Thanks, Rev. Paul, for the reminder!
Reportedly, Senate Democrats are pushing more gun control, TODAY!
CALL CAPITOL HILL TODAY!
|h/t Rev. Paul, GOA|
In a shame that rivals her Mayor being arrested and convicted for drug use, the District of Columbia is FINALLY forced by judicial edict to comply with the Constitution’s Second Amendment!
I’m reminded of a former friend and lawyer who carried concealed in D.C. in the 80’s, when doing so was a major felony. On one occasion he was forced to clear leather against
an armed assailant a misguided youth who confronted he and some female company near the Jefferson Memorial. The youth dropped his piece of rebar and fled the scene.
I asked Lew what if he had been forced to shoot the
bastard misguided youth, knowing the legal ramifications of having to do so. His reply? He would have taken the first available taxi to the Potomac, thrown the offending gun therein, and fled town!
This was a man not only known in D.C., but he had actually practiced before the Supreme Court. But he knew the then ‘law’ well enough to know he had no Constitutional protection of his right to possess and carry in that locale, much less shoot someone in self-defense.
At least, if he were alive today, he’d now have that carry right.
IF he were a legal resident…
From David Codrea…
From a range operator in a southern state:
After 50 years of existence, we are suddenly having an OSHA inspection of our ranges. We found out recently that the local skeet/trap club is also having an OSHA inspection. Have you heard of this happening else where? With this administration, I am paranoid with anything involving the Federal Government and attacks on civil rights. Please let me know if you have heard of other OSHA inspections of ranges.
Plus see supporting links. The head of OSHA is an anti-gun ideologue a handful of us warned about before he was confirmed by the Senate.
I would not be surprised to see them stepping this kind of harassment up. I’m not aware of anyone raising an alarm on this and do not know how widespread it is — I’ll ask around.
OK, I’m asking.
As an aside, leave it to “Every day is Opposite Day” Prozis to deem us all safer by threatening places where we can train and practice.
If you know of a range that is being subjected to this kind of
enforcement harrassment, please let David know! dcodreaAThotmail.com
For a number of years, I used to enjoy watching COPS and America’s Most Wanted back-to-back on Saturday nights. This was because I was usually dateless, and could live vicariously through the lives of videoed law enforcement and express outrage at criminals remaining at-large. And cheer when another miscreant was captured.
John Walsh was a heroic figure, because he spent years trying to get justice for his kidnapped and murdered son. The alleged perp finally died in prison. Good riddance. Having lost my daughter in an automobile accident – wherein the other driver paid only a fine – I could identify with him.
Mr. Walsh even copped to being a gun owner – for self-protection no less. I found this laudable.
BUT NOW, he’s picked up Piers Morgan’s mantle about NRA hating, and restricting the rights of the law abiding. It’s for the children(tm) ya know!
I no longer find him heroic and laudable. I no longer identify with him.
Disgusting is too kind a word. Hypocritical, too.
A Federal court in Denver ruled that it is acceptable for a police chief to order subordinates to attend an Islamic event — even if they object based on religious reasons.
When Paul Fields, a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer, objected to being forced to go to an Islamic mosque that had featured a controversial speaker (who promotes the destruction of Western civilization and the creation of an Islamic caliphate), he was ordered by superiors he must attend the mosque or suffer the consequences.
Paul Fields is a Christian.
As a Christian, his unwillingness to attend centered around the fact he did not want to go to a religious event where the topics being covered “discussed Islamic beliefs, Muhammad, Mecca, and why and how Muslims pray.”
Fields, who was one of the key officers that lead a protection program for the mosque, …
Now, I believe in the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. Speech, Press, Assembly. Freedom of Religion (or from Religion) as mandated by State authority.
Doesn’t such an order violate such a Right?
I’m betting this was all done in the name of political correctness and inclusion. Because, after all even the opinions of those seeking to destroy us have value. (yeah, right – Guffaw)
I’m certain Hillary Clinton would agree. Except she stated legal firearms owners are terrorists and as such have no right to an opinion!
h/t Preserve Freedom
…or just duck…
An Oklahoma company has designed a bullet-resistant blanket that’s designed to protect children and teachers in the event of a school shooting.
The Bodyguard Blanket, made by ProTecht, is a bulletproof 5/16-inch pad that the company says is made from the same materials used by the U.S. military.
Steve Walker, a podiatrist who conceptualized the blanket, toldThe Oklahoman that the idea came to him after two tragedies: the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the tornadoes in Oklahoma. He said the idea was to “stop that blunt-force trauma when that rubble is falling down on a child.”
The company estimates that the blanket can provide protection against 90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the U.S.
The blanket has straps that can be fastened around users like a backpack. The lightweight pad is made of a high-density plastic used for ballistic armor. The material can also protect users from nails, shards of metal, and other sharp objects.
After testing the blanket at a shooting range, the makers said it provided protection against bullets from a 12-gauge buckshot, a .22-caliber, and a 9 mm, among others.
The $1,000 blankets are a cheaper alternative to tornado shelters, but its makers say they are better for school shootings. (says the manufacturer.)
HMMM…let me see…
$1000 per student (PLUS, they have to lug these things around!) versus hiring trained security personnel AND/OR TRAINING TEACHERS AND STAFF AND ARMING THEM!
I’m reminded of growing up during the Cold War, and the ubiquitous instructions for us to ‘duck and cover’ in case of a nuclear bomb attack.
