(Operation Pastorius – Wikipedia)
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, followed by Nazi Germany’s declaration of war on the United States four days later (and the United States’ declaration of war on Germany in response), Hitler authorized a mission to sabotage the American war effort and to make terrorist attacks on civilian targets to demoralize the American civilian population inside the United States. The mission was headed by Admiral Canaris, chief of the German Abwehr. Canaris recalled that during World War I, he organized the sabotage of French installations in Morocco, and entered the United States with other German agents to plant bombs in New York arms factories, including the destruction of munitions supplies at Black Tom Island, in 1916. He hoped that Operation Pastorius would have the same kind of success they had in 1916.
I remember my Father telling me what little he knew, in guarded terms of the events. He had been deferred to to asthma and flat feet, but was anxious to somehow to serve. Little did he know what was to befall him.
Meanwhile, one of the potential saboteurs betrayed the others, and they all were arrested , tried and convicted. My father (and his father) were then civilian police for the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, and were commandeered as private ‘volunteered’ to transport prisoners through the Easter United States. This was all Top Secret, was all kept secret until the 60’s. Much of what my Father shared with me he thought remained with so, as he was unaware of the earlier declassification!
He was given no official title or rank, and was not paid – the RR paid him.
I will not hon0r these men by linking their names with their photos.
The trial for the eight defendants ended on 1 August 1942. Two days later, all were found guilty and sentenced to death. Roosevelt commuted Burger’s sentence to life in prison and Dasch’s to 30 years because they had turned themselves in and provided information about the others. The others were executed on 8 August 1942 in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail and buried in a potter’s field in the Blue Plains neighborhood in the Anacostia area of Washington.
And was told never to speak of this…
This irked me my entire childhood – friends whose fathers who served in the Pacific Theater, the Atlantic, and my Dad had flat feet!
What did you do in the War Daddy?
What little did I know…
I was always proud of my father – more proud today.
California Gov. Brown signs 3 gun control bills
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed measures to end the last narrow allowances in the state for campus carry and open carry but rejected one to mandate increased security at gun stores.
Brown, a Democrat, signed AB 7, AB 424 and AB 1525 over the weekend while returning SB 464 to lawmakers, describing the last measure, aimed at ramping up security measures at gun shops across the state, as an overreach.
“State law already requires that firearms dealers enact security measures to avoid theft,” said Brown in his veto message. “Local jurisdictions can — and have — gone further by adding specific requirements. I believe local authorities are in the best situation to determine if any additional measures are needed in their jurisdictions.”
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, argued the increase in security was needed following incidents where burglars used cars to smash into gun stores across the state. The measure would have required gun stores to keep their firearms in a secure facility with steel bars on windows, deadbolted doors or metal grates over entrances, and an alarm system protecting ventilation in addition to installing exterior features such as concrete bollards.
I’m so glad I live in the Free State of Arizona!
A recent court case in California could have long reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the way firearms can be sold to the public.
The case, Teixeira v. County of Alameda, has not gotten a lot of attention, but could drastically impact the ability of individuals to sell firearms in private party sales. As it stands, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a victory for those who wish to limit gun and firearm sales.
In the case, an individual wanted to open a full-service firearms shop; the intended location fell into a zone that required a conditional permit. In this location, a conditional permit is needed to open a gun shop near a school, daycare, residential area, liquor store or other firearms location. In short, the current law makes it very difficult to open a facility at all, since pretty much every location in the county is near one of the outlawed facilities or near a residential neighborhood.
The business owner challenged the ordinance, but was struck down by the court. Both the original decision and the appeal ruled in favor of the county, restricting the shop owners second amendment rights. As the plaintiff and business owner pointed out, restricting their ability to open a shop at all also prevented local citizens from purchasing firearms, potentially impacting their Second Amendment rights as well.
Should the plaintiff wish to appeal, the case could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would address whether the county’s ordinance and the court ruling were truly constitutional. The argument that prospective customers might not be able to buy firearms is not at the heart of the case; there are other gun shops nearby — the county could be infringing upon the owner’s Constitutional rights.
California’s 9th Circuit is already well-known for supporting laws and rulings that limit the rights of gun owners. In recent years, the court has upheld restrictive concealed carry laws and with this recent case, restricted the rights of business owners as well. Will this be the case that requires the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify what rights individuals have to sell firearms and establish businesses under the Second Amendment?
As more and more locales seek to restrict rights, particularly in Democrat led areas, it may be time for the highest court in the nation to make rulings that clarify the protections the Constitution holds for law abiding citizens.
They’ll just keep battering away at common-sense language until nothing means what it says. Much as the Communists do with rights.
Gee, I wonder if there’s a connection somewhere?
This came across my email a couple of days ago.
The point is, does it have some teeth, or it is just BLUSTER?
(from Gun Owners of America, in part)
Don’t Let Ryan Get Away with Any 2A Infringements!
This is becoming painful to watch.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is now asking — begging, really — the Trump administration to unilaterally impose gun control restrictions.
And there is virtually no conceivable way that these restrictions will fall short of eventually regulating or banning your detachable magazines.
“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix,” Ryan said.
What was he talking about?
