like being on a deployment that never ends.”

In discussing rights versus privileges, Cook said a privilege is a “lien placed on a liberty.”

In sharp contrast to the 2013 rally, Texas State Representative Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) was the only elected official to speak. The 2013 rally had a long list of elected officials standing with the groups to speak. It is possible that this is a reflection of the negative press created by the Open Carry Tarrant County group’s actions.

Stickland is a strong supporter of what is known as “Constitutional Carry” (open carry without a license). While his bill is said by many to have little chance of passage, Stickland pledged, “I will offer a Constitutional Carry amendment to any gun bill that comes to the floor of the House for a vote.”

“We will have a record vote on Constitutional Carry,” he declared. He said activists must push hard for what they want and not compromise on liberty because the “legislature will give you only what you are willing to take.”

Read more…

Freedom

BAFTE: Infringing on our rights again?

/in , /by

In this article published at Cold Dead Hands by Patrick James, he explains how the ATF is overstepping its authority and what he believes people should do about it:

Is our federal government at it again or better said; are they still trying to find new and interesting ways to take away our rights. In specific, is the ATF currently looking at reasons to ban M855/SS109 ammunition in regards to protecting LEOs. Is said ammunition, that can penetrate level 2A body armor when fired from a pistol so completely evil that they want to take it away from us or… are they creating a NEW supply and demand for money? I completely agree that LEOs should be protected, but being an LEO is inherently dangerous and just comes with the job. Are they trying to further restrict and infringe on our rights? I have no doubt that is a definite possibility, but I’m more likely to believe that they are creating a “money” scheme here. So let me explain this little scenario.

Many of you (hunters) in particular might be saying; “what’s this got to do with me? I have absolutely no need for “armor piercing” ammunition.” Well let me say this about that. They are postulating that with the advent of handguns that can fire rifle caliber ammunition such as the FN Five-seven and other hand-held AR-15 pistol/stock configurations that they now need to limit “our” access to this dangerous level 2A body armor piercing ammunition. Now I know most hunters could care less about handguns that can fire “armor piercing” rounds, but understand this; it’s not about what you DON’T need, it’s about what they CAN take away from you. What’s next? 30-30, 30.06? Remington or Thompson competition or hunting handguns? What about ALL those hunting rifles you are carrying whose ammunition can penetrate level 2A body armor?

Let’s have a quick history lesson and I’ll explain (in my opinion) what’s truly going on. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute, but there is an exemption that allows the Attorney General to determine if that specific ammunition is primarily intended for sporting purposes as it has been for a very long time, until now. Originally the provisions defining and governing these so-called “cop killer” rounds were enacted within the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (LEOPA), but when LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, the final bill focused on two specific definitions; composition of the ammunition and whether it can be fired from a handgun, and size, jacket weight as well as design and intent. This created a huge loophole in the original intent of LEOPA, by expanding the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include any ammunition containing a specified metal content and that it can be fired from a handgun. Viola. Eric Holder defers his responsibilities to define and rule as Attorney General as was always intended, to the BATFE Director and now they can propose the change, rule on the change and completely ban this ammunition without Congress’ approval.

So now we have the HOW they can do it, but some might still be unclear as to the why? It’s coming, but bear with me a bit longer as I wade through a few more defining actions and reasons I believe make this scenario a money making scheme.

The FN Five-Seven has been on the civilian market for over 10 years, and all of those years the Brady Campaign has been working to ban it. U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY of course) even wrote three separate bills that were introduced to the Senate and all three times the bill failed to proceed to a vote. They could NOT find reason to even entertain the thought of why it should be even voted on, let alone banned. Then add in all the new AR pistols to hit the market recently and we have the “gun control” nuts freaking out, using LEOPA as a battle flag and doing it without even realizing what they are creating. If we add to that everything we know about Level 2A body armor, and that there hasn’t been any significant studies to prove that deaths occur more frequently from penetration versus blunt force trauma. Yes, blunt force trauma is a much more common injury to occur when shot while wearing body armor. And we also know that almost every modern sporting rifle will penetrate even level 3 body armor. So who exactly does the government intend to protect by banning this evil, malicious cop killing ammunition? I’m interested in that answer, but I know what the politicians would say and it stinks like a fresh cow pie.

