Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Obama To Circumvent Congress With ‘More Than A Dozen’ New Gun Controls

Obama’s Department of Justice is working on “more than a dozen” new gun control regulations it plans to begin implementing apart from Congress. Some of the regulations are set to be put in place by November, others simply by the end of the Obama administration.

According to The Hill, “the regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements” and the issuance of “new rules expanding criteria for people who do not quality for gun ownership.”

Part and parcel to this new “criteria” will be an ATF-implemented ban on gun ownership for anyone “convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence.” Gun Owners of America’s Michael Hammond warns that under this rule the person barred from gun ownership “could be [someone] who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband.”

The new regulations will also include ATF enlargements on mental health-based gun ownership bans. Hammond summed this up by saying, “The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist.” And the NRA pointed out that because most mentally ill persons pose no threat to society, the new regulations will actually become “snares [for] masses of mostly harmless individuals.”

The NRA added: “Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness.”

In other words, people who might actually need some minor mental health attention may refuse to pursue it for fear of losing their guns.

The ATF is also working on “rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices.”

In March the NRA warned that then Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch would be “Eric Holder 2.0.” Yet in April, ten Republican Senators sided with Democrats and confirmed Lynch as AG. The Hill reports that those Republicans included Sens. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)42%
, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)49%
, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)40%
, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)54%
.

Lynch’s DOJ now has the Second Amendment in its sights.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

WELCOME TO HELL: NY State Police Forced Gun Store Owner To Hand Over Customer Records Or Face Swat Raid

WHEN OBAMA AND THE U.N. COME FOR YOUR GUNS DO NOT TURN THEM OVER

BY Jim Karger
Remington_M870_Shotguns_3_
When they come for my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands,” is a common refrain I often hear from the Neo-Cons when there is a threat, credible or otherwise, that the US government is going to take their firearms.

And, when I hear this crazy talk, I agree with them openly. “You are right. They will pry your gun from your cold dead hands,” which I often follow with the question, “And where will that leave you except face down in a pool of your own blood [in] the middle of the street, just another dead fool resisting the State?”

This is not a question they are comfortable with, if only because the intent of their saber-rattling was to imply they would fight to keep their weapons, and win.

Nice fantasy. It’s not happening.

If the federal government decides to disarm the public, and when the increasingly-militarized rolls down your street after a not-so-subtle request that you kindly turn over your firearms and ammunition “for the common good,” it will be nothing less than suicide by cop to do anything other than what you are told.

The militarization of US police forces is ongoing and escalating. Many cities and towns now own tanks, armed personnel carriers, even attack helicopters, and almost all are outfitted with military weapons not available to the general public.

And, it is not just your hometown cops who are getting new boy-toys. The military itself is buying up weaponry not just for use in the current or next scheduled war, but to deal with the likes of you, citizens who don’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights has been overruled, and that specifically includes, but is not limited to, the right to protest and engage in civil disobedience.

Also ignored (as if it didn’t even exist) is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which generally bars the military from law enforcement activities within the United States.
Robin Hood

