Looks like Alaska and Texas are going the way of Tennessee in way of telling the feds to stick their gun laws where the sun doesn’t shine

Executive Summary – There are now bills in the Texas and Alaska legislatures to exempt from Federal regulation firearms made and sold inside the respective states. The bills would not apply to firearms not made in the state or made in the state and sold outside of the state. These bills are very similar to the bill voted and signed into law in Montana. They are also similar to the bill proposed recently by Tennessee.

Texas Bill – This bill exempts from federal regulation firearms, accessories and ammunition made in the state of Texas intended for sale within Texas. This bill requires the State of Texas to pay for the defense of the Texas citizens if prosecuted by the Fed for firearms violations that this bill allows for. This means the State of Texas would throw the book at the Fed with a barrage of lawyers and seek a ruling that was favorable. It is really impossible for Texas to lose unless the Federal judges throw the case illegally.

The constitution has no provision for Federal gun control and to the contrary provides for gun ownership rights. These rights are specifically intended for military weapons, not hunting guns as one can glean from the use of the term “militia”. Militia is not a word used to describe foxhunts. If Texas got their favorable ruling they would attempt to use this to recover legal fees from the Fed. The decision would also be used to cookie cutter more favorable judgments. When other states saw this they too would pass similar laws. It is more likely the Fed would pick a case and jurisdiction where they could rely on the judge to throw the case their way.

This of course sets the stage for secession. Texas would have to blatantly accept an insulting and illegal ruling or just throw in the towel and secede. The constitution specifically grants certain rights to the fed and any other rights are reserved to the states. The fed can jump in and try to control firearm sales by screaming it is interstate commerce. This is a fact. Now when the guns are made and sold in Texas only there is no legal basis for the fed to step in and try to regulate them. A line has been drawn in the sand.

Alaska Firearms Freedom Act – This great piece of legislation was passed by the Alaska house 32 to 7 and now moves on the their senate for passage. The outlook is encouraging. This bill basically charges the Federal government with using the Interstate Commerce Clause and US Code 18 USC 922 as an excuse for them to regulate firearms that are involved in interstate commerce. We all know the goal of gun control is to confiscate privately owned guns. This bill calls for the State of Alaska Attorney General to defend any firearms manufacturer located inside of Alaska that is charged by the Fed when they a re compliant with the soon to be new Alaska law.

The Anti-Gun Fed Marches On – A member of the US house of Representative, Peter King of NY, has sponsored H.R. 219. The name of this bill is “The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”. This absurd bill wishes to deny transfers of a firearm to any known or suspected dangerous terrorist. This is basically a way for the fed to stop anyone they want from getting a new gun by treating them as suspected terrorists. This can be anyone opposed to Obama, a pro-gun rights person, etc. It does not call for confiscation of existing firearms. This would be like the much abused no fly list. If any bureaucrat wishes you to be on the list, that is that. They never tell you that you are on the list. Because of nonsense like this the states rights firearms laws are needed or they will eventually get the guns.

Discussion – Well I always said Obama is the perfect President for secession. The states gun rights bills are a line in the sand. The Fed cannot safely move on to their next level of control unless they get the guns out of private hands. Obama causes a flurry of gun and ammo sales. Seems like people do not trust this junior inexperienced senator with birth certificate problems. Someone with a lot of money thrust this inexperienced guy at the public. He played well. He talked well. He has a personality. He slung a good line of promises, which he promptly broke. He magnified the money supply by a lot. He basically did nothing to even stop the freefall in the economy.

In a word he is a joke and he is there because he played well at the polls. Obama may not be with us much longer. His college transcripts at Occidental College showed his application for a Fulbright Scholarship, which is only available to a foreigner. His Grandmother says she witnessed his birth in Kenya. The Kenya government said his birthplace was going to be a monument in Kenya. Then someone told them a naturalized person cannot be President of the USA and then the birth records became classified as secret. The Supreme Court has finally agreed to review one of the cases on appeal regarding Obama not being qualified to be President by nature of his birth. Obama is going to have a lot of trouble remaining in office and this is a shame.

