Posts Tagged ‘firearms.gun laws’

Via

On Monday, April 20, and after nine months of debate that included receiving testimony from Buckeye Firearms Association’s Ken Hanson, the Cleveland City Council passed a watered-down version of gun control legislation that had been proposed by Mayor Frank Jackson in 2014.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, after passing the law, Council President Kevin Kelley stated that “the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values and is good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

That is an interesting admission on a number of levels.

First, many are making note of the fact that Kelley is admitting that it is the City of Cleveland’s policy to pass gun control laws whether they are expected to work or not, and this is indeed a rare moment of honesty by a gun control proponent. “The legislation was not designed to stop gun violence. Rather, it is a reflection of council’s values …”  That is gun control in a nutshell.

But that isn’t all. Kelley’s admission is also notable because it flies in the face of a statement he made last year, when the proposals were first introduced. In a press release issued by the mayor’s office last year, Kelley said “gun violence has taken far too many lives in our community. The City of Cleveland must act aggressively to address this issue.”

So when the proposal was first made public Kelley said it was intended to be an aggressive act to address gun violence, but when it was passed he says it was never intended to stop gun violence. Got that?

According to the Plain Dealer, Councilman Zack Reed drove home the point that the bill won’t do what its supporters once claimed it was intended to do. Again, from the article:

Read the rest @ http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/cleveland-council-president-claims-new-gun-control-law-was-never-about-violence-values

Via David Codrea

Anti-gun Oregon Democrat State Senator Chuck Riley says the Supreme Court was “right for the time” for upholding the enslavement of blacks as Constitutional. His comments came after questioning by gun rights advocates who were attempting to understand his rational for supporting citizen disarmament edicts, and was recorded by videographer “LaughingAtLiberals.”

Historically, the courts have demonstrated a tolerance for tyranny and a deference to those who would enslave. That's why there were "laws" to ensure that slaves were not armed.

The Library of Congress

“But that wasn’t the end of it,” blogger Gateway Pundit noted. He embedded a second video, where Sen. Riley and his staffers were unable to explain how the “universal background check” edict would work at stopping violent criminals, or do anything besides provide a registration list of gun owners.

As for Riley’s slavery concession, we’ve seen such precedent-driven disconnects with freedom before, even with checks and balances in place. Without them, things get even worse. An activist court empowered to make up law on its own has the potential to impose enslavement via a complicit executive branch. A tyranny-minded legislature can write edicts that do the same, providing they can get them enforced without judicial restraint. An unchecked executive can use all sorts of justifications to impose despotism. And all three branches working in concert have pretty much brought us to the point where “shall not be infringed” has been rendered meaningless beyond what those in power will politically tolerate — for now.

That’s why the growing new paradigm represented by the “I will not comply” movement represents such a threat to those who would rule. Because ultimately, when the system results in tyranny, an armed people retain the power to nullify bad enforcement just as informed jurors have the power to nullify bad edicts. Of course the outcome of that is not assured (what is?), but to those who have made the choice between defiance and surrender, it beats the alternative.

That leads to some fair questions for the individual leaders of self-designated “gun rights groups” that call for enforcement of existing Intolerable Acts (gun laws), and who actually have publicly joined with anti-gunners in disparaging civil disobedience activists as “extremists”: If, years from now, with a shifted Supreme Court majority enabled by an unchallengeable electorate (something foreseen by another Oregon Democrat), a new ruling reverses Heller and says it’s Constitutional for the government to start rounding up registered guns and jailing anyone who has not obeyed, will you urge defiance and resistance, or will you ask your members to plead with their oppressors (and send a donation)? If the former, why wait until things become so desperate? And if the latter, why shouldn’t we know now if you ever envision a line in the sand?

From NRA-ILA

Recent history shows why Congress had to rein in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) with the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

On Friday, Feb. 13, 2015—the eve of a three-day weekend, with members of Congress back in their home states—BATFE quietly announced its intention to ban the manufacture and importation of the M855 cartridge. The plan was to take the second-most common variety of ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, off the market.