Obama’s Gun Control Philosophy: Arm Al-Qaida And Disarm Americans

by Bob Livingston syria0920_image

Citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, President Barack Obama last week waived the prohibition against supplying terrorist groups with arms.
This indicates that Obama knows the so-called Syrian “rebels” are mostly al-Nusra and al-Qaida terrorists, despite the Administration’s repeated lies that it could identify the “moderate” elements of the opposition army.
The façade that the Syrian civil war is simply an extension of the Arab Spring uprising that began almost three years ago has fully fallen away. This is manifested by the opposition to U.S. interference in the Syrian conflict that is expressed by the majority of the American people.
The Syrian civil war is a war manufactured by the United States — as was the Libyan civil war — on behalf of the petrodollar and Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those countries are driving U.S. policy in the region.
That Obama would seek to overtly arm the very terrorist organization that the United States is supposedly at war with in at least four other countries — and that a number of members of the U.S. Congress support such a thing — demonstrates inconclusively America is being governed by psychopaths and controlled by foreigners, banksters and the military-industrial complex.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the United States appeared headed full-throttle toward a military attack on Syria. But the American people in large numbers looked up from their entertainment devices and awakened from their stupor long enough to recognize that the so-called “rebels” were actually terrorists who had battled U.S. troops and were raping, beheading and dismembering Christians; burning churches; beheading men and gunning down women whom they captured and believed supported the Syrian president; and slaughtering captured government soldiers and eating their hearts. They put unprecedented pressure on Congress to stop Obama and his warmongering, neocon toadies in their tracks.
A study by defense consultancy IHS Jane’s revealed that as many as 70 percent of the fighters aligned against Bashar Assad’s regime are terrorists or radical Islamists. Speaking at a discussion hosted by the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, Senator John McCain made the outrageous claim that only 30 percent were actually terrorists. He continues to rely on information provided by disgraced “researcher” Elizabeth O’Bagby.
If the makeup of the Free Syrian Army “rebels” wasn’t troubling enough, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that an al-Qaida spinoff group called the ISIS is now fighting the so-called “moderate” rebels that Obama, McCain, etc., want to arm.
There is now a three-front war going on in Syria. The Journal reports that ISIS is attracting foreign jihadists who view the Syria war not as a means to overthrow the Assad regime but rather as a battleground for a Sunni holy war. They want to establish an Islamic state in Syria as step toward achieving a global Islamic state. Fully 7,000 to 10,000 members of the FSA are part of ISIS, and their numbers are growing. Also, al-Qaida militants from central command in Pakistan and Pakistani Taliban fighters have set up basis in Syria.
And even while Obama was signing papers authorizing the arming of al-Qaida terrorists, he was “issuing more executive actions” in an attempt to disarm Americans, though exactly what those actions entailed was not specified by Presidential mouthpiece Jay Carney. In other words, Obama is perfectly content with arming the enemies of America with military grade weapons, but he believes that Americans should not be trusted or able to defend themselves with weapons that only resemble military weapons. In fact, the Obama regime — through the moronic imbecile Vice President Joe Biden — has stated that Americans should only have a shotgun for defense. The regime believes that Americans should only have weapons capable of firing six or fewer rounds.
This is clear and convincing evidence that the Obama regime believes that America’s enemies have a greater right to self-defense than do Americans.
In April, the Obama regime signed on to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which is supposed to ban the sale of arms to countries that export terror. For some reason, the mainstream media continue to ignore the hypocrisy of the regime’s support of the treaty even while it runs guns into Syria.
And the Obama regime is well-schooled in running guns to terrorists; as is the CIA, which ran guns to Afghanistan and Iraq back in the 1980s. The Syrian gunrunning operation began as soon as Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown. In fact, the whole cover-up of the Benghazi, Libya, 9/11 attack is predicated on concealing the gunrunning operation headed by CIA asset Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who along with three others was murdered during the attack.
Operation Fast and Furious, you may recall, was a gunrunning operation to Mexican narcoterrorists. The regime’s goal in encouraging border-State gun dealers to sell weapons to Mexican drug dealers was simply a pretext for restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans by fomenting gun violence in Mexico with guns that could be traced back to the United States.
Terror has become the No. 1 export of the United States. This began before the inauguration of the Obama regime but has been growing exponentially under his watch. During the 2010 GOP Presidential debates, Ron Paul spoke of blowback (a concept even recognized by the CIA) created by U.S. policies in the Mideast. The pro-war, neocon-leaning Republican audience booed, hooted and guffawed at the concept that the United States had no business bombing foreign countries.
Now many of those same people are beginning to understand that Paul’s ideas that the United States should avoid inserting itself into internecine wars, guarding other countries’ borders better than our own and sending U.S. dollars to prop up dictators in other countries are good ones. Self-styled Republican talking heads, journalists and pundits are now adopting Paul’s philosophies without realizing it, or at least without admitting it.
But Americans must understand that war with Syria — and with it a likely war with Russia — is not yet off the table. It has only taken a hiatus as Obama and Kerry lick their wounds and attempt to regroup from the public humiliation Russian President Vladimir Putin inflicted on them. Even now, Kerry is establishing more “red lines” for Syria.
And warmongering chicken hawk Senator Lindsey Graham is increasingly agitating for war with Iran and promising to introduce a use of force authorization against that country, continuing to promulgate the lie that Iran — which is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — is developing nuclear weapons.
The psychopaths in Washington, D.C., have always used lies, obfuscation and doublethink to agitate Americans into war under the pretext of American patriotism. Wars benefit the global elites, the banksters and the military-industrial complex to the detriment of the people and their wealth and are made possible by fiat money printed willy-nilly. Without a central bank, wars would be far less frequent and would all end quickly. Central banks allow countries to make war on credit and run up debts that are never intended to be paid.
The people are growing to realize the regime in Washington, D.C., is lawless and criminal and operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The regime and its globalist masters recognize the American people are stirring, and they want them dependent and disarmed before the fiat house of cards collapses.

