Posts Tagged ‘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.

Via David Codrea

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson shares the spotlight with another notorious gun-grabber, Attorney General Eric Holder.

Admitting that legislation it passed Monday will not stop violent crime, Cleveland politicians instead came up with excuses for imposing it on citizens anyway, Northeast Ohio Media Group reported. All but one Council member, Zack Reed, voted in favor of the new edicts, which in many areas duplicate state law, but supposedly will allow the city to keep resulting fines.

Whether any such coveted revenues will outweigh further legal costs the city will face is a question taxpayers should be asking their representatives who insisted on reopening an issue presumably already settled in the courts. Ohio Revised Code claims preemption by the state in the field of non-federal firearms regulation, and the matter was supposedly already settled when the City of Cleveland lost against the state in 2010, with the Supreme Court of Ohio “uphold[ing] as Constitutional state law displacing local gun-control ordinances.”

In addition to the duplicate laws and creation of a “gun offender registry,” the Cleveland diktats create several new burdens on law-abiding gun owners, including presuming to dictate reporting requirements for private sales (creating a de facto registry) and to impose storage mandates. Ohio Code declares “a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition,” meaning the city has nothing lawful to say about imposing constraints. The new decree also imposes a stolen gun reporting requirement that would appear to exempt criminals, as requiring them to attest they were in violation of the law prohibiting them from possessing a gun in the first place would also require self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Rather than directly addressing Councilman Reed’s challenge to show how the new edicts would have prevented any of the 25 homicides the city has experienced so far this year, supporters of the legislation offered unsubstantiated platitudes. Safety Director Michael McGrath fell back on the “possibility of saving a life” talking point used to restrict the rights of everyone else while saving nothing and no one. Councilman Michael Polensek even admitted “the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop,” and Council President Kevin Kelley “said that the legislation was not designed to stop gun violence” and instead offered bromides about “council’s values and … good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”

In other words, knowing full well what they are imposing will accomplish no reduction in violent crime, and in fact, violate Ohio law, they are nonetheless using the coercive force of the city to mandate citizen compliance — or else. But the desperate to appear effective politicians behind the scam will all get their names in the press and claim bragging rights that they are both “doing something” and showing leadership.

In any legitimate field of endeavor, that would be considered not just malpractice, but outright shameless fraud.

UPDATE: From an email alert received moments after publishing this article:

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/cleveland-gun-edicts-violate-law-infringe-on-rights-and-won-t-stop-violence?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Via David Codrea-

An Uber driver with a concealed carry permit, something self-designated “common sense gun safety law” advocates fought tooth and nail, saved a crowd of people on a Chicago street after a criminal opened fire on them by shooting the assailant, The Chicago Tribune reported Monday. Per the Assistant State Attorney, no charges will be filed, because the driver acted lawfully “in the defense of himself and others.”

There are two problems with this story.

First, chief MILM Shannon Watts says this never happens. And second, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says if it does, he’s trained his men to kill you first and ask questions later.

Three problems, actually, when you consider all the smug antis, like CNN’s resident ignoramus James Alan Fox, who assure us firing at an assailant in a crowd situation will only make things worse, and what we really need is more citizen disarmament.

What’s evident is that the “gun safety advocates” would rather the driver had been unarmed and the people being fired upon undefended. That way, they would have been able to up their “gun violence” hysteria, plus they would have had fresh blood to dance in and exploit for more citizen disarmament edicts.

People are waking up to that and it’s not working, unless, of course, you’re a “progressive” who takes his talking points from garbage like a hit piece in The Atlantic by a totally unqualified critic, or desperate one-sided Mother Jones propaganda presented as objective journalism.

It has to be driving these people nuts that despite all of Michael Bloomberg’s money, all of the grandstanding politicians and all of the efforts by an overwhelmingly sympathetic media, people are recognizing the truth in increasing numbers. And that means they’re also recognizing the lies in the gun-grabber narrative about armed citizens.

Via NRA-ILA…

Oregon: Radical Anti-Gun Bills on the Move in Salem

This bullshit is brought to you courtesy of Bloomberg and co. Oregon was the next state on their list-They’re trying to check ’em off one by one.

On Tuesday, April 14th, Senate Bill 941, which seeks to expand background checks to private transfers, is scheduled for a vote by the Senate.  Please continue contacting your state Senator and strongly urging him or her to OPPOSE SB 941.

As previously reported, SB 941 would require individuals to appear before a gun dealer to request a criminal background check prior to privately transferring a firearm. Transfers include, but are not limited to, sales, gifts, loans and leases. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in stiff penalties and possible loss of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

On Thursday, April 16th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing and possible work session on Senate Bill 945.  Introduced by state Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D-17), SB 945 creates the crime of endangering a minor by allowing access to a firearm. This bill would essentially require a person to lock-up or render their firearms inoperable.  Failure to do so could result in stiff penalties, including a five year prohibition on firearm possession.

On Friday, April 17, both Senate Bill 525 and Senate Bill 913 are scheduled for a work session and a committee vote.

As previously reported, SB 525, introduced by state Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-25), would expand the list of those prohibited from owning firearms.  NRA does not support any expansion of the prohibited persons categories as defined by federal law.

Under SB 913, the ivory regulation bill, the sale, offering for sale, possession with intent to sell or importation for purchase or sale of any ivory or ivory product would be prohibited.  Virtually any lawful item containing any amount of ivory, with very limited and narrow exceptions, would be rendered valueless as it would be an offense for you to sell it or for another person to buy it.

Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee TODAY and politely urge them to OPPOSE SB 945, SB 525 and SB 913.

Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

Senator Ginny Burdick (D-18)
(503) 986-1718
Sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us

Senator Sarah Gelser (D-8)
(503) 986-1708
Sen.saragelser@state.or.us

Senator Jeff Kruse (R-1)
(503) 986-1701
Sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us

Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4)
(503) 986-1704
Sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us

Senator Kim Thatcher (R-13)
(503) 986-1713
Sen.kimthatcher@state.or.us

 Clare O'Connor  Forbes Staff

Bloomberg-Backed Gun Control Group Upping Ante To End Open Carry At Kroger

Everytown and Moms Demand Action’s latest ad follows their print campaign, pictured, showing what Kroger doesn’t allow in its stores (here, outside food) versus guns, which are allowed.

Back in August, billionaire-backed groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action joined forces to pressure Kroger KR -1.45%, the country’s largest grocery chain, to change its position on the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

The two groups, bolstered by a $50 million philanthropic injection from Michael Bloomberg, focused their attention on Kroger following a spate of lobbying victories.

In the span of a few months, they’d watched Starbucks SBUX -0.44%, Target TGT +0.12%, Sonic, Chipotle, Chili's and Jack in the Box respond to their demands by asking shoppers to leave their guns at home.

The groups followed their tried and true formula, starting a petition and mobilizing their hundreds of thousands of supporters to use a dedicated hashtag, #GroceriesNotGuns, across social media.

Kroger (market cap: $37 billion) wouldn’t budge, however. That August, the Ohio-based 2,625-store grocery giant — the country’s second largest general retailer, behind Walmart — released a statement saying it would “follow state and local laws” on open carry.

The following month, Everytown and Moms Demand Action upped the ante against Kroger, launching the umbrella group’s first ever large-scale corporate campaign, with an advertising spend of six figures.

Its ad blitz aimed to contrast items banned from Kroger stores — like outside food and skateboards — with openly carried rifles, which are permitted.

Kroger remained unmoved by that campaign, as well as a rally held outside its corporate headquarters the following month to coincide with the chain’s annual meeting.

Everytown and Moms Demand Action isn’t giving up just yet. On Tuesday, the two groups launched their latest joint effort against the open carrying of guns in Kroger stores, releasing a video ad they’ll promote widely online called Not Allowed.

In the video, seen below, a man walks unhindered through supermarket aisles with a large firearm strapped to his back, while other shoppers are stopped for bringing in a dog or a water gun:

Everytown and Moms Demand Action have also launched a microsite where supporters can enter totals spent on groceries at Kroger competitors. They aim to prove to the retailer that inaction on the issue of open carry is resulting in lost sales.

A representative of the two groups made it clear they’ll carry on pressuring Kroger until the supermarket chain agrees to ask customers to forgo their guns while grocery shopping. Their expenditure on this campaign is just shy of the $1 million mark to date.

Kroger did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This post will be updated if they do.

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.