The Hill explains:
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday the Trump administration should move quickly to ban a device used in the Las Vegas mass shooting that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.
So Speaker Ryan is urging the ATF to ban bump stocks — even while he has indefinitely pushed back the pro-gun agenda.
But there are two major problems with this.
First, there is no way that Congress — or the administration — will be able to ban or regulate bump stocks without also opening the door to prohibitions on other parts, accessories and magazines.
This is because all of the legislative proposals currently on the table would ban ANY item or device that helps “accelerate the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm.
Using that standard, you can kiss your detachable magazines goodbye!
But the other problem is this: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.
If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.
Help GOA stay on the frontlines. Every dollar you contribute to GOA right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!
Take Action and Put the Heat on Congress!
Please contact Your Representative and communicate the following:
1. Uphold your oath of office. Do not support ANY infringements upon the Second Amendment — including those that would jeopardize detachable magazines.
2. Tell Speaker Paul Ryan to STOP compromising. If legislators want to follow Ryan off a political cliff, they will truly regret it when voters “remember in November.”
We need to let Ryan know that millions of gun owners oppose his compromises, which will endanger our ability to own detachable magazines.
Plus, he needs to know that there will be SERIOUS ramifications at the polls if he and other Republicans do not stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
We are in a political war to preserve our gun rights.
I want to thank you for your help in putting the heat on your legislators.
So please take action, and urge your family and friends to do so, as well.
My apologies – having some issues here at home, I’ve not been as diligent as I have in the past regarding the fall-De-rall as I usually am regarding the silliness on the Hill.
And while I do support and respect Gun Owners of America, sometimes they get over excited in the name of financial support (learning from the NRA?)
So, what do you guys thing? Bluster or real danger?
Supreme Court justices clashed on Tuesday over whether courts should curb the long-standing U.S. political practice of drawing electoral maps to entrench one party in power, with conservative Anthony Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.
The nine justices heard an hour of arguments in the major voting rights case out of Wisconsin involving the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. Their ruling, due by June, could have an impact on U.S. elections for decades by setting standards for when electoral districts are laid out with such extreme partisan aims that they deprive voters of their constitutional rights.
Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the court’s liberal justices in big rulings, did not definitively tip his hand on how he would rule but posed tough questions to Wisconsin’s lawyers that signaled his aversion to electoral districts drawn to give one party a lopsided advantage in elections.
Liberal justices voiced sympathy for the Democratic voters who challenged the Republican-drawn legislative map in Wisconsin as a violation of their constitutional rights. Conservative justices expressed doubt about whether courts should intervene in such highly political disputes, and questioned the challengers’ legal standing to bring the case. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.
Gerrymandering, a practice that began two centuries ago, involves manipulating boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party and diminish another.
Perhaps I should have posted this yesterday.
Like him or not, the man opened the door to The Sexual Revolution (at least as defined by him) and things continued the same.
Sadly, he supported many rights, but ignored The Second Amendment as a primary Freedom.
Libertine, YES, Libertarian, no.
And, he certainly didn’t support the Woman’s Movement, as least as defined by Steinem and other leftists.
He did spend much of his LIFE in bedwear and robes.
Perhaps there IS a message there. He did pass at 91.
Thank you Hef, for the wonderful jokes, cartoons, The Playboy Advisor, and, or course, the airbrushed nudes (including Marilyn!).
Gahan Wilson was a genius!
RIP, Mr. Hefner!
The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”
Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”
There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.
Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.
Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?
The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.
The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.
~ Firearm Daily
While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.
As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent, If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried. Or weight of weapons. Or permissible calibers…
This is not about GUN CONTROL.
It’s about CONTROL!
( from NRA-ILA)
This week (September 8), the city of Tucson, Arizona agreed to repeal their firearm destruction ordinance. This decision came in response to the recent state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s firearm destruction policy as a violation of state law that prohibits local governments from regulating the ownership, licensing, or use of firearms.
The city of Tucson ignored this Arizona state law 12 years ago when the Tucson city council passed an ordinance allowing for the destruction of firearms. Last month, the state Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as violation of state law, and in its ruling specifically acknowledged the NRA’s amicus filing by adopting its argument “that preserving the right to bear arms under the federal and state constitutions is also a subject of state concern.”
“We applaud the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Firearms should not be summarily destroyed by local governments.”
Chris Cox issued a statement thanking the Arizona Attorney General for his efforts in assisting Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners.
“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, I want to thank Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for his defense of Arizona’s firearm preemption law,” concluded Cox. “This decision sets an important precedent to protect Arizonans’ firearms freedoms from future infringement by local ordinances.”
September 11. The Sixteenth anniversary of the attack on American soil by segmented tribal forces of the Islamic right.
Have we ‘won’? Hell no!
Yes, we got Bin Laden. But the attacks now continue, internationally.
Including home-grown terrorists, here.
What are the choices? To give up and eventually be assimilated (or killed) by radical Islam?
Or continue to fight the good fight?
I choose the latter. And I’m medically retired and 64. But I still have some fight left in me.
Today, I will take a moment to remember the innocents who died in the Twin Towers (including those who worked for
TMCCC, my former employer, and all the first responders)
And just remember…