Harvard study shows gun control doesn’t save Lives

HARVARD
by Steven H Ahle
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy has just released a study of the relative effects of stringent gun laws. They found that a country like Luxenbourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked.

In fact, in many cases it found that violence is very often lower, where guns are more readily available. The report points to a myth that guns are more easily obtained in the United States than in Europe. That is factually incorrect.

Austria has the lowest murder rate of any industrialized country, with .8 murders per 100,000 people, yet they have 17,000 guns per 100,000 people. Norway is second with .81 murders and 36,000 guns. Germany is third with .93 murders and 36,000 guns. The United states has a murder rate of 10.1 murders per 100,00 people. But Luxembourg, which does not allow gun ownership at all has a rating of 9.01.

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are done within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England.” like data from the United States show a “negative correlation” that is “where firearms are most dense, violent crime is lower, and where firearms are least dense, the violent crime rate is the highest.”
Another longstanding myth is that Europe’s relatively low murder rate is because of their gun control laws. The truth is, their rates were low even before gun control laws were passed, according to the Harvard study. In fact, their murder rates hit an all time low, before any gun laws were passed. In fact, their violent crimes have risen since they enacted gun control laws. By comparison, violent crimes have dropped in the US over the same period.

Russia has a ban on hand guns and their murder rate is 30.6%, whereas in the United States the rate is a much lower 7.8%. And during the 1990s, gun ownership grew significantly in the United States, while violent crimes dropped by 30%. In England, after they banned handguns, the rate of violent crimes soared.

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, conceeded that the results they found in their report was not what they expected to find.

New York In Shock As Gun Control Leads To 25 Murders In The Last 2 Days

by Warner Todd Huston
New York In Shock As Gun Control Leads To 25 Murders In The Last 2 Days

AUTHOR Warner Todd Huston
JUNE 13, 2013 8:01PM PST

Like most Democrat-controlled, big cities, New York City has one of the most stringent gun-control schemes in America. But this heavy emphasis on banning guns has not stopped a recent rise in murders in the Big Apple.
Over a 48 hour period between June 11 to June 13 25 people were killed with firearms in New York. Victims were from all over the city. In fact, the only part of the city that didn’t experience a shooting over the 48-hour period was Staten Island!
Eight were shot in the Bronx, four in Queens, one in Manhattan, and a whopping twelve in Brooklyn. The fellow killed in Manhattan was shot during the day amongst a crowd of people.
But notice that New York’s “Safe Gun Act” hasn’t really done much to stop crimes committed with guns. It may have stopped law-abiding citizens from being able to respond to life-threatening attacks with their own guns, of course.
Due to the anti-gun laws, it is practically impossible for law-abiding citizens to get guns for themselves. But, oh, boy do the crooks have them. According to news reports 100 percent of this gun crime spree was perpetrated with guns held illegally in criminal hands.
Notice that hundreds in not thousands of crimes every year are stopped by legal gun owners. Take the woman in California that stopped a home invasion with her firearm. Or the Florida business owner who cornered and captured a crook in his store. Or the boy that used a gun to save his father’s life.

These are the life-saving events that New York’s Democrats will put an end to and murders will increase because of it.
With Democrats succeeding in banning guns we get idiotic and dangerous situations like the 9/11 operator that told a woman being raped to kindly ask her rapist to just leave.
The good news is, though, that this is still a drop in murder rates over last year. This is true across the country, actually. And every state (including New York) no have concealed carry in some form or fashion–except Illinois which is just about to put one in place. We have more guns than ever in the hands of law-abiding citizens and crime has dropped.

