4 Jun 10
Be first!
Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights
In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.
In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer’s shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.
This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.
The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”
Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees’ business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won’t affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.
However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.
1 Jun 10
The current USA government is terrified of firearm ownership. This report show why
Executive Summary – It seems like the Fed spends a major portion of its time, energy and resources dreaming up ways to try to convince the gun owners that they need to not have guns. This is generally done using the salami theory. The salami represents gun rights. They cut off a slice each time until there is nothing left.
The way they are treating soldiers is even more illustrative of the extreme fear the fed has of gun ownership. They even tried getting Mexico President Calderon to ask for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. The NRA should call for a boycott of any Mexico tourism until Calderon renounces this statement and he would renounce it to stop a boycott. If he closed his border no guns would get in, Duhhh. Do they think we are as stupid as they are?
Fort Riley Kansas – Overzealous base commanders can impose their will on the soldiers and their privately owned firearms. For example see what the base commander did at Fort Riley:
They require the registration, with Fort Riley administration, of its soldiers’ privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers’ family members residing anywhere in Kansas. This violates the rights of the family members big time. The family members are having their rights violated in that they are not in the military and thus not under the constitution. It gets worse:
The Fort riley base administration prohibits their soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base. Absurd. They are also allowed to to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own. So if a soldier transfers from one base to another he may have to sell his guns and ammo.
Analysis of this Action – The government is scared to death of an overthrow of their administration. They are guilty of many violations of the constitution and in fact their administration is repugnant to the constitution and everyone knows what the laws say to do with a government repugnant to the constitution. They know that and the informed citizens know that. The military is also acutely aware of the gross violations of law being advocated and enforced by the administration. Obama is now giving speeches minus the American flag. He would not go to Arlington for memorial day being the first president to not go there. Well he is also the first non qualified Kenyan Muslim President too.
The controlling of private firearms reassures the government that the soldiers will have a harder time uprising. The military weapons are under serious lockdown on the bases. If the soldiers have personal weapons they can over run the base and get the military weapons. Of course the flaw with this thinking is that those guarding the base can become involved in the overthrow as well. The government is of course not thinking straight these days. They have fears of standing trial for treason sedition, theft of government property and resources, fraud, falsification of documents, violating numerous laws and who knows what else will turn up when the secret files and bank accounts get opened up. Those mutual legal assistance treaties will bite them in the butt when used against them to get their money from foreign banks.
This of course makes one wonder why Saudi Arabia a member of the G-10 did not sign any tax treaties. Kuwait also did not sign any treaties. Is this where they plan on keeping their wealth when the egg hits the fan and they have to hit the helicopter to the submarine or jet? Images of Sadamm Hussein being hung with reporters present goes through their minds. They know they are guilty and are trying to hang on. They cannot just let go because that means imminent doom for them in a trail of their peers. As more and more people become educated to the evils and violations of law their situation becomes more and more precarious. By now the paranoia has sunk in big time and they will behave more and more irrationally.
The stunt with Calderon appearing before both houses illustrates the lack of logic they are operating under. Using a leader from another nation to call for USA gun control, come on what idiots. A good question is how many of their employees who are not Muslim or communist are actually loyal to the administration. Sure they are being bought off with large salaries disproportionately large considering the state of the economy but this is just a real cheap superficial form of loyalty that anyone who ever lived in the third world will recognize clearly.
The Nazis gave extreme exemptions from law and accountability to their people yet many tried numerous times to kill Hitler. They did come close too. Hitler and the Nazis even had their own army (SS) to protect them from the soldiers and people. Then they had a secret police the Gestapo as well. In spite of this he came close to getting killed a few times. So far Obama has not raised his own army to protect him from the regular army and the people. He does have the secret police thing down as good as Hitler right down to the secret prisons, torture and no courts involved.
Of course the Obama youth corps is the groundwork for a special army. They use these camps as a recruiting forum for those easily brainwashed and corrupted into being tyrannical. This Obama will fail. He takes the shortcuts, is lazy, likes to lie about who and what he is and cannot keep his story straight. People are getting madder and madder daily. Do not expect him to back off he does not wan to stand trail for his frauds and treason. Obama has painted himself into a corner being the jerk he is and has no way out except to place the country under dictatorial powers thus ensuring his freedom from prosecution.
I wonder how much of these slaps in the face the government workers and military are going to put up with. How can you have a two bit lying street punk muslim like that as your boss and look yourself in the mirror every day?
30 May 10
Idaho National Laboratory’s Microsight: A new kind of sight for a new era
Idaho National Laboratory’s Microsight: A new kind of sight for a new era
28 May 10
Hay gun grabbers you are on the wrong side of the facts; FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime
Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn’t waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are—as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year—only waiting to “pick the time,” should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon’s speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal “assault weapon” ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.
However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation’s legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation’s murder rate fell to a 45-year low.
The FBI’s report was also bad news for anti-gunners elected to other offices. With the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago no more than a few weeks away, Mayors Bloomberg, of New York City, and Daley, of Chicago—who fear that it will require them to respect the Second Amendment for the first time—have continued to beat their drums for gun control. As we have noted, Bloomberg recently encouraged a Senate committee to support the Lautenberg-King terrorist watchlist bills. And last week Daley told a Chicago Reader reporter, who expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Chicago’s handgun ban, “It’s been very effective.” Holding a bayonet-equipped rifle, Daley added, “If I put this up your butt, you find out how effective it is.”