Your National Rifle Association (NRA), ever vigilant, caught the move and immediately sounded the alarm. Staunch opposition from the public and the law enforcement community (which rejected the Obama administration’s fairy tale that this was all for them), along with stalwart leadership from U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and U.S. House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson (R-Texas), forced BATFE to back down—at least for now.  Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition…

BATFE laid out its absurd case for the ban in its “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c).” I encourage everyone to carefully read the “Framework,” which we linked to in our online alerts on NRAILA.org. Were BATFE to formally adopt the Framework, it could jeopardize access not just to M855, but to almost all ammunition if any of the ongoing attempts to ban lead ammunition were also to succeed.

The law that BATFE cited as the basis of the Framework was added to the Gun Control Act of 1986. It prohibits the manufacture and importation of so-called “armor-piercing ammunition.” This includes “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium.” The law was passed because several special-purpose handgun bullets made of hard metals had been developed for law enforcement use, and concern arose that some of them might fall into the hands of criminals.

The core of an M855 bullet is made of lead, rather than one of the hard metals listed in the law, but BATFE designated the bullet as “armor-piercing ammunition” because of its steel tip. At the time, this didn’t present a problem in practical terms. Congress had recognized that many rifle cartridges “may be used in a handgun” chambered in a rifle caliber, so it passed the law with an exemption for projectiles “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” From the outset, BATFE said that the exemption applied to M855. Problem solved—or so it seemed.

Three years later, however, BATFE began showing signs that, in hindsight, could have served as a warning that M855’s “sporting purposes” exemption might one day be in jeopardy.

In 1989, BATFE prohibited the importation of 43 makes and models of detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles which, for many years previously, it had approved for importation as being “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

Attempting to justify its politically motivated reinterpretation of the law during the media-driven “assault weapons” frenzy, BATFE ludicrously claimed that shooting sports based upon defensive firearm skills were not “sporting purposes.” Equally indefensibly, it also said that recreational target shooting, which it dismissed as “plinking,” was not a “sporting purpose,” but was instead a “pastime.” By that ridiculous standard, sandlot baseball, a popular version of “the nation’s pastime,” would also not be a “sport.”

Sports, BATFE insisted, consist only of hunting, skeet and trap, and “organized marksmanship competitions.” But even by this overly restrictive definition, BATFE’s rifle ban had no legitimate basis. Virtually all of the general-purpose, magazine-fed rifles that it banned were no different than the American-made Springfield M1A. At the time, this rifle predominated in the most “organized marksmanship competitions” in this country, the annual National Rifle Matches, conducted every summer by the NRA and today’s Civilian Marksmanship Program at Camp Perry, Ohio.

Having redefined “sports,” BATFE next turned its attention to redefining “sporting” firearms. The Gun Control Act had originally sought to prohibit the importation of ultra-compact, inexpensive handguns. In 1993, however, BATFE again reinterpreted “sporting purposes,” this time to ban the importation of large, expensive handguns like the Heckler & Koch SP89, which it had previously approved for importation. BATFE didn’t pick and choose which sports to consider “sporting” this time, but it ignored its own longstanding Handgun Factoring Criteria. Handguns like the SP89 had satisfied BATFE’s criteria for “sporting purposes” by having features like adjustable sights, a long barrel and a mechanical safety.

In 1994, BATFE reinterpreted “sporting purposes” yet again to ban the importation of 12-gauge shotguns it had previously approved for importation. Then, in 1998, it reinterpreted its 1989 reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to ban the importation of semi-automatic rifles made expressly to comply with the agency’s 1989 ban.

Fast-forward to the present. The BATFE attempt to ban M855 ammunition features its most far-fetched reinterpretation of “sporting purposes” to date. First, instead of considering, as the law requires, whether a projectile is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,” the Framework claims that what counts is the type of handgun in which the projectile can be used.  BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers.

Originally, the BATFE granted M855 a sporting purposes exemption because the ammunition can be used in rifles. Now, it says that a center-fire projectile is sporting only if the only handgun in which it can be used is a single-shot. When “a handgun’s objective design is not limited to primarily sporting purposes, such as handguns designed to be carried and concealed, it may be reasonably inferred that ammunition capable of use in such handguns is unlikely to be used primarily for sporting purposes.” I guess the BATFE never heard of either wadcutter .45 caliber rounds used for Bullseye Shooting (or the NRA’s Conventional Pistol) competitions or hunting projectiles designed for revolvers.

BATFE argues the new focus on handguns is necessary because AR-15-type handguns pose a “significant risk” to law enforcement officers. That argument fails for multiple reasons. First, the exemption should not be based upon the type of firearm in which a projectile could possibly be used, but upon how the manufacturer or importer of the projectile intends it to be primarily used. Otherwise, ammunition designed for rifles can be jeopardized the minute someone creates a handgun that can fire it.

Second, the FBI reports that no law enforcement officer has been killed with any handgun chambered in .223 Rem. or 5.56×45 mm NATO during at least the past 35 years, and BATFE’s Framework makes no claim this has ever happened.

Third, the manufacturer or importer of a projectile cannot possibly know what type of firearm someone might use to fire the projectile. Congress could not have intended to place manufacturers and importers at risk of prosecution because their products might be used in a way for which they were not intended.

BATFE’s latest politically motivated twisting of “sporting purposes” has President Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over it. Obama is still livid over the fact that in 2013, the Senate voted down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill on a bipartisan vote of 60-40. He claimed if Congress wouldn’t act, he would.

To carry out the administration’s goals, BATFE didn’t just reinterpret the law, it effectively rewrote it. Untold millions of M855-type cartridges and projectiles have been manufactured, imported, sold and used for sporting purposes over the years. Since the mid-1990s, AR-15s have accounted for the vast majority of rifles used in  center-fire rifle shooting sports, and M855 ammo accounts for between a quarter and a third of all .223 Rem./ 5.56 mm cartridges sold. Simple math tells you the overwhelming use of those rounds has been lawful.

After creating a furor, BATFE retreated from its attack on the AR-15. Gun owners who contacted their senators and representatives to request congressional action to thwart BATFE’s ban were a key factor in this about-face. Majorities in both the House and Senate signed letters in opposition to the ban.

Nevertheless, as long as BATFE enjoys the support of an administration willing to bend the law to its agenda, the threat will linger. And that brings us to 2016.

Next year, we will have the chance to steer America back on course. A pro-Second Amendment Congress and president can curb BATFE from thwarting the will of the American people. Where BATFE’s ever-changing misinterpretations of “sporting purposes” are concerned, that must include revising federal laws to ensure they respect the right of Americans to acquire firearms and ammunition for all legitimate purposes.

Let’s ensure BATFE’s bogus Framework is trumped by America’s Framework, the U.S. Constitution. For the future of our country, we can strive to do no less.

The measure is titled, “Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act.” It will be put forward by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

According to The Hill, the measure will differ from local gun buybacks in that those turning in weapons will receive a tax break rather than cash.

DeLauro explained: “Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for the battlefield.”

DeLauro did not note that M4 carbines–the AR-15 variant that is actually designed for the battlefield–operates in full auto or in three-round automatic bursts. The AR-15s sold to civilians are simply semi-automatic rifles that are difficult to shoot accurately if fired rapidly.

This is a mistake Democrats have made again and again since Adam Lanza’s attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. They fail to understand that the reason he was able to kill so many people was not because he stole and possessed an AR-15, but because his targets were unarmed. He chose to attack in a gun free zone for a reason.

But DeLauro and other Democrats are stuck in rut when it comes to trying to get rid of the AR-15, so they plan to offer “up to $2,000 in tax breaks” for those who turn them in.

She will be introducing the bill in conjunction with National Public Health Week.

Co-sponsors for DeLauro’s bill include “Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/06/report-congressional-dems-introducing-national-gun-buyback-for-assault-weapons/

threeper flag587db-zoomie_resistor2b22bshoot_move_communicate

For some of us, this cause is not a hobby.  It is not drum beating, or attention seeking.  It is not something we believe—it is something we are.  We could no more lay down and accept this tyranny than the blabbering sheep can rise to fight.  In the bottom of our souls, we know we were created for more than subjects in a kingdom, more than a commodity to be controlled and managed.  We were born free.

by | Apr 2, 2015 |

There are a hundred ways to speak of the fire that burns in the hearts of patriots in this nation. Those who are seeking those of like mind can see it, spreading like a wildfire across a parched forest. Those who do not understand it are afraid of it, for it signifies something they cannot grasp and do not have the intestinal fortitude to stomach.  Liberty for All (LFA III%), the hardcore patriot group in Washington State, may be the tip of the spear, but there are many others throughout this nation who have been in the trenches for decades.

There are those who dismiss us, who claim that standing the line is stupid or even dangerous.  They claim we are setting back the liberty movement, or that we don’t know what we’re doing.  We are crazy, we are arrogant, we are self-absorbed—or so the stories go. There are days it seems that there is no end to the accusations and the backbiting.  At times, I find myself attempting to defend that which needs no defending.  It is a difficult lesson to realize, but time spent defending this fight to those with no concept of its necessity is, quite simply, time wasted.

The truth is, I have seen the men and women who stand next to me.  I have looked in their eyes and seen their hearts.  They are not crazy, and they are not fools.  There is a kind of soul that already knows how this ends.  There is a kind of heart that sees the cost before it comes, and offers to pay it even still.  For some of us, this cause is not a hobby.  It is not drum beating, or attention seeking.  It is not something we believe—it is something we are.  We could no more lay down and accept this tyranny than the blabbering sheep can rise to fight.  In the bottom of our souls, we know we were created for more than subjects in a kingdom, more than a commodity to be controlled and managed.  We were born free.

We were born to fight.

The naysayers will always be there; the loyalists of our time will always seek to justify their inaction and even their blatant cowardice.  The fence sitters will always find a reason to stay settled where they are, constantly trying to figure out which side of the fence is more advantageous to be on at any given time.  Eventually, they too will be left without a place to sit.  Tyranny does not give special treatment to those who help its growth; soon enough even those who called for caution and denigrated us will have to recognize their own chains.

In the meantime, the patriots continue to stand.  We continue to push forward, to dare things not seen in this country in over 200 years.  We seek no glory, but we do demand liberty; its pursuit will not be stopped for anything.  For us, there is no other option.  Our Constitution unites us, and the truth that men are born to be free will bind us together in this fight, come what may.  We will stand with each other, and while every single day we pray that it never comes to violence, if it comes we will stand through that as well.  And if the sun rises on a day when we are asked to give our lives in the defense of this absolute truth, we will do so…without hesitation.

Even so, know this:  we will not go quietly.  We will not go easily.  We will go filthy and stained, with the blood of those whose appetite for our liberties pushed them past a line from which there is no coming back.  We will go with as many tyrants as we can take with us.

We will never shoot first; we will not cross the line into violence. Our creed does not make us monsters; it makes us defenders. But if we are pushed, we will fight, and we will fight until we are dead.  And in the wake of our deaths, others will rise and fight in our place, and eventually we will win.  Even in death, we will win, because death is always more desirable than slavery.

37092_327779510655510_711449571_n

There are a hundred ways to say all of this; pretty words and glorious imagery that evoke emotions that most people have forgotten how to feel.  But when all is said and done, it can all be summed up in one rallying cry.  One basic concept that holds within it the promise to all tyrants that any attempt on our lives will result in the fight—and the end—of their own, for there will be no more free Ruby Ridge incidents, no more free Wacos, no more free bloodshed.  One simple statement that every patriot understands in the core of their very bones.

We will not comply.

We stand.

LFA III%

http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/musings-of-an-lfa-iii-member/

Resist-by any means necessary-no matter what…

Popcorn-Gives-The-Finger

Via David Codrea

Thwarted by the courts from enforcing an outright ban, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine will concentrate resources on defending laws designed to deny concealed carry permits, his office reported in a Wednesday press release. The legal strategy will now fall back to defending “may issue” laws requiring “good cause,” as determined by the District’s government.

“We need to focus our energies not on litigating old laws, but defending new ones that our leaders enacted in good faith to comply with court rulings while still protecting public safety,” Racine announced. “The Council enacted a law that sets a process by which individuals may apply for gun licenses, which has superseded the law at issue in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Going forward, our energies are best spent focusing on defending the current law. We are vigorously defending it in the district court, and we are confident that it will be upheld.”

The result of those “current laws” is that, as reported in January, eight people, or .00001 percent of the District’s residents had been permitted to carry a gun. Of all applications, which included non-residents, more had been denied than approved.

Racine’s public air of confidence will be tested as conflicts between courts leave an ultimate judicial ruling on “may issue” vs. “shall issue” concealed carry permits up in the air, while a movement in the states to adopt permitless “Constitutional carry” is growing. The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “may issue” law in 2013, but state challenges to “shall issue” rulings before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California could force the High Court’s hand.

Also unclear is what effect the decision by Racine’s office will have on efforts in Congress to compel the district to loosen up on the infringements. With the administration arguing for “home rule” and with a seeming concession that still denies the right to bear arms to the vast majority of individuals who wish to exercise it, there is still much “good faith leadership” the Republican-dominated House and Senate could do to show gun owners they know who helped them attain their majorities.

Key point raised by one sheriff..

Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer responded the law will be impossible to enforce.

“I don’t have any idea how it’s going to be enforced. I will tell this committee I have no intention to enforce it,” Palmer said. “State law allows me to use discretion on misdemeanors and I plan to use it every step of the way,” he added.

My opinion follows story.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) – A heated debate over gun control in the Oregon Legislature on Wednesday drew relatives of people killed during an Oregon mall shooting, law enforcement officers and gun owners as Democratic lawmakers push a bill expanding background checks to cover private firearms sales.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard two hours of public testimony on a proposal that would require gun buyers and sellers who aren’t related to appear in person before a licensed gun dealer who can run a background check through the Oregon State Police. Proponents say it would close a “loophole” that widened with the advent of Internet gun transactions.

“This bill will not take all the guns off the streets, it will not remove all the guns from the illegal buyers,” said Robert Yuille, whose wife Cindy was killed during a shooting at the Clackamas Town Center in December 2012 while she was Christmas shopping. “It will take some off. Hopefully it’ll take the one off that would have killed your wife or your daughter.”

Opponents said background checks are ineffective, difficult to enforce and disproportionally burden law abiding citizens. Dan Reid, a National Rifle Association representative, said most criminals acquire guns through ways that are already illegal, such as through theft and the black market. The gun used in the Clackamas shooting was stolen.

Keizer Republican Sen. Kim Thatcher asked how law enforcement officers would be able to police every private transaction, and Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer responded the law will be impossible to enforce.

“I don’t have any idea how it’s going to be enforced. I will tell this committee I have no intention to enforce it,” Palmer said. “State law allows me to use discretion on misdemeanors and I plan to use it every step of the way,” he added.

The state’s background check requirement already goes further than federal law, requiring them at gun shows.

The seller of a gun would face a misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. A second offense would be a felony, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Oregon law already prohibits giving a gun to minors, felons, people with recent convictions for violent behavior or those who have been found by court to have a mental illness.

Brady Campaign President Dan Gross said Oregon would be the sixth state since the Newtown school massacre to pass background checks on all gun sales.

Two previous attempts to require background checks for private sales have failed in the Oregon Legislature, but last year’s election saw Democrats increase their majority by two seats to 18-12 in the Senate. The wins were in part because of a push by a leading gun control group backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, which contributed $75,000 to Sen. Chuck Riley of Hillsboro, who defeated the Republican incumbent who opposed universal background checks.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the measure Thursday morning. If it passes, it could get a vote in the full Senate as soon as next week.

Bloomberg and co. are checking off states on their list one by one-this will be #6 if this bullshit is passed. There is no valid reason for this law,it will do exactly nothing to prevent “gun violence”-even county sheriff’s say it will be impossible to enforce-and at least one has testified that he has no plans of enforcing the law if it is passed. Gun owners in Oregon need to make it clear that they will not comply-if enough gun owners,in enough states simply refuse to comply-Blomberg et-al will stop trying to get similar garbage on state ballots-until they do stop,gun owners have to stand up speak out and fight back !    It’s  5-0.  Team Bloomberg/Shanon Watts and co 5,gun owners ZERO.                                                                                                                                                                 We must fight  back a lot harder than we have so far-the only state that has Patriots stepping up,and standing in opposition, no, defiance of this bullshit is Washington state-look to the gun owners of Washington state-to those few who stand every time this nonsense is in the news,or being voted on,or more such nonsense is being introduced-those who risked arrest,and even were arrested in one case-look  at what they are doing-follow their example…
They have the ‘nads to lead from the front-do you?
Resist,defy,stand in opposition,stand in defiance-tell those who would take the means to defend yourselves,your loved ones and your liberty from you that you will not bow down and submit to their draconian gun control schemes. The right to self-defense is a basic human right! The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution,it is of such importance that the founders put it at #2 in the Bill of Rights.
Those who seek to take your right to keep and bear arms from you only seek power over you-they seek to control you and your loved ones.
They can not control an armed populace
The first thing every tyrant who rose to power in recent history did was disarm the citizenry,so that they were easier to control.
We must not allow that to happen here-we must not let those who seek power and control over us to disarm us-we must fight for our right to keep and bear arms-some of us may go to jail-that’s part of civil disobedience.
We need numbers,we need huge crowds at protests-if the stoned out of their gourds hippies and flower children could get large crowds in the 6o’s and 70’s…
then today’s 80-100 million gun owners should be able to have a huge turnout at every protest-every one-that’s what it takes-we need to have a huge crowd-a crowd bigger than the hippies had back when they were protesting the Vietnam war,we need crowds like there were during the height of the civil rights movement.
We need these huge crowds outside very statehouse in every state that Bloomberg and co. slime 
their way onto the ballot in. You know as well as I do that there are more gun owners than anti-gun zealots-lets start showing up-in force-at every event to protest any of this anti-gun asshattery.
Stand Up! Speak Out ! Fight Back !
Resist !
Defy !
Fight Back !
Do Not Submit !
Do Not Bow Down !

Via David Codrea

B. Todd Jones will be resigning from his position as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and accepting private sector employment with the National Football League, gun dealer compliance and legal protection firm FFLGuard claimed in a Thursday advisory. The report, while as yet not corroborated, is consistent with information Gun Rights Examiner has been investigating, including by attempting earlier today to obtain confirmation from ATF.

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/legal-compliance-firm-for-gun-dealers-says-b-todd-jones-leaving-atf-for-nfl?CID=examiner_alerts_article

A video produced by States United Against Gun Violence purports to show a fake gun shop in New York City appealing to first-time buyers, who are then recorded on a hidden camera as a man behind the counter turns them against making a purchase by telling them how the firearm he hands them was used to take human life. As per standard practice, a well-financed Astroturf operation relying on slick professional illusion-casters is counted on to make up for lack of grassroots support.

So how did SUPGV get all these guns into NYC without active NYPD participation?

States United to Prevent Gun Violence-You Tube video screen shot

States United/Ceasefire USA is one of the groups behind the recent #ImUnloadng campaign, in which prohibited person Snoop Dogg tells all his fans that have 401Ks to not invest in gun companies because of all his “friends, family members and associates” who evidently make a regular practice out of shooting each other to death.

The first flag is raised when viewers are told the entire video setup is a lie. That won’t surprise anyone familiar with “progressive” anti-gunner practices, but the thing is, once someone admits they’re lying, how are we to trust anything they say?

Is it reasonable to believe that not one person recorded challenged the fraud behind the counter, told him off and walked out? Why is it the “first time customers” were all so receptive to the technique of being lied to that they swore off something they represented themselves as wanting for reasons as valid as protection and belief in the Second Amendment? If the monopoly of violence proponents are that persuasive, if all they need do is tell someone the gun they’re buying was used in a murder, why is it they’re not the ones with a five-million member advocacy organization? And it’s hard enough to believe even one person would be dumb enough to swallow the claim that a gun store carries and sells real “crime guns,” let alone to accept that every single one of the marks fell for it.

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/fake-gun-shop-video-raises-questions-about-truth-compliance-with-laws?CID=examiner_alerts_article

In the last few months, the citizens of Washington State have come under fire from both state and federal officials.  They have been subject to everything from surveillance to being viewed through the scope of a sniper’s rifle—manned by a fellow citizen.  The people have appealed to the governor to no avail.  According to Governor Inslee’s office, he has no jurisdiction over the federal authorities who seek to subvert liberty and control the populace.  He is incorrect, but the People accept that he is complicit in the criminal enslavement of the citizens.

The governor was served a list of grievances by We the People on 7 February 2015.  Each of those grievances constitutes a crime against the People, and against the founding documents of the state and our nation.  He ignored those grievances and did nothing.  On 25 February 2015 a citizen of Washington State was illegally arrested, detained, and interrogated as a domestic terrorist by federal officials who ignored his rights secured by the rule of law.  The governor refused to stand and serve the citizens of his state as he swore to do, instead submitting himself and the people of this state as subjects to an overreaching federal government.  On 9 March 2015, he was again called to task and the People demanded that he uphold his oath to protect and maintain the rights of the People as secured by the Constitution.  Again, the governor chose to ignore this letter and in doing so, ignored the will of the People, and their unalienable rights.

It is for this reason that the people of Washington State now appeal to the sheriffs, as the senior law enforcement official in each county.  When the system fails, it becomes their utmost duty to stand and uphold the law.  It is obvious that the system of  Constitutional law has failed; at every turn we see the blatant and gross violation of the most basic of the People’s rights.  The government is bound by the Constitution to be accountable to the People; they derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  We, the people of Washington State, reiterate our withdrawal of this consent in light of the government’s refusal to honor the limits to their power and the unlimited rights of the People.

Washington State law lays out the general duties of the county sheriff:

The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county. In the execution of his office, he and his deputies:

(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;

Federal officials broke the peace by illegally and publicly arresting and detaining a citizen who had not committed a crime.

(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the public peace or safety;

Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson deprived the citizens of their ability to defend themselves by imposing her personal will through an illegal rule that violated their unalienable right.  In doing so, she endangered the public and safety of the people.

(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;

The sheriffs are duty-bound to stand and deliver the judge, the Homeland Security agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, and the United States Marshal involved in this illegal arrest to justice.

(4) Shall execute all warrants delivered for that purpose by other public officers, according to the provisions of particular statutes;

Since the Judiciary of the State of Washington is complicit in these crimes and refuses to prosecute or hold accountable the persons responsible, We the People demand that the sheriffs put forth warrants for their arrest.

(5) Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions;

Because the orders and directions of the courts are unlawful and criminal in nature, it is the duty of the sheriffs to act on behalf of the Constitution and the citizens of Washington State.

(6) Shall keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, unlawful assemblies and insurrections, for which purpose, and for the service of process in civil or criminal cases, and in apprehending or securing any person for felony or breach of the peace, they may call to their aid such persons, or power of their county as they may deem necessary.

United States Code 18 § 242 speaks very plainly about the crime of depriving the people of their rights.  The marshal, agents, and the judge used the color of law to deprive the People; this is punishable by a year in prison.  They also, together with the snipers on the rooftops in Spokane on 6 March, used deadly force to attempt to impose their will on the People and deprive them of their rights; this is punishable by ten years in prison.  By illegally arresting and detaining citizens they have engaged in kidnapping; this is a crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

It is the duty of the sheriffs to apprehend and secure these people for the felony crime of depriving the People of their rights under the Constitution.  As the state law makes clear, the sheriff can call upon the people and the power of their respective counties for assistance in performing their duties.  If called upon, We the People will support them…in any way necessary.

We the People will no longer allow our government to treat us as subjects.  We are free men, we will act as such, and we will be treated as such.  We will hold accountable those criminals and tyrants in our government who seek to subjugate and control us. We demand that you, the sheriffs of Washington State, stand and perform your duties in accordance with the state law, the state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States of America.  If you do not, it will show that you, too, are complicit in the destruction of liberty, and therefore are its enemy.

We remain non-violent, we remain principled and peaceful, but make no mistake:

These abuses of our liberties will end now.

We will not comply.

Signed,

Liberty for All:
Kit Lange
Anthony Bosworth
Maria Bosworth
and the Patriots of Washington

http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/open-letter-to-the-sheriffs-of-washington-state/