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Message Backfiring

new-york-city-mayor-michael-bloomberg-speaks-at-the-north-american-board-meeting-for-the-union-forLate last year, New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg launched a super PAC to counter the National Rifle Association when it comes to elections. Since new gun control measures failed in the Senate in April, Bloomberg has been out for blood running ads against Democrats who didn’t vote for those measures. But it turns out, Bloomberg’s efforts to unseat anti-gun control Democrats are backfiring.

Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014, the 10 most contested battles come in mostly rural, conservative-leaning states such as Montana, West Virginia, Alaska and Arkansas, and nine of them are held by Democrats. Every Republican up for reelection in 2014, including the top GOP leaders, Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and John Cornyn (Tex.), have demonstrated that their biggest political fear is a primary challenge from the right, making them much more receptive to supporting the NRA’s position.
With parents of the young Newtown victims providing emotional reminders of the shooting for lawmakers Wednesday, one of their most high-profile political allies, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), adopted sharper tactics, urging thousands of his city’s top political donors to withhold donations from four Senate Democrats who voted against the gun bill.

In a letter to more than 1,000 donors, Bloomberg called out the four Democrats — Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). “Instead of rising above politics to pass a law that would save lives,” he wrote, the four senators “sided with a gun lobby increasingly out of touch with Americans’ priorities.”

“The next time these four Senators want you to support them with donations to their campaigns, tell them you cannot,” Bloomberg wrote.

By asking campaign donors to withhold funds, the deep-pocketed mayor went against the will of his congressional Democratic allies, who tried but failed to secure enough GOP support for the gun bill and have warned that public criticism of vulnerable Democrats who voted against the bill will result in Republican gains and less of a chance to enact new gun laws.

Since the bill’s defeat in April, Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars targeting senators of both parties for voting against the measure. A group founded by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) — who was severely wounded in a January 2011 shooting — also has raised millions of dollars as it airs radio and television ads.
And the punch to the gut comes from fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer.

Speaking to Time magazine, Schumer suggests Bloomberg’s targeting of pro-gun Democrats for their votes against gun-control legislation is unproductive.

“Frankly, I don’t think Bloomberg’s ads are effective,” Schumer said. “The Mayor of New York City putting ads against people in red states is not going to be effective.”
There’s a reason Obama didn’t run on gun control in 2008 or 2012. It’s a losing issue especially for Democrats in red states, something Bloomberg is learning the hard way.

Obama signs UN gun control treaty

guns-make-us-less-safe
The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) regulates the international trade in conventional weapons. According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the treaty will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States’ legitimate right to self-defense; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.

But the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America warn that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations. In other words, just like the UN Small Arms Treaty, the Arms Trade Treaty is really a gun-control agreement.

On April 2, 2013, after years of preparation, the ATT was approved by a vote of 154 to 3.

Today, the doors open for U.N. member nations to ratify the ATT. President Lucifer is expected to sign it today, assuming he hasn’t already done so by the time I publish this post.

Despite his signing the treaty, the U.S. Constitution gives the authority over foreign treaties to the United States Senate. This means the ATT is not enforceable unless and until the Senate ratifies it with a two-thirds majority vote.

The ATT would provide the United States Executive, i.e., the President, sweeping powers to regulate which guns can and cannot enter or exit our country. Further, this treaty is likely a stepping-stone to a mandatory international gun-registry. In July 2012, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action sounded this warning:

“Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

The NRA’s warning is well-placed. Here’s what Article 5 (“General Implementation”) of the Arms Trade Treaty says:

2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. […]

4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.

5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and of items covered in Article 3 and Article 4.

6. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Secretariat, established under Article 18, of its national point(s) of contact and keep the information updated.

Read Article 5 (4) again. It’s not just our federal government that would get a copy of the “national [gun] control list.” International bureaucrats at the United Nations and foreign governments would have access to the list as well!