But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. We hope, but don’t expect, that the indisputable fact that an increase in gun ownership does not necessarily correspond to an increase in crime, will reduce the frequency of Bloomberg’s stunts aimed at gun shows, and Daley’s periodic rants against the firearm industry.
26 May 10
‘MORNING SHOOTING UNDERSCORES WHY WE SUED CHICAGO,’ SAYS SAF
This brought to you by the SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – This morning’s fatal shooting of a home invasion suspect by an 80-year-old retired Army veteran in Chicago’s East Garfield Park neighborhood underscores why we filed a lawsuit to overturn the city’s gun ban, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
That case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is about to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining SAF in that lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents including Otis McDonald, for whom the case is named.
Today’s shooting of an armed home invader with a lengthy criminal record is still under investigation by police, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, but it appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense. Local newspaper reports show strong support from the older man’s neighbors. The Chicago Sun Times quoted next door neighbor Curtis Thompson, who observed, “It’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead.” Another neighbor, identified as Audrey Williams, told the newspaper “I’d have done the same thing. They say we’ve got to give up our guns, but that’s crazy.”
The newspaper is also quoting the man’s 57-year-old son, who put it bluntly: “If homeowners can’t have guns to defend themselves and their families, there’s going to be more home invasions. My father’s glad he had a weapon. He did what he had to do.”
“We filed our lawsuit two years ago to protect the self-defense rights of Chicago citizens just like this man,” Gottlieb said. “We have taken the McDonald case to the Supreme Court because far too many people in Chicago are not been able to defend themselves. They have been unconscionably disarmed, and left in as much fear of being arrested and jailed for having a gun as they are afraid of being robbed and murdered by armed thugs who have ignored the gun ban.
“Chicago’s ban did not stop this violent criminal,” he added, “a homeowner with a gun did. The ban also did not stop the recent murder of off-duty police officer Thomas Wortham IV. It is time for this insidious ban to be nullified, and we are hopeful that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is about to do.”
24 May 10
Why is the Second Amendment discounted?
Why do some people scream for one right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights, but, those same people would scream to deny a right to another person guaranteed by that same document to someone else? What am I talking about? Well let me explain. Some people would literally fight if necessary for an artist to show a painting of something that denigrates Christians and he Christian religion. They would (and have) said that this painting is that artists individuals right to freedom of speech. While personally I think that kind of “art” is crap and don’t think art is speech. About half of Americans think it is.
If art is speech and protected to the indivigual under the constitution and the bill of rights. Then why do some people say that my right to own a gun is not only NOT a personal right protected by the constitution, but, not even protected under the second amendment? The second amendment states as follows “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” At the time of the addition of the bill of the rights the term militia meant: either defense activity or those who engage in it, whether as individuals or in concert with others. So the term militia basically meant the people of the United States of America. And how those people who dislike firearm ownership by the average citizen get the phrase “Shall NOT be infringed” absolutely blows my mind. They would through a screaming fit if someone or the political class tried to infringe on the “artist’s” right to free “speech”, but, would applaud my right to bear arms being taken away.
Weather or not art is speech is a topic for another day and another place. What I am sick of is some of the people who say it is also turning around and saying I do not or should not have the right to own a firearm. As I have stated in other posts, that I know for a fact that I am a better shooter then most police in the country today, and probably better then most military. The only difference is I am not paid by the tax payers of this nation. I have an will now again take the same oath that our founding fathers took when they signed the Declaration of Independence. I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to the defense of this nation, whatever free state I happen to be in, and my fellow American. In my opinion that is the civilian (or none military/police) oath to protect my community.
So in conclusion, if you can find fault with my point of view please keep it polite and post it here at Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog.
15 May 10
12 May 10
Great gun news from the Hawaii front! Your second amendment rights are now protected.
2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii; “Castle Doctrine” Enacted As Governor Signs Laws
Governor Linda Lingle today signed into law two important bills preserving 2nd Amendment rights passed by the recently adjourned 25th Hawaii State Legislature.
SB 358, SD1, HD2 introduced by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8th O’ahu – Hawaii Kai to Diamondhead) (Act 96) establishes provisions relating to prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster, suspension of permit or license. Prohibits any person or government entity to seize or confiscate, under any civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any civil defense emergency period, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, any firearm or ammunition and permit or license of any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State. — Amends provisions relating to civil defense powers, in general. Section Affected: 134- (1 SECTION), 128-6.
Slom, a Trustee and Secretary of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation said he introduced the legislation in part as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath in New Orleans when law enforcement officials went door-to-door and seized legal firearms from legally registered owners. The court subsequently overturned the state’s actions. He said he also had worried constituents call this year during the Hawaii Tidal Wave alert. Citizens were concerned that the police would not be able to protect everyone and their property during a major emergency.
Slom added, ” I emphasize this law applies to legally owned and registered firearms. This is a good bill and Governor Linda Lingle should be thanked for her prompt attention to this important legislation which passed the Senate unanimously. Hawaii now joins 30 other states with similar legislation.”
The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. –
Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.
Slom said of this bill, “It represents common sense and confirms in Hawaii the old adage, “A man’s (or woman’s) home is his (her) castle.” It should put potential criminals on notice that they no longer can break in, commit a felony, threaten the owner and escape with no risk of personal harm. Both laws are about taking back our individual, Constitutional rights”
7 May 10
AR-15 pistol, waste of time and money?
We think so. However, you watch this video and let us know.
