Pennsylvania towns abolish gun laws to avoid lawsuits

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)

Ares Armor Writes Hilarious Letter to ATF in Crayon

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.””
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’



Gun control groups scrounge for cash, ideas to fight GOP-controlled Congress

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC seeks guidance after defeats

Gun control groups are scrounging for money and ideas as they prepare for the Republican-controlled Congress, which they expect will continue to thwart stricter firearm laws and move to expand gun rights.

Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, the group founded by gunshot victim and former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, sent an email to supporters soliciting cash and guidance on how to advance its cause in the wake of repeated legislative and election defeats.
The email linked to a survey that asked more than a dozen questions about how to make the group more effective, including whether its efforts should be concentrated on Congress, state legislatures or ballot initiatives.
“We’re asking our supporters to tell us what they think Americans for Responsible Solutions should do next year. Our team has some great ideas, but we want to hear from you,” the email said.

The group did not respond to repeated inquires about its agenda for 2015.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he would fight to hold ground in Congress. He said he has set his sights on the next election cycle and the Congress that will convene in 2017.
“We’ll probably be playing a little more defense, but I think we’re optimistic that we’ll be able to tamp down any type of [National Rifle Association] meddling and then be in a better position in 2016 to continue our work,” he said. “We’re not going to be going away. I can tell you that much.”

Mr. Horwitz found a bright spot in election losses that reduced Senate Democrats to minority status: It weeded out red-state Democrats who supported gun rights and left the party united in opposition to the pro-gun agenda.

“It’s going to be a much stronger, unified bunch of Democrats, and I think that is going to be able to hopefully stop most of the NRA’s agenda,” he said.

He said the pro-gun agenda likely would include policy riders on spending bills that would expand concealed carry rights and ease gun laws in the District of Columbia.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam would not confirm the organization’s legislative goals but said it would continue the fight on behalf of gun owners.

“We don’t take anything for granted. If there is one thing we’ve learned, it is the gun ban and gun control advocates are extremely well-funded, they are really adept at exploiting tragedy and nothing, including logic, stops them from pushing their political agenda,” he said.

Candidates endorsed by gun control groups lost to NRA-backed candidates throughout the country this year in contests for governor, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The election defeats followed years of unsuccessfully lobbying for bills that would expand background checks for firearm purchasers and limit the number of bullets in ammunition clips, measures backed by President Obama after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that left 20 children and six teachers dead.

Americans for Responsible Solutions fared worse than some other like-minded organizations. It poured resources into trying to re-elect Rep. Ron Barber, a former congressional aide to Ms. Giffords who succeeded her as representative of the Tucson-area district after she was severely injured by gunfire at a rally in 2011.
Mr. Barber, who also was injured in the attack, narrowly lost to Republican Martha McSally in an election dominated by gun issues.

Gun control groups found solace in victories in state legislatures and with ballot initiatives, including a referendum in Washington state that resulted in a law requiring background checks on all firearms sales.

“That was the Washington that mattered last election season. It proved that if politicians won’t act to prevent gun violence, voters will take matters into their own hands,” said Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for Everytown for Gun Safety, a group financed by the personal fortune of former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

Everytown will be shifting its focus from Congress next year to legislative fights in as many as 20 states, the group said.

Gun control advocates also pointed to the recent confirmation of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy as evidence that their cause was not completely lost on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Murthy was opposed by the NRA because he advocated for gun control laws and characterized the prevalence of firearms as a public health issue. In his confirmation hearing, however, he pledged not to use his office as a “bully pulpit for gun control.”

Mr. Murthy’s confirmation was pushed through with a batch of nominees in the final days of the session before Democrats ceded power to Republicans.

“We can see that political leaders are listening to what’s happening in the states as they recently confirmed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in a stunning defeat of the gun lobby’s fight against his nomination,” Ms. Lamb said.
By S.A. Miller – Thursday, January 1, 2015- The Washington Times

Making Colorado Safe for Guns and Pot

A planned initiative would challenge federal prohibitions on marijuana smokers’ right to carry guns

Two Colorado firearms instructors are planning a ballot initiative in their state to help smash a huge violation of citizens’ rights: that marijuana smokers, according to the federal government, are not allowed to own guns.

The 1968 Gun Control Act declared in section 922(g) that unlawful users of, or those addicted to, a controlled substance can’t legally possess guns. As more and more Americans use marijuana, medically or recreationally, and legally under state law, the feds have more urgently stressed that point. In September 2011, the ATF issued a memo reminding federal firearms licensees there’s no exception to section 922(g). If they sell a gun to someone they know or reasonably suspect to be a marijuana user, even if that use is state-legal, the dealer is violating federal law. Gun purchasers must fill out a form from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in which they are legally compelled to truthfully answer: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana…or any other controlled substance?”

These sorts of categorical exclusions of certain types of Americans from their Second Amendment rights might not stand up to intelligent judicial scrutiny in a post-Heller world. Others have already tried and failed to get the Supreme Court to overturn such blanket restrictions of gun rights for illegal aliens and those convicted of domestic violence. But as Jacob Sullum has written, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared this month in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department that prohibiting gun ownership to everyone who’s ever been committed to a mental institution is overly broad, not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, and thus invalid. Whether other circuits or, eventually, the Supreme Court agree remains to be seen.

The Colorado activists behind the would-be ballot measure, Edgar Antillon and Isaac Chase, are making an end run around courts as they launch the Colorado Campaign for Equal Gun Rights. The measure would amend Colorado law so that state-legal use of marijuana would be no barrier to receiving a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Antillon says that as a firearms instructor he has run into many students who “are users of marijuana for medicinal or recreational reasons. The bottom line is we saw they were being denied their right to self-defense and we thought it appropriate to start this campaign for equal access.”

This Colorado effort isn’t the first recent attempt to topple the pot smoker exception to the Second Amendment. Oregon saw a victory for the cause of gun-toting pot smokers in the 2011 state case Willis v. Winters. Local sheriffs thought that being required to issue concealed carry permits to state medical marijuana permit holders put them in violation of federal law, and sued. The state’s Supreme Court ultimately declared that “State law requires sheriffs to issue concealed gun licenses without regard to whether the applicants use medical marijuana.” That doesn’t mean federal officials, or even state sheriffs, can’t still enforce the federal law against marijuana users possessing guns; merely that such users can get an Oregon permit to carry a weapon and are not violating state law by doing so.

The losing sheriffs tried to take the issue to the Supreme Court, but in January 2012 the Court declined to take up the case. Although it was an Oregon state case, the court’s arguments should be of some value to a hypothetical lawyer who might have to defend any victory for the proposed Colorado amendment, if such victory occurs in 2016. As an Oregon appeals court declared in one iteration of Willis v. Winters as it moved through the state’s court system, and as the Oregon Supreme Court upheld, the “circuit court correctly concluded that Oregon’s concealed handgun licensing statutes are not preempted by the federal Gun Control Act. The concealed handgun licensing statutes do not affirmatively authorize controlled substance users to possess handguns; rather, they exempt a licensee from state criminal liability for the possession of a concealed handgun.” If Colorado ends up also having a concealed carry permit process via ballot measure that allows for known pot users to get such a permit, the same argument could be made that a mere lack of a state carry permit process that punishes pot users is not inherently pre-empted by the federal Gun Control Act—though that is no guarantee a federal court will agree.

Wilson v. Holder is a federal case also challenging the prohibition of medical marijuana licensees from owning guns. Rowan Wilson, then a Nevada medical marijuana card holder, tried to buy a gun from a dealer who knew her status. He refused to sell to her because of the ATF’s letter. The ATF policy that dictated the dealer’s decision violated her Second Amendment rights, she believed, and in October 2011 sued about it in federal court in Nevada.

In March 2014, Wilson’s case was tossed out of court by Judge Gloria Navarro, a decision that Wilson and her lawyers are now appealing to the Ninth Circuit. Among their arguments in their Ninth Circuit filings: it is illegitimate to equate marijuana license possession with current illegal drug use; the ATF letter essentially declares a class of citizens criminals with no due process, and even constitutes a substantive change in law by making mere medical license holders presumptive criminals without following the Administrative Procedure Act.

Wilson’s lawyers also insist the 2011 Ninth Circuit Dugan decision that Navarro relied on in declaring the challenged ATF policy or any other prohibition on gun possession related to drug use had no Second Amendment implications was about someone with a career of criminality, including drug and weapons trafficking. Thus, his position is not analogous in terms of a compelling state interest in prohibiting weapon possession to an otherwise law-abiding medical marijuana card possessor such as Wilson

On the legislative front, Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) proposed a bill amendment this year to defund Department of Justice and ATF attempts to enforce gun laws against state-legal medical marijuana users, but it failed.

ATF’s Colorado office didn’t respond to a request for comment on the proposed ballot measure by press time. But the mixture of pot and guns seems very likely to be too combustible for the feds to ignore, except, maybe, with a Rand Paul Justice Department and ATF, or a Ted Cruz one. Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which has fought successful court battles to extend Second Amendment rights in the wake of Heller, is sure the Justice Department and ATF would crack down hard on any state that tried to ignore federal prohibitions on drug user’s gun possession.

Antillon and Chase’s idea, though it has already won national press attention from the Associated Press and Fox News, is at a very early stage. Antillon admits they haven’t fully worked out a fundraising or legal strategy, though he offers $100,000 as a likely minimum to even get on the ballot, much less fight via ads through the election cycle.

His group has done randomized internal polling of 2500 Coloradans, he says, that finds 60 percent support. Many would-be supporters who themselves are licensed weapons dealers might be understandably reluctant to publicly endorse or fund the effort, he thinks. The list of gun world endorsees so far is small, although the campaign only filed their first paperwork with the Colorado secretary of state a couple of weeks ago.

Antillon says he knows it’s not apt to appeal to the likes of the National Rifle Association, though when Fox and Friends got Tony Fabian of the Colorado State Shooting Association to appear opposing Antillon, Fabian said he was not so much against the proposition as merely not for it, because his group’s mission is to “provide shooting opportunities for law abiding residents and because of the federal ban” support of the measure “would run afoul of that mission.”

Representatives of major national Second Amendment rights groups and major national marijuana rights groups this week both said that, while they can’t predict how the initiative would do if it makes the ballot, the melding of gun rights and pot rights wasn’t a high priority for either movement individually.

Workman of the SAF says that to the firearms rights movement, the prohibition against marijuana smokers “on a scale of one to 10, might be a two or three” and that most such activists think “there are a lot more important things going on with the Second Amendment than this.”

Paul Armentano of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) says his group has long been aware of the feds’ prejudice against pot users when it comes to guns, especially compared to other potentially judgment-impairing substances such as alcohol of prescription meds. He’s unaware of any national polling on the issue, and his sense is that “this is not an issue that rises to the top of the priority list for the average marijuana consumer.”

That said, NORML’s executive director Allen St. Pierre did list Second Amendment rights for marijuana users as one of his major concerns going forward into 2015, but Armentano says as a matter of policy they don’t comment on the specifics of potential ballot measures until they’ve actually made the ballot.

Given the convoluted multistep process of pre-approval for Colorado ballot measures, it will be at least three months, Antillon says, before a signature collection process might even begin. Colorado law links signatures required to 5 percent of the votes cast in the previous secretary of state election, which means this proposal will need over 98,000 signatures to get before Colorado voters. It’s uncertain how resonant an issue this will be, how many citizens straddle the crossroads of gun rights and marijuana rights. Associated Press reports that Colorado officials do not know how many people in the state have been denied gun possession or carry rights because of marijuana.

For now, Antillon’s nascent operation doesn’t have a well-planned strategy or an idea where big money might even potentially come from. By crossing the streams of Second Amendment and pot activism, they risk alienating large swaths of the dedicated activist financiers of both sides, staking ground in a libertarian middle that recognizes self-defense, self-medication, and self-pleasuring that harm no one else’s life or property as rights eminently worth fighting for. Changing state’s relationship to pot via initiative can be difficult and costly, and it doesn’t always work the first time it’s tried. It’s a grand battle symbolic of a Libertarian Moment. Even if it fails to go all the way the first time around, it’s a logical constitutional victory  that deserves to be won, whether via lawsuit or ballot.

By: Brian Doherty | December 31, 2014

Second Amendment Organization Names Top 10 Anti-Gunners List for 2014

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today named the Top Ten Anti-Gunners for 2014, with billionaire Michael Bloomberg topping the list for using his wealth to buy elections in an effort to turn the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms into a heavily-regulated government privilege.

“The people on this list have worked very hard to undermine the civil rights of every American citizen who owns a firearm, or may one day want to, and they deserve vilification,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said.

Bloomberg spent $50 million to create Everytown for Gun Safety, the anti-gun lobbying organization. He helped finance the Initiative 594 gun control campaign in Washington State and he is supporting a similar effort in Nevada. Others on the list are, in alphabetical order:

Paul Allen – The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and principle owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers, he dumped a half-million dollars into the I-594 gun control campaign in Washington State.

Steve Ballmer – Another Microsoft alumni and owner of the L.A. Clippers who added more than $1 million to the I-594 effort to criminalize perfectly legal activities in the Evergreen State.

Hillary Clinton – The former First Lady and Secretary of State suggested earlier this year that gun owners “terrorize” people by vigorously defending the Second Amendment. She also supported the unratified UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Andrew Cuomo – The New York governor who championed that state’s Draconian SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act, which is responsible for job losses in addition to penalizing every gun owner in the state.

Rahm Emanuel – The vehemently anti-gun mayor of Chicago whose administration has stubbornly resisted adoption of rational gun policies that would allow citizens to defend themselves against out-of-control violence in the Windy City.

Bill Gates – This billionaire Microsoft co-founder and his wife contributed more than $1 million to the I-594 gun control effort, thus helping to pay for one of the most insidious political campaigns in the United States.

Nick Hanauer – Another elitist Seattle-area billionaire who launched the I-594 gun control campaign and poured more than $1 million into the effort. His deplorable effort to exploit the Pilchuck High School tragedy by sarcastically suggesting that, “We need more school shootings” was an offensive new low in anti-gun politics.

Eric Holder – The outgoing U.S. attorney general fought to stall release of thousands of documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, final losing his battle in federal court this past fall.

Shannon Watts – As founder of the Bloomberg-supported Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Watts has spread disinformation about gun crime and campaigned against laws that bolster personal protection outside the home.

CCRKBA also gave “dishonorable mention” to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for wanting to resurrect one-gun-a-month legislation in his state, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who both have pressed their gun control agendas, driving businesses and jobs out of their states; California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has steadfastly defended arbitrary and discretionary concealed carry permits; former CNN commentator Piers Morgan for continuing his anti-gun rhetoric even though it forced his program’s cancellation. Also on the list, Gerald Ensley, the Tallahassee Democrat columnist who wrote in November that handguns and semiautomatic modern sporting rifles should be banned, and that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote earlier this year that he would like to see the Second Amendment changed to confine the right to keep and bear arms to people serving in the military and state militia.

(Via: Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)

A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee

December 29, 2014 marked the 124th Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heros” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection” . The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute- Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.

And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders … but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.

Author Unknown

(Via: JPFO)

Progressive PSA Encourages Children to Commit Crimes

A provocative public service announcement released by a San Francisco-based production company encourages children to put themselves at risk and commit a slew of crimes by stealing their parents’ guns from home and turning them in at school.

In the anti-gun ad, published Dec. 13 by Sleeper 13 Productions, a boy who appears to be in his early teens is shown walking up the stairs of his home and wandering into his mother’s bedroom.

The boy is shown opening the drawer to his mother’s dresser, where a handgun is hidden.

The boy takes the gun from the dresser and leaves the room. The ad then flashes to his school. Sitting in a classroom, the boy ventures up to his teacher’s desk after the rest of his classmates have left.

The tension building in the scene breaks, and the boy produces the gun from his backpack, slamming it on his startled teacher’s desk.

“Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house,” the boy says.

What the ad-makers are encouraging is highly illegal and invites danger.

The boy would be guilty of weapons theft, illegal concealed carry and carrying a weapon on school property.

Another lawsuit filed challenging federal ban on new machine guns

In a law suit supported by Freedom Fighters Foundation, a complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Friday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Ryan S. Watson, acting individually and as trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

Attorney David R. Scott is joined in the lawsuit by Stephen D. Stamboulieh, the Mississippi attorney who filed a similar action in Texas on October 30 in the case of Hollis v. Holder. This latest action differs from the first in that Watson is subject to an actual taking resulting from actions performed under authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for which approval was later revoked.

Following an ATF Firearms Industry Programs Branch determination that “unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of ‘person,’” Watson, acting as an authorized official of the Watson Family Gun Trust, electronically submitted an ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” in May. In August, he received ATF approval along with its stamp evidencing payment of the tax affixed to the form, and based on that authorization, he manufactured a machine gun.

Watson had also submitted an earlier Form 1 in April in paper form, and while that one was later returned disapproved, the signature box, date box and approval box had been “whited out” by ATF. In both cases ATF processed and retained the $200 “tax.”

As for the approved machine gun, ATF reneged after the fact and advised Watson it had erroneously approved his application, despite, per Stamboulieh, the agency having no statutory authority to revoke an approval. ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division ordered Watson to surrender the manufactured machine gun, reminding him that “possession of this unregistered machine gun is a Federal felony.”

The complaint asks for judgment along several grounds, including that existing statutes barring private ownership of machine guns exceed the authority of Congress and violate the Second Amendment. It additionally seeks declarations that such statutes cannot be applied individually or against trustees, that the defendants are enjoined from enforcement and that they have no authority to revoke tax stamps. Alternatively, the complaint asks that “unincorporated trusts are not prohibited from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.” It also seeks to recover costs of the suit and attorney fees, as well as “any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.”