A gun registration system (though it’s not called such) is contained in the treaty’s Article 12 (“Record Keeping”):

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

Then there’s the ATT’s Article 14 (“Enforcement”), which seems to authorize the United States Executive, i.e., President, to create whatever domestic gun-control laws that are needed: “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty.”

Even worse, Article 16 of the ATT allows for U.N. personnel to help U.S. law enforcement implement treaty obligations: ” In implementing this Treaty, each State Party … may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.”

Article 16 also opens the door to U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for other countries’ treaty implementation: ” A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.”

BACKLASH! GUN-CONTROL LAWS NULLIFIED

Sheriffs take bold stand to protect citizens from federal overreachmarkkessler
By Drew Zahn

ST. CHARLES, Mo. – Efforts at the national and state level to pass new gun-control laws have stirred up an unintended backlash – local officials who are not only rejecting the new legislation, but actively “nullifying” gun-control laws already in place.

Police Chief Mark Kessler of Gilberton Burough, Pa., is among more than 200 law enforcement officers, state lawmakers, county officials and concerned citizens who gathered Friday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, in St. Charles, Mo.

Among the hot topics at the conference: examples of local and county officials who have declared gun-control laws already on the books null and void in their communities.

On Jan. 3 of this year, Kessler drafted a “Second Amendment Protection Resolution” for his little town of roughly 800 residents, which, when passed by city officials a few weeks later, Kessler told the conference, “nullified every single gun-control law in the nation.”

“I have a very unique view,” Kessler said. “If you want to own a firearm, carry a gun under your jacket or over your jacket, the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit, period. … It has nothing to do with self-defense; it has to do with [freedom from] tyranny.”

Kessler told the conference, “Nullification is the key. We just have to tell them, ‘That’s it.’ I drew my line in the sand back on Jan. 3. … One person can make a difference; you just need to do something about it.”

But apparently, Kessler is not alone.

Michael Peroutka of the Institute for the Constitution, an attorney and former Constitution Party candidate for president, also told the conference about Carroll County, Md., which on May 22 adopted a resolution declaring it a “Second Amendment sanctuary county.”

The resolution declares the Maryland Firearms Safety Act of 2013, or MFSA – which reportedly bans the sale of 45 types of rifles and magazines and requires law-abiding citizens to submit to licensing fees, background checks, fingerprinting and renewal fees – clearly violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution along with Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

The resolution further declares that the unconstitutional provisions of the act will not be enforced in Carroll County.

The resolution quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

The Board of County Commissioners then resolved, “Carroll County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of the MFSA that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

After making a few exceptions for provisions affecting felons, the mentally ill and so forth, the resolution also states, “The Board herein declares null and void within Carroll County, elements of any and all international treaties, including the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT) that infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Peroutka argued that far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.

“When a peace officer refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act,” Peroutka said, “the peace officer is not breaking the law, but upholding the law.”

Peroutka quoted the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

He further quoted the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

“These [gun-control measures] are not laws,” Peroutka concluded. “They are unconstitutional acts. You have the authority and duty to nullify this.”

“It’s a start. They’re to be saluted,” Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told the CSPOA conference. “The county of Carroll – among many others in the nation now, happily – is pointing out you have very limited authority, federales, and if you’re going to do a bust here, you’re going to need local authorities, and it isn’t going to be available in Carroll County, Md., and I’ll bet from what I hear here today, its not going to be available in a lot of other counties either.”

ConfAs WND reported, the purpose of the conference is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with information and public support to carry out their oaths of office – specifically, to uphold the U.S. Constitution – recognizing that in the case of federal overreach, the county sheriff may be the last line of defense in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights.

“We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on state sovereignty and local autonomy,” explained CSPOA Founder and Executive Director Sheriff Richard Mack. “Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept. Said declaration will be enforced by our Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers.

“In short,” Mack said, “the CSPOA will be the army to set our nation free.”

Mack is more than familiar with fighting federal overreach. The former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., in 1994 Mack joined six other sheriffs in challenging a provision of the federal Brady Bill placing the burden of its background checks on local sheriffs. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to strike down the provision.

Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, “In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement.