And the lampooning by the 60’s college crowd of that practice, saying we should have put our heads between our legs and kiss our a**es goodbye!
h/t Facebook, Jodie Brown
(after yesterday’s ‘school shooting’ – aka a shooting which just happened to take place in a school – this was making the rounds – in addition to the usual calls for more ‘gun control laws’ – as though the kid yesterday hadn’t already violated numerous laws…THIS DOESN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM – WHEN THESE CRIMES OCCUR, THE SCHOOLS CALL IN THE ONLY SOLUTION TO RESPOND – PEOPLE WITH GUNS! TRAIN AND ARM TEACHERS AND STAFF!) - Guffaw
Firehand bring us this from La La Land…
Under the proposed law, California gun owners could face a loss of their Second Amendment gun rights and confiscation of their firearms without prior warning. The proposed law allows the government up to two weeks following the issuance of a restraining order to set a hearing in which the subject of the order could argue for the reinstatement of their Second Amendment rights and return of any firearms seized.
“The subject of a restraining order and confiscation warrant may not even know they have been accused until there’s a SWAT team at their door.”
According to the bill’s text, courts would be required to issue a restraining order if a person–who doesn’t even have to know the target of the order–submits a form saying that a gun owner “poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or others by owning or possessing” guns. (emphasis Guffaw)
Hey great! Fink on family, friends, neighbors – that annoying bastard down-the-street (or in the mall) to whom you took a dislike and decided they should be forced to give up their rights and guns without due process (or the Constitutional ability to face their accuser)…
And then they are given an opportunity to defend themselves up to two weeks after the fact to take the matter to court!
YES! We can all be mental health ‘professionals’ properly assessing the mental state of anyone; able to deprive them of their rights for any reason!
Just fill out this form.
A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters. (…)
(The Washington Times)
So, let’s see…
THE GOVERNMENT is wiretapping our cell phones and computers; taking photos and videos of us with public (and private) cameras; tracking our vehicles with GPS; tracking US with our cell phones; reviewing our Emails and Internet search choices; searching us without warrant at airports and train depots; stopping us on public roads demanding we produce identification of citizenship and to prove we’re not drunk; constantly interfering with lawful possession, commerce and transportation of firearms; detained U.S. citizens without trial or access to legal assistance; executing U.S. citizens via drone use (I’m certain there are numerous other atrocities I’ve NOT enumerated here)
Is actively promoting the elimination of posse comitatus by allowing incorporation of the military into domestic law enforcement operations!
Click here for the lyrics to Deutschland Uber Alles – I’m certain we will soon be required to learn it. (replaces aluminum foil chapeau and skulks away)
Posted by David Hardy (on his blog)
Here’s the complaint. Essentially, the NJ legislature passed a law in 2002, which required the attorney general to report whenever “smart gun” technology went on sale in the US. Three years after he so reports, the only handguns that can be sold in NJ will be ones so equipped. The complaint alleges that the technology is now on sale, and seeks an order that the AG file the report. Nevermind that there are major concerns about reliability and safety. If people don’t want to rely on such guns, Brady figures, we’ll just have to force them to do so.
Ah, “reasonable gun control”! Brady apparently thinks that even New Jersey is “unreasonably mild” on the subject.
Because New Jersey is already so lax on their gun laws, and smart gun technology has been proven to work consistently.
Yeah, that’s SMART…
In days of yore, the British SAS carried Browning High Powers WITH THEIR SAFETIES UNENGAGED! Why? Because they knew with proper training there wouldn’t be any negligent discharges. Relying on man-made devices to act as a ‘safety’ against gun accidents is foolhardy. And these so-called smart guns use batteries. See any problem here?
or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin
I have addressed this concept previously, with regard to the threepers, Oathkeepers and others fighting amongst themselves.
Don’t you think this is exactly what the Administration, Bloomberg, the Brady Bunch and every other rights-restricting group wants?
I recently received an email with a ‘news release’ attached (in part)…
Dudley Brown and his “National Association for Gun Rights” (NAGR) have built a reputation by attacking every other major gun rights organization and even pro-gun politicians, to the detriment of the gun rights movement. His rhetoric has done more to marginalize Second Amendment activism than all of the slanders from gun prohibition lobbying groups combined.
Now Dudley has spewed his venom toward Alan Gottlieb, a true champion of Second Amendment advocacy with a proven track record of accomplishment. Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
In his latest effort to raise money for his own self-aggrandizement, Dudley Brown has launched a vicious canard against Alan Gottlieb, accusing the veteran gun rights advocate of “Leading the fight for national gun registration.”
Alan Gottlieb has never advocated for gun registration in his life. His legislative efforts have been to prevent that, and Dudley knows it. (…)
Now I’m a member of the NAGR, and post a link on my blog I am a Life Member of the NRA, and post a link to them, as well. I also link to the Second Amendment Foundation, whom I support.
(And I know nothing as to the accuracy of the charges listed in the above release.)
With regard to the NRA, I read with interest (and agreed with) In the MIDDLE of the RIGHT blog. It seems B (of said blog) complained about being sent unsolicited a POS cap and folding knife, accompanied by a request for a donation. The materials were manufactured on the PRC (!)
I don’t blame him for being pissed, both at the cheesy effort, and the use of communist-made materials to solicit funds.
NRA - seriously?
Personally, I tire of the emails and snail mails from them trying to sell me crap and solicit additional funds. I don’t have any extra money to give anyone, but I bet they would save a bundle on postage and tchotchkes and have more money for their political efforts if they would just have a box on their solicitations to check to spend such funds for rights-preserving purposes!
Let’s stop the infighting, backstabbing and unnecessary spending and get on with the task at hand.
Or I fear Dr. Franklin may be right.