So again I ask this perplexing question; Why is the BATFE trying to ban M855/SS109 based ammunition when many other types of ammunition are just as dangerous with similar penetration qualities? Again I will say; money making scheme. Now, do I believe they are concerned with the lives of
LEOs, of course. Does our government want a chance to infringe on our rights? Again, of course they do, and we can see just how destructive this current administration has been toward our 2nd Amendment rights simply by looking at how many times the BATFE (ATF) has ruled and restricted our firearms regulations throughout the years. Here are a few facts that kind of lay out what this administration has accomplished. From 1969 to current the BATFE has had 52 rulings entered into the books in regards to firearms restrictions. Now that doesn’t seem like a whole lot in 37 years (although in my book, any restriction is too many) but here’s the kicker, 21 of those rulings have been since 2008. You read that right. There were 31 rulings in the first 37 years, and 21 rulings in the last 7 years. Do you think Obama is doing a good job trying to destroy the 2nd?

So what about this “smoke & mirrors” money scheme I was talking about? Well, if we do the research and math, we know that the government is going to be holding a very large stockpile of “armor piercing” ammunition very soon (conflicts abroad are winding down and we all know that) and no corporation would “ban” a product that you are holding a large amount of, that just wouldn’t make good fiscal sense (if you noticed the word “corporation” then good for you, because yes, our government is nothing more than exactly that). What better way to leverage that product and drive prices higher, than to release information that implies an impending shortage? Then once everyone and their brother has “run” and wiped out every store shelf in town, because they’re worried it’ll be gone tomorrow, who’s left with the biggest supply? You guessed it… Big Brother Army/Navy surplus. Now trust me, I’m not telling you to NOT run out and buy more ammunition, God knows there’s no such thing as too much ammunition. And I am certainly not telling you to NOT be concerned, we can see just how much the Obama Administration has done in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights. What I am saying is; “Don’t be surprised if this little scare doesn’t just “go away” in a few weeks/months and the prices “skyrocket” to absurd heights.

So what can we do about it all? It’s just like everything else that happens within our governmental “dog and pony” show, if you don’t stand up and question them, they will assume you don’t care and rule without your consent. So let’s all get involved and bombard them with questions regarding this injustice. Below is all the contact information you need to make an impactive statement. Write it up in your own words being as professional as possible (remember, although we all might be mad and frustrated for all this asinine bullsh*t, you will still attract more bees with honey). Give them logical talking points, use facts and make concise statements. And it doesn’t hurt to let them know that WE the PEOPLE are watching their every move. So let’s “blow it up” (their phone lines that is) and let them know that NO matter what reasons they are even contemplating this action, We are not happy.

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

Telephone: (202) 648-7070

Patrick James

Patrick James is the creator and founder of Cold Dead Hands and CDH, Inc. He is an author, gun enthusiast and avid outdoorsman who can be found chasing his passions 24/7’s. “I’d rather enjoy my life and skid sideways into the grave, worn out and beat up screaming that was a “helluva” ride than to never take chances and risk it all just to arrive in one pretty piece. Passion in all things is the key to a successful life.” ~ Patrick James

Having worked as a firefighter/EMT for several services throughout the years, he has also worked as a custom metal fabricator, certified personal trainer and chef. Growing up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, it was during his frequent trips to Northern Michigan where he learned of his love for hunting and fishing. Spending several of his adult years in upstate South Carolina, his love of extreme sports took root in the foothills of the Great Smokey Mountains as he learned to rock climb and kayak.

“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and vanish into air.” ~ John Quincy Adams

You can find his published work A Frail New World: Digital Conspiracy at: http://goo.gl/XNaDMe

You can also find more information regarding Mr. James at:

https://www.facebook.com/colddeadhands

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjames2a

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjamesphotog

https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickjames2a

Paskalos

ATF: You can have it but you can’t use it “That way” What?

/in /by

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.”

These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control.

However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45 (Note: unofficial excerpt of ruling found here), Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that
The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed —to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand— the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.

Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

*This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the “News” tab.

Freedom

Supreme Court Urged to Take Up San Francisco Gun Control Case

/in /by

ROSEVILLE, CA / January 15, 2015 – No less than 12 state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.

According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual–rather than a collective–right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.”

While some Second Amendment lawsuits have been decided based on the “text, history, and tradition” standard used in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that applied the Second Amendment to states and local governments, many lower courts have since applied weaker standards that lets most gun control laws stand.

“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”

“The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”

Parties to the amicus brief (in order of appearance) are:

  • Firearms Policy Coalition
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • The Calguns Foundation
  • Firearms Policy Foundation
  • California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
  • The Madison Society
  • Florida Carry
  • Hawaii Defense Foundation
  • Illinois Carry
  • Maryland Shall Issue
  • Commonwealth Second Amendment
  • Virginia Citizens Defense League
  • West Virginia Citizens Defense League

The brief can be viewed at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-704-Jackson-v-SF-amicus-2015-1-15.pdf.

Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., was filed in 2009 by lawyers for 6 San Francisco residents, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association.

Freedom

Pennsylvania towns abolish gun laws to avoid lawsuits

/in /by

New state law which makes it easier for gun-rights groups to fight firearms measures has divided Pennsylvania communities, with nearly two dozen municipalities ready to abolish gun control ordinances rather than be dragged into court.

An attorney for four pro-gun groups and several residents, Joshua Prince, has blamed the new law for putting nearly 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they will face legal action unless they cancel their firearms laws, AP reported. According to Prince, at least 22 of those municipalities have already either abolished them or plan to do so.

Pennsylvania, known for its tradition of hunting and gun ownership, has long forbidden its municipalities from enforcing firearms ordinances regulating the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition. Gun-rights groups complained that a number of municipalities neglected the 40-year-old prohibition by passing their own gun measures.

Under the new state law, gun owners no longer have to prove they have been harmed by the local measure to successfully challenge it. So organizations like the National Rifle Association can sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania member, while the challenger can seek damages as well.

At least one other US state, Florida, also allows a membership organization to file suits over local gun regulations.

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster have sued to annul the Pennsylvania law, alleging the legislation was passed improperly.

Officials say meanwhile the city could ill afford a legal fight.

“We get ourselves in trouble in terms of trying to circumvent a state law,” AP quoted Councilman Jeff Waltman as saying. “We’re not going to solve this with a local gun law anyway.”

Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania, wants to defend its ordinances, maintaining they comply with state law. The measures ban gunfire anywhere in the city and possessing firearms in city parks. There’s also a requirement to report lost or stolen weapons. According to Mayor Eric Papenfuse, Harrisburg’s laws are aimed at fighting gun violence.

“I don’t think it’s the be-all and end-all of public safety, but I think it’s an important tool to have, and it absolutely sends the wrong message to try to rescind those ordinances, especially given the epidemic of gun violence we have in cities like Harrisburg,” the told AP.

Gun activist and founder of American Gun Owners Alliance in the Pocono Mountains, Dave Dalton, said no municipality has a right to hijack Pennsylvania law.

“What gives a town or a city the authority to say, ‘We’re in Pennsylvania, but we don’t care about Pennsylvania law?’ It’s laughable,” Dalton told AP.

It is clear the local laws have violated gun owners’ rights without making people safer.

January 12, 2015 (Via: RT)

Freedom

Je suis… désarmé

/in /by

January 7th, 2015 was only a week after the fresh and happy beginning of the new year celebration; however it might be a day that millions people will unfortunately remember for ever like we still all do for 9/11.

I know, “Je suis désarmé” (I am unarmed) is a very poor title choice but it could mean different things in French such: (of course) “I’m unarmed” or “I’m giving up”, but also “I’m soften” or even “I’m emotionally touched”… and obviously it does refer to the now popular “I am charlie”.

Generally, I don’t like to react immediately to comment any recent event without enough time to analyze it. We often don’t really know what’s exactly going on, why it’s happening, how it happens, who did it, all social, religious and geopolitical reasons behind it, etc… So don’t try to look too much into it that way.

What would be more interesting for me to observe here is not really the event per se and all geopolitics it could involve, but actually, to have a take on it only from a “Gun Control” politics point of view…

As some might remember, not too long ago I wrote an article about the French Gun laws to demonstrate that It’s not about safety, it’s all about control and confiscation purpose…

And even if French gun laws are not as drastic as the ones we can find in Australia or the UK, they’re still pretty strong when it comes down to semi-auto rifles or pistols, and they’re a pure and simple ban when it comes down to heavier artillery such, full auto rifles, grenade lunchers, RPGs, explosives, etc… However Wednesday, the people who did the attack against the French satirical newspaper “Charlie Hebdo”, did have this kind of heavy equipment. So, how could it be possible?Well, I guess it just proves it, unfortunately, once again, that criminals don’t obey the laws and no stricter gun control laws would have prevent them to have this kind of equipment that is already banned to law abiding French civilians.

One must fool himself very deeply to believe that criminals who attacked Charlie Hebdo went through the whole process to join a sport shooting club for at least 6 months to receive some safety instructions and shooting test controls to get their approval to request an “authorization” that will eventually need the approval of the government services after a background check, a medical exam, and no criminal records at all (not even a DUI). A few weeks later you get a visit at home from the police to check your home and your safe where you will store your requested gun.  Then you wait another 6 to 8 months to receive the authorization that is only valid for 3 months to buy the requested gun from an official gun store. The purchase will require all proper paperwork which requires the store to immediately send the registration, with the serial number and your info, to the government. Of course you still won’t be able to purchase a full auto AK, grenade launcher or RPG. You are only able to buy a semi-auto AK and that’s about it… and you won’t be able to have more than 12 of them total.

Everytime a tragic event involving guns happens, we can see the same thing in the media, the politicians, and all anti-gun associations. They’re asking for more “Gun Sense” to stop “Gun Violence”, but what could have been done Wednesday to prevent this tragic event?

French people were already unarmed (since conceal carry is not allowed for 99.99% of the population). The French are so used to being disarmed that some neighbors didn’t even realize what the “loud noises” were at first when they heard the gunshots. Actually, even the police officers that arrived first by bicycles were unarmed and they had to leave the scene quickly, unable to provide any response and protection to the victims.

So, what “Gun Sense” would have prevented this? Unarmed people with unarmed police officers… the only way would have been to have “unarmed criminals”, right? I believe we must to come to the conclusion that criminals don’t play by the rules and antigun laws have no effect. A few weeks ago before Christmas, the laws didn’t stop another man from getting a car and running down 13 people in the French city of Dijon. But we didn’t hear a cry for “Car Sense” by organizations against “Car Violence”.

Wednesday, two of the people killed were police officers. There’s a very graphic video that has been circulating on the net showing how organized and brutal the criminals were when shooting down a unarmed police officer. Does it mean it mean this tragedy wouldn’t have happened if everyone had guns? I don’t know , however I’m quite sure some people would have shot back and would have put of a fight.

Wednesday, no gun laws and no “gun sense” could have prevented the “gun violence” in Paris, like no “car sense” could prevent the “car violence” in Dijon few weeks ago.

Being able to call Fire fighters is not a reason for you to not have and use your own fire extinguishers in case of emergency.
Being able to call Armed Police officers is not a reason for you to not have and use your own firearms in case of emergency.

Without firearms you’re only option is to try to run away from the threat as you won’t have the power to stop armed attackers. At that point it will be too late and you will realize you won’t be able to fight back and you’ll keep saying to yourself: Je suis désarmé…

by Phil January 10, 2015, (The Bangswitch)

Freedom

Ares Armor Writes Hilarious Letter to ATF in Crayon

/in /by

In an open letter to the BATFE, Dimitrios Karras of Ares Armor wrote a letter thanking them for defining what a weapon is, what a receiver is, and excoriates them on mistakes they made in their recently published 2015-01 ruling. The entire letter is published below along with the crayon version that is sure to be a big hit in the pro liberty community.

 

The Honorable B. Todd Jones
Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear Director Jones,

I have read ATF Rul. 2015-1 which was intended to clarify your position on several issues. I would like to thank you for your indirect admission that a firearm receiver is not a “receiver”, as defined by the GCA of 1968, until it can house all of the necessary parts that it is intended to house. I know this was not your intent. However, your words are very clear.

PART 1. Statements and Admissions

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.

You correctly state on page 2 the following,

Section 921(a)(3), defines a “firearm,” in relevant part, as both a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” (921(a)(3)(A)), and the “frame or receiver of any such weapon”

You correctly observe that both a “weapon” and the “frame or receiver” of a weapon are defined separately in the GCA. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.

As can be seen by your admission, these are defined separately. Therefore, you are also admitting that “may readily be converted” applies only to “weapon” and not to “frame or receiver”. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”

On page 3 you correctly quote the Broughman Case,

See Broughman at 675 (“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘manufacture’ is ‘to make into a product suitable for use.’” (quoting Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2010))…

You love to quote court cases that agree with you and ignore ones that don’t agree. However, thank you for this admission!

  1. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.

On page 2 and 3 you state the following,

“…it generally requires substantial additional machining before it can accommodate fire control components such as a trigger, hammer, or sear…”

“…incapable of being assembled into a weapon…”

And my personal favorite quote on page 3,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

Here, you have very clearly stated that an item that requires “machining or other processes” before it is suitable for use in assembling a weapon would not ALREADY be classified as a frame or receiver. THANK YOU FOR THIS GIGANTIC ADMISSION!

  1. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

On page 3, you incorrectly and in pompous contempt of the Court make the following statement,

Although such an article may be classified as a “receiver” when it is indexed…

As you are fully aware, this is direct conflict with UNITED STATES v. PRINCE. The ATF has already lost this argument in Federal Court. I have mentioned this case in previous communication with you. It is fully on record that you are aware of this case and its implications. Your choice to ignore this case is despicable at best.

“The court finds that the metal flat shipped to Prince is not a firearm. The court carefully considered the expert testimony of Agent Adam Galbraith, and reviewed the material submitted by the government concerning ATF opinions. However, the court simply does not believe that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and holes constitutes a “receiver,” i.e., a “firearm.” Rather, the flat piece of metal is somewhat akin to a piece of paper with lines drawn on it as a guide to make a paper airplane. Although making the paper airplane might be the intended use, it is not an airplane until it is properly folded. Until that time, it is a patterned piece of paper. Simply put, this court has no evidentiary or legal basis for holding that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and some holes constitutes, ultimately, a “firearm.””
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1506044.html
PART 2. The Lunacy Of Your Conclusions
On pages 4 and 5 you state the following,

However, when a licensed gunsmith takes in a frame or receiver to perform machining or other manufacturing process, that gunsmith “distributes” a firearm to the customer upon return because that manufacturing activity results in the making of a different “frame or receiver” and also a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile” –both defined separately as a “firearm” under the GCA.

You somehow confusingly conclude that even though both terms are defined separately, a “receiver” is a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile”

Let me ask one simple question… If a “receiver” is a “weapon”, why are they defined separately and uniquely in the GCA as firearms?

A “receiver” by itself cannot be “readily converted to expel a projectile” as the receiver by itself lacks the necessary parts. I would love to hand you a receiver and ask you to readily convert it into a weapon. Perhaps you would do that hand waiving Jedi-Mind trick thing you did to Congress when you were asked about why you raided my business!

A receiver is PART of a weapon. A receiver is NOT a weapon by itself, as it is clearly defined separately and uniquely in the GCA per your own admission.

Riddle me this one Batman… If a “receiver” is a “weapon” then it must have an individual part of itself that is a “receiver”, which would be classified separately from it as a “firearm”… So where exactly is it that I can buy this mysterious “receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver” that you refer to?
PART 3. The Common Sense Conclusion Based On Your Statements.

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.
  2. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.
  3. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”
  4. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.
  5. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

I conclude, based off of your statements, that one cannot be charged with a crime of “manufacturing” (make into a product suitable for use) an AR “receiver” ( “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”) if that “receiver” does not provide housing for any of the intended mechanisms.

I would like to thank you for your clarification that NOT drilling the through holes for the fire-control group (safety selector, trigger pin, and hammer pin) would be sufficient to have NOT manufactured a “receiver”.

Just to sink your own words in one more time, I will provide you with your quote from page 3 again,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

I expect that you will issue a letter in response to this stating that one can manufacture a 99% receiver (missing only the 3 holes for the fire control group) and not be charged with “manufacturing a ‘firearm’”.

I salute you on your efforts of making the hobby of building firearms at home easier!

To make things easier for you and your agents to understand, I have commissioned these concepts to be drawn in crayon. I have attached this drawing to this letter. You are welcome.

You block, you stone, you worse than senseless thing,

Dimitrios Karras
One of Your Restless Villagers
Semper Fi!

View the ‘Crayon Version’