“I wanted to find other officers that shared my concerns,” he continued. “I wanted to be able to work with our sheriffs and other peace officers in educating the citizens and others in our career field on the powers of the sheriff’s office and what is needed for us to stand on guard to protect our rights and those of our fellow citizens. The CSPOA is the organization at the front of this movement.

“The people of my state are seeing the overreach of government at the federal level and want to know where their sheriffs will stand,” he concluded. “The people of this state need to hear this message, and the sheriffs of this state need to hear it. Sheriffs and officers need the support of their communities, and we need to support them. This is the organization that can help educate us all on the proper roles that we should play and what we can do to stop the encroachment on our liberties and unalienable rights.”

“We already have hundreds of police, sheriffs and other officials who have expressed a desire to be a part of this holy cause of liberty,” Mack explained.

In fact, CSPOA maintains a growing list of – at last count – 18 state sheriffs associations and more than 450 sheriffs across the country already taking a stand against what they perceive as attempts by the Obama administration to enact unconstitutional gun-control measures.

As WND reported, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among those after telling a local radio host the federal government is “going to have a problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.

“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. “Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law.”

Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called “America’s toughest sheriff” even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?

“No,” Arpaio said. “My deputies, I said before, I’m going to arm all my deputies – a month ago I said before this – with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be able to fight back. … I don’t care what they say from Washington.”

Larry Pratt told WND he supports sheriffs taking a tough stand.

“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt said. “There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/backlash-gun-control-laws-nullified/#yQ6Xy53YhlMHdCqd.99

White House Freaks Out Over Online Petition To Charge Sen. Feinstein With Treason Reaching 50,000 Votes

by Warner Todd Hustonfeinstein-guns
A petition to charge Dianne Feinstein with treason that has gotten nearly 50,000 signatures is causing a bit of heartburn in Obama’s White House forcing team Obama to come to Di Fi’s defense.
One of the somewhat silly things that team Obama did when it came to office was to set up a website where Americans could float petitions filled with ideas and issues that they want Obama to address. Now, in theory this idea sounds great. But in practice, Obama just ignores all these things. But they do offer an interesting story from time to time.
A recent petition offers one of those stories. It is the petition to charge California Senator Dianne Feinstein with treason for her constant attacks on the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular.The strength of the petition has caused Obama to come to Feinstein’s defense. Ah, schadenfreude.
The anti-DiFi petition was created in December of last year and only five months later it had gained nearly 50,000 signatures. The fifty thousand mark is where Obama’s perpetual political campaign/White House staff have said that they will publicly address an issue directly.
The Petition
Here is the text of the petition:
Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution
The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.
By the end of May the petition had 41,162 signatures. If you want to sign, see the petition HERE.
We all know how Feinstein hates guns, of course. Remember this…

And it actually seems like we’re starting from a place of common agreement: Like many of you, President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.
That’s never been in question with this discussion. What we’ve proposed are steps within the framework of that constitutional right to protect our communities from shootings and violence. If you want to see the specifics of our plan, you should visit WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.
Now generally, it’s up to our courts to resolve matters of constitutionality. But no less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia has written, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” — so we’re pretty confident that we’re on solid ground when we say we support Senator Feinstein’s legislation to that effect.
We also believe that there’s room for a civil discourse on matters of public policy — where we don’t try to silence our political opponents just because we disagree with them. In America, all of us, even those with whom you disagree, have the right to help to set our nation’s course.
Which is exactly why we created the We the People platform. Even if you disagree with everything you just read, we want you to walk away from this process with knowledge that we’re doing our best to listen — even to our harshest critics.
Apparently the White House feels that insulting our intelligence by claiming that Obama respects the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution is the way to go, eh?
But, Obama is just as bad a lair and demagogue about guns as DiFi, so it shouldn’t be surprising that he is running to her support.

It is also a bit disingenuous to claim that DiFi is just doing her duty as a lawmaker, too. She tried this failed gun ban business back in 1995 and dozens of times since. With as many times as she’s tried and failed to get the Second Amendment nullified with un-Constitutional federal laws one would think that her lawless agenda would be pretty clear by now.
But, maybe I’m wrong? Is Dianne Feinstein just doing her duty? You tell me below.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN