Posts

Paskalos

Comedian Steven Crowder Debunks ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control

/in /by

Just when you think you have seen it all, comedian Steven Crowder recently set up a sidewalk display featuring a table of firearms and then took an undercover video documenting how the average citizen reacted to them.

The idea, he said, was “to see what people know — or don’t know — about firearms and just how far they’re willing to give over the reins to the federal government as far as legislation based on that knowledge.”

Crowder advertising his made-up “Citizens Coalition for Common Sense Gun Reform” attempting to get a made-up petition filled with signatures, Crowder tackled buzzwords politicians and pundits toss around such as “assault weapon” and “automatic.”

The video is very funny and worth a watch:

 

John Lamb

Texas Professors Sue to Deny Students 2nd Amendment Right

/in , /by

Three professors working in the Liberal Arts department at The University of Texas at Austin are fighting a Texas law that allows students to carry concealed handguns in their college classrooms.

Senate Bill 11, allowing concealed handgun license holders 21 and older (or 18 if active military) to carry in campus buildings, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, on June 23rd of 2015. The law went into effect Aug. 1 this year.

The professors requested a preliminary injunction to block the new campus carry law and had filed suit on July 6 against the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton; the president of the University of Texas at Austin, Gregory Fenves; and members of the University of Texas Board of Regents.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made no ruling during the court hearing after lawyers for the professors and for the university struggled to agree on the university’s rules and policies on concealed weapons, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, Yeakel requested more information to clarify university concealed weapon policies.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit says.

Paxton, the Republican Texas attorney general, called the professors’ lawsuit “frivolous.”

“There is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas,” Paxton said in statement.

Paxton filed a response with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division on Aug. 1 in opposition to the University of Texas professors’ request for preliminary injunction.

The professors “have no right under the First Amendment to violate the Second Amendment rights of students,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “And it is insulting to law-abiding gun owners—categorizing them as crazies who will kill someone over a debate in a classroom.”

A 1995 Texas law allows concealed handguns to be carried in public, including on the grounds of public college campuses, but previously excluded campus buildings, the Statesman reported.

Under the new law, public institutions of higher education cannot “generally” prohibit license holders from carrying concealed weapons, but are allowed to establish “rules, regulations, or other provisions” restricting guns from places like labs with dangerous chemicals and regarding the storage of handguns in residential dorm facilities.

Moore, one of the plaintiffs, who teaches English and gender studies, told NPR that “it’s impossible to do our jobs with this policy in place.” She continued:

We all teach subject matter that is quite sensitive, and we all use very participatory, you know, pedagogically sound methods of trying to teach students how to state their views on controversial subjects, challenge one another and stand up for what they believe in.

“I am genuinely not equipped to keep students safe from a firearm in my classroom,” Moore added.

Brian Bensimon, Students for Concealed Carry’s director for the state of Texas, told The Daily Signal that the professors’ lawsuit is “perplexing.”

“Concealed carry is allowed in our state capitol,” Bensimon said. “There’s plenty of open debate and lively discourse there.”

Allison Peregory, a 21-year-old University of Texas pre-law student, plans to get a state-issued concealed weapon license and carry on her campus, The Dallas Morning News reported.

“It’s important for people to have their right to self-defense be protected,” Peregory said, according to the Morning News.

Aug. 1, the date the bill went into effect, marked the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting that took place at the University of Texas at Austin.

“It is quite ironic; they [the professors] are apparently unaware that private citizens, including students, helped police in 1966 stop Charles Whitman, the University of Texas Tower sniper, when they grabbed their guns and started firing at the sniper in the tower,” Heritage’s von Spakovsky said. “One of those Texans, Allen Crum, even climbed to the top of the tower with a rifle to assist the policeman who eventually killed Whitman.”

Students for Concealed Carry is trying to block a University of Texas rule that allows professors to ban concealed weapons from their individual office space. The group filed a complaint with Paxton on Aug. 4.

“Gun control advocates think that gun bans will make people safer,” Dr. John R. Lott, a staunch gun rights advocate, former Professor at The University of Chicago, Yale University, and the University of Maryland, as well as founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center ( a non-profit formed to study the relationship between gun laws and crime ) and author of “The War on Guns,” wrote in an op-ed. “But banning guns only ensures that law-abiding good citizens are disarmed, not the killers. Instead of bans improving safety, these bans attract killers and make it easier for them to commit crimes.”  A study done by Harvard, a well-known and revered university by the left, concluded that, “The more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.”  The study looked at armed crime rates, including murder, in nations that have total bans on gun ownership compared to nations that have high rates of gun ownership among their citizens.

In the official policy written by Gregory Fenves, the President of the University of Texas at Austin, you will find some other strange policies that have been adopted, specifically, “A license holder who carries a semiautomatic handgun on campus must carry it without a chambered round of ammunition.”  While the school intends the rule to be yet another safety measure, it goes against what most Texas firearms instructors, police academies, and the military teach for self-defense.

It’s generally accepted that—in the context of self-defense shootings, which typically happen at close range—one’s ability to quickly and cleanly present from the holster is more important than even one’s aim. Being forced to draw one’s weapon and then load the first round (a procedure that typically takes both hands) is a serious impediment to being able to quickly and cleanly present to the target. Chambering a round in the heat of battle also denies the defensive shooter an opportunity to perform a chamber check—a safety check typically performed when loading a firearm. At close contact (any distance close enough for an assailant to grab the defender’s gun), having an empty chamber can essentially render the defender’s handgun useless.

This policy, also going in tandem with another rule to require that guns be kept in a holster that covers the trigger and trigger guard, goes further than any other university in prescribing how the guns should actually be carried.  When asked by gun rights advocates groups which experts the school relied upon to define these two policies, the school declined to do so.  If UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves wishes to act responsibly, he will modify these two policies. If he does not, the policies will almost certainly face legal challenges—challenges likely to succeed and likely to cost the university significant time and money.

Freedom

Californians May Have a Chance to Block New Gun Control Laws

/in /by

Barry Bahrami of Carlsbad filed Referendums late Friday to overturn the sweeping package of gun control bills signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this month, possibly stalling the laws until voters weigh in.

The six unconstitutional laws, which take effect Jan. 1, ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles with magazines that can be detached by pressing a button and the possession of standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The magazine ban is not only unconstitutional it violates Article 1 Section 10 prohibiting ex post facto laws. The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton noted that “the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law” is among “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.” The laws also require background checks for ammunition sales and limits gun loans between family members only unless done through an FFL dealer.

Bahrami faces an uphill battle to qualify for the Nov. 8 ballot because of deadlines set out in state law, The referendums could spill over to the 2018 election if the deadline is not met, which would suspend the laws until the vote.

Gov. (Moonbeam) Brown signed the bills July 1 then quickly left and hid in Europe, which means Bahrami would need to submit the signatures by Sept. 29.

State law gives proponents of a referendum 90 days from the date the law is signed to gather 365,880 voter signatures. County election officials then have 38 working days to count and sample the signatures before a referendum can qualify for the November ballot.

Paskalos

Rasmussen: Only 34 Percent Support Federal Gun Control Laws

/in /by

Rasmussen released a poll On September 23, which shows only 34 percent of likely voters believe the federal government should be involved in gun control.

Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe gun control ought to be left up to state governments while 18 percent believe it ought to be up counties and municipalities.

According to Rasmussen, the percent of likely voters who oppose the idea of banning guns for everyone but government entities continues to grow. For example, “69 percent think it would be bad for the country if only the government had guns, [which is] up seven points from 62% in December.” Moreover, 68 percent of likely voters—nearly 7 out of 10—”would feel safer living in a neighborhood where they can own a gun” rather than in one where a gun ownership ban is in place.

When Rasmussen delved into basic questions about support for gun control versus opposition to gun control, they found only 43 percent of likely voters support more gun control, while 48 percent oppose it. They also found that likely voters continue to view the heinous August 26 shooting of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward as a mental health issue instead of a matter to be addressed with gun control.

 

Paskalos

For The Third Time D.C. Gun Laws Are Struck Down

/in /by

In a 2-1 ruling, a federal appeals court struck down parts of a gun control law in Washington, D.C. as unconstitutional.

The three-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot stop gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month, nor can it require gun owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also squashed requirements that gun owners make a gun available for inspection and pass a test about firearms laws.

Overall, the court upheld six gun laws, including one that requires gun owners to register long guns, and struck down four others.

The ruling was brought in a lawsuit by Dick Heller, the same man who challenged the District’s 32-year-old handgun ban in 2008 and won, allowing handgun possession for self-defense in the home.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg (an appointee of President Reagan) wrote for the appeals court majority, and was joined in his opinion by President Obama appointee Patricia Millet.

Judge Karen LeGraft Henderson, named to the court by President George H. W. Bush, dissented in part.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said she was not surprised by the decision because, “Our gun laws have been under attack for many years. We obviously disagree,” with the court’s decision.

The District of Columbia is known for having some of the most oppressive people control laws in the country.

Paskalos

Not Funny: Sen.Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer call for more restrictions on civil liberties.

/in /by

Comedian Amy Schumer had alligator tears for two women who were shot to death during a screening of her movie, “Trainwreck,” and asked lawmakers Monday to support a people control bill sponsored by her second cousin, gun grabber U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer.

“I’ve thought about these victims each day since the tragedy,” she said at a news conference at the senator’s office in New York.

“People say, ‘Well, you’re never going to be able to stop crazy people from doing crazy things,’ but they’re wrong. There is a way to stop them,” she said.

Yes with the end of gun free zones, but that’s not what she proposed.

The legislation would create financial rewards for states that submit detailed information on its citizens to the federal database used to block sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness.

Movie theater gunman John Russell Houser shot 11 people in a gun free zone during a screening of the film last month in Lafayette, Louisiana.

He bought the gun in Alabama last year following the government’s failure to discover that he had a history of psychiatric problems and had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. A Georgia judge ordered Houser detained for a mental evaluation in 2008 after relatives claimed he was dangerous.

Chuck Schumer stressed that his bill would punishes states that fail to submit records about its citizens to the federal government’s database.

Amy Schumer now and advocate for restricting civil liberties, said she expected backlash for speaking out against the Second Amendment, but she didn’t care.

“I’ll handle it the way I’ve handled it the last 10 years,” she said. “I’ve had death threats and a lot of hate directed toward me. But I want to be proud of the way I’m living and what I stand for.”

Paskalos

L.A. City Council bans possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines

/in /by

Defying sharp warnings from gun rights groups, Los Angeles thrust itself into the national debate over  controlling the peasants and denying them their God given right to self-defense Tuesday, as city lawmakers voted unanimously to ban the possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds violating the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution “No…ex post facto Law shall be passed ”

The L.A. Times reported that: Such magazines have been “the common thread” in almost all the mass shootings…” but no surprise failed to mention the same magazines have saved far more lives when used in self-defense.

The NRA, Freedom Fighters Foundation, and other gun rights groups have threatened to sue over Los Angeles’ new rules, arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment and are preempted by existing state law.

In reaction, Councilman Paul Krekorian declared before a cheering crowd outside City Hall, “If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on.”

Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was eager to sign the L.A. measure, which passed 12-0 with three council members absent. Even as city officials celebrated the newly passed restrictions, some hard core leftist gun grabbers were dismayed to hear about a proposal to exempt retired police officers from the rules — an 11th-hour change sought by the union that represents Los Angeles police.

“People who want to defend their families don’t need a 100-round drum magazine and an automatic weapon to do it,” said Krekorian, but intentionally ignoring the original intent of the Founding Fathers who knew that arms are the final check on oppressive government.

Gun rights groups argued the law violates the rights of citizens to protect themselves. Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “are in common use for self-defense and they are overwhelmingly chosen for that purpose,” said Anna M. Barvir, an attorney with Michel & Associates, which represents the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Assn.

“Indeed, millions are in the hands of good American citizens. As such, they are fully protected by the Constitution,” Barvir said in a statement.

At the Tuesday hearing, the CalGuns Shooting Sports Assn. also raised concerns. “I don’t think it’s going to have any effect on gun violence,” said the association’s director, Chad Cheung, pointing out that people in neighboring cities such as Burbank or Glendale could still possess the magazines.

“Bad people are going to do bad things, and they’ll do it regardless of whatever laws are in place,” Cheung said.

The Los Angeles ordinance is modeled on rules adopted in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far survived legal challenges. Leftwich, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, assured the council it was on “firm legal ground.” But Barvir, whose firm represents gun rights groups, said the legal battles are not over and clients are considering litigation over the L.A. rules.

The new ordinance demands Angelenos must surrender or remove all standard capacity magazines within 60 days. Violations will be a misdemeanor but a criminalization of a God given right. Garcetti has 10 days to sign the measure, which would take effect a little more than a month later.

The Los Angeles rules exempt some special classes of people, such as, police and military gun owners, licensed firearm dealers, and people who obtained guns before January 1, 2000, that can only be used with such magazines. At the Tuesday meeting, Councilman Mitch Englander also proposed an exemption for any retired police officer who holds a valid, current permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Leftist extremist Margot Bennett from women against gun violence stated “If the City Council allows this exemption, none of us are going to be happy,”

Exempting retired officers from the rules tugs the extreme left-leaning council between gun grabbing groups staunchly opposed to excluding more Angelenos and the police union bosses who made only $34,000 in campaign contributions to city candidates and elected officials since 2010.

The police union has also pushed for retired officers who they believe is part of the special class of citizens to be exempt from another proposed ordinance that would require Angelenos to lock up handguns or disable them with trigger locks when they are not being used at home.

Krekorian and several other lawmakers have balked at the idea of excluding retired officers from those storage rules, which are expected to come back before lawmakers for a vote next week. However, Krekorian said he supported exempting retired officers from the large-capacity magazine ban because it wouldn’t pose a similar risk to the public, but what we suspect he really wanted to say is it does not pose a risk to the politicians and their power who don’t want the peasants to be armed.

Paskalos

Harvard Law Professor: “If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip the Second Amendment”.

/in /by

During a recent appearance on Newsmax TV, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said the Second Amendment is an “absurd thing” in our constitution and that our legal framework needs to be adjusted “to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership.”

Professor Dershowitz said:

“We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach. The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.

If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution. We have to live with it”.

Referring to the attack that killed two people in the Grand Theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana, uttering, “Guns have to be well regulated and they are not well regulated in this country. We’re going to have these kinds of massacres over and over and over again until we change the gun culture and the National Rifle Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

Professoro Dershowitz continued:

“What is needed is some very tough legislation both on the federal and state level to make it much, much harder to get guns and to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership, consistent with the well-regulated militia language of the Second Amendment”.

Many fellow Jews slaughtered by the NAZI’s probably feel differently. “Never Again”

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

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