He is like the perfect storm, something that rarely ever occurs. Just what we needed to spur secession of the states from the union. He is insecure. He is buried with massive problems and running scared from the threat of riots. He is going to have a tendency to not deal with states rights. People in glass houses should not throw stones. He has a lot of problems even hanging onto his Presidency so the last thing he needs is for the states to bring his flaky citizenship issues into the legal fight over states rights thus magnifying the problems to the point where they make it to the headlines in the major papers. Another possibility is Obama will resign. He would not be prosecuted and then they would not have to void all of the bills he signed. Then there would be a transition government and probably a new election. This would be another wonderful time for more states rights bills and of course secession.

If the states get the fed out of their guns then the concept could be expanded. States could coin lawful silver and gold money. States could prohibit Federal Reserve notes. States could attack the federal debt as fraudulent and deny it. Stop income taxes. All sorts of wonderful possibilities.

The media says the states right gun laws are a legal challenge to the fed. This is a lie. What it is simply a way to defend themselves against a government saying they are empowered by the constitution and then not agreeing to abide by what rights the constitution grants them and to the individual states. Usurping power illegally is the term. The federal government does not want private citizens to have guns but they are sure fond of them and spend fortunes on getting the latest and greatest weaponry. It is guns they respect and fear.

originally published at: http://www.panamalaw.org

Comments Off

Aluminum cased ammo?

We are hearing that some ammunition manufactures are ditching the brass casing in favor of aluminum. At the outset this sounds interesting. Fully loaded magazines are lighter, aluminum is cheaper to come by. The government has yet to try and ban aluminum cases. A few things we have yet to hear, aluminum is a obviously aluminum a softer metal then brass. So can it withstand the abuse that the brass ammo can? Can it stay useable years after it is manufactured? A big one, is it re-loadable? Would it make the ammunition cheaper to manufacture and thus cheaper to sell? Hence less expensive to the end user? If the answer to the above questions is yes then we are all for it. However we are not metallurgists here so we can not answer these questions. If you the reader can answer any or all of these questions please reply and let us all know.

Comments Off

Guns, ammo, booze, and your rights

Alcohol and ammunition – the two will be mixing very soon and it’s an issue that has some people fired up. Last week Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen vetoed a bill allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol, but today the state senate fired back.

Bullets mixing with booze – we didn’t have to go far to find strong opinions on both sides of this issue.

Today Tennessee’s Senate shot down the Governor’s veto of a bill allowing handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

“Most of the states this bill has been in, georgia is an example where this past, crime went down dramatically,” Representative Curry Todd says.

“I just think it’s a bad mix some people say it’s worked other places but I just think it’s potentially dangerous,” Representative Mike Turner says.

The Bill has conditions including the person has to have a handgun carry permit and the person cannot consume alcohol.

“If we take a drink we loose the gun, we lose the permit, we lose the right to ever carry a permit – that’s how serious this is,” Hal Shaw says.

Shaw owns the Ammo Dump. He is a certified firearms instructor and believes this bill will make Tennessee safer.

“There’s not been a shootout in Tennessee since we got handgun permits,” Shaw says.

But others believe if you’re around guns and beer you could end up taking shots.

“When you have alcohol and you have guys around here that are a little aggressive and if they have a gun on their hip things can get out of hand,” Price Baker says.

“I suppose if they want to test this out they should start serving alcohol at firing ranges and see how that works out before they start letting the general population start drinking and bringing guns into bars,” Dean Frost says.

But Shaw says he stresses gun safety in every eight hour carrying class he teaches. He believes state legislators pulled the trigger on this bill at just the right time.

“People that get the handgun permits is not the people you got to worry about, the people you’ve got to worry about is all the other people,” Shaw says.

Property owners do have rights here – they can prohibit people bringing their guns into their establishments if they want to.

We’ve found out that thirty seven states, including Georgia, have similar legislation.

Even though the override passed, you can’t actually take a gun into a bar until 40 days from now, on July 14.

It was one week ago that Governor Bredesen vetoed this bill and this is the first time one of his vetoes has been overridden by the Legislature.

Bredesen’s Press Secretary issued this statement in response — saying quote… “Governor Bredesen is disappointed with this action — but that doesn’t change his belief that we can exercise our second amendment rights and common sense at the same time.”

Comments Off

The media has reaffirmed what we said in our article Hunter’s are conservationist also

You can find the article at Hunter’s are conservationist also
Now to the proof:

Gun sales have surged in the past six months. Some attribute the increase to worries Barack Obama will push through tougher gun laws. Others say it’s merely one part of a broader trend toward survivalist tendencies and that has arisen with the souring of the economy.

Regardless, for those worried about the run on guns, there’s another side: It turns out the increased production of guns and ammunition is sending more money into state wildlife lands.

Makers of firearms and ammunition pay a federal excise tax that amounts to 11 percent tax on long guns and 10 percent on handguns. (The tax is also paid on optical gear such as gun scopes, and even camouflage clothing.)

According to a federal report, in the last three months of 2008, the amount of money paid into the fund spiked 31 percent, as compared to the year before. Nearly all of the increase was due to increased handgun production. State and federal background checks—required to purchase firearms—have seen similar increases and gun manufacturers have posted record sales.

It’s not just manufacturers seeing the increases. A representative of Central Coast Gun Shows, which puts on shows from Fresno to Paso Robles, said interest in the shows is higher than anything in the past 23 years. She said attendance at a recent show in Paso Robles was double past figures.

The excise tax money gets collected by the federal government and then distributed to state fish and wildlife departments.

Blaine Nickens, staff services manager in the grants management branch for the California Department of Fish and Game, said excise tax meant about $8.1 million in federal dollars last year. The bulk of the money gets spent on the maintenance and development of the state’s wildlife areas.

Locally, the nearest beneficiaries of the fund are in the San Joaquin Valley. The Mendota and Los Banos Wildlife Areas have received money. Those areas are hunting areas, but are also widely used by non-hunters.

Portions of the money also get spent on hunter education efforts and wildlife studies and inventories—the sort of studies that help the department decide game limits.

“It goes toward helping unit biologists and statewide planners determine the health and status of game populations,” Nickens said. “That also provides information to the commission as to setting seasons and bag limits for these different game animals.”

California, however, doesn’t get as large a share of the gun money as other states. States must provide a 25 percent match for the money and Nickens said the state could take in more federal money if it offered more of a match. Also, the allocations are based on a calculation using the amount of land available in a state and hunting license sales. License sales in California have been declining in recent years.

The gun sales have risen in the wake of National Rifle Association ads warning that Obama may seek significant tax increases on ammunition. A press release sent by National Shooting Sports Foundation places the cause squarely on Obama’s election.

It may take a while for the state to see a benefit from the surge.
The most recent allocation comes from the federal fiscal year, which ended in September. It still shows a 9 percent increase from the previous year, but doesn’t represent the more recent increases.

Comments Off

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday’s decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

Comments Off

Treaties to rule our firearm rights, not the second amendment?

Well, it looks like President obama plans to make good on some of his campaign threats – such as gun control. It would seem our esteemed leader *please note the sarcasm in my tone* would like to participate in CIFTA.

What is CIFTA you ask?

CIFTA is a treaty that has been signed by 33 countries in our hemisphere. (to use a momily – if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it just to belong?) The United States is one of four nations that have yet to ratify the convention, although Obama administration officials say the U.S. government has sought to abide by its spirit for years. The treaty was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1998, but no action has been taken since then. The treaty requires countries to take steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives. It also calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating smuggling.

On the surface, you’re thinking, ok, what’s the big deal? Well, let me just outline a few things for you. And, let me clarify things by saying I am not a bigtime gun person. I hated guns for years and thought James Brady was right about everything. Then, Uzz and I were threatened by his criminally insane former brother-in-law. The psycho threatened to kill our entire family at Pickle’s baptism. Uzz – probably for the first time – borrowed a gun from a friend. Self-defense made sense to us.

A few years later after my divorce, I met Army of Dad. Through him, I have learned many reasons why guns aren’t the evil devices I always thought they were. I felt they were dangerous and I believed the whole guns kill people mantra. Now, I know the truth. People kill people. There are many reasons to have weapons: self-defense, sport and as family heirlooms. Even children can be taught the safe handling of firearms.

I was surfing around to favorite blogs after not doing that for a while and Army Wife Toddler Mom had a CNN news clip about CIFTA that almost knocked me off of my seat.

Good old Barry wants to get all of us law-abiding citizens to register our firearms AND then he wants to share our names with the world. Oh good. So my husband with the Concealed Handgun License will now have a price on his head by whomever the Mexican government decides to sell our list to. If you trust ANY government that much, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Even if you don’t like guns, you have to admit the idea of telling our foreign neighbors our business is insane.

Seriously, the idea of me registering my private self-defense weapon is offensive as it is. But, the concept of sharing that information with foreign countries is downright stupid. Mr. XYZ Country – here is a list of American potential freedom fighters should your country decide to bomb the hell out of us and then invade. You’ll know who to knock off first. Geebus H. Christmas. What the hell is he thinking?

Please contact your U.S. representative and senators and tell them that CIFTA cannot be enacted in the USA. I have already contacted my elected officials.

Comments Off

According to Casey Jones of The Salt Lake Tribune Guns don’t shoot people

The other side of the issue, As always your comments are very welcome!

I’ve lived in West Virginia, home of the Hatfields and McCoys, where gunliness is next to godliness.

And I’ve lived in South Carolina, the Itchy-Trigger-Finger State, which fired the first shots in the War of Northern Aggression.

And I grew up in the part of Pennsylvania where gun racks are standard equipment in F-150s, where deer are what’s for dinner, and where anything less than a head shot is considered a miss.

But if you love firearms, you gotta love Utahns, you weapon-worshiping, pistol-packing son-of-a-guns. I’ve never seen the like. There are so many firearms outlets in Utah that all of the good names are gone, hence, Fuzzy Bunny Movie Guns in Draper.

Utahns take gun rights, and ownership, seriously. Afraid that the obama administration would restrict their right to purchase firearms, they launched a frontal assault on the gun shops, purchasing 20,908 weapons last November alone, nearly twice as many as in November 2007.

Some shops sold out of assault rifles. Ammo was in short supply. And there wasn’t a “Beware of Owner” sign left to be had.

But even here, there are people who believe there should be limits on our constitutional right to be a one-man army; who deny the simple fact that if you ban public ownership of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, only the bad guys will have rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

For the love of Charlton Heston, what is wrong with these people? And what will they do the day state Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, the founder of the pro-gun Patrick Henry Caucus, mounts his steed and rides through the valley crying “The Koreans are coming. The Koreans are coming”?

The true gun nuts are the ones who refuse to recognize the important role that guns play in society — primarily deterrence, but if that fails, second-strike capability.

Guns are part of our history, and our heritage. We Americans have been shooting ourselves and others for more than 200 years. It’s our God-given and constitutionally driven right to go around locked and loaded, or even half-cocked.

But many among us are unclear about the right to bear arms. Some think it entitles them to wear sleeveless shirts. Others think it limits ownership to guns sufficient for shooting “bars” — not the watering holes the state Legislature loathes; rather, the kind Davey Crockett kilt when he was only 3. But gun-rights advocates know what the founders had in mind.

The Second Amendment entitles you to own weapons of all shapes and sizes, from pistols, shotguns, carbines and assault rifles to M1A2 tanks and F-16 Falcons.

And I’ve exercised that right. I’ve got a shotgun and a rifle, which I take for the occasional walk in the woods.

But unlike my grandfather, who hunted the gophers that raided his garden with a heart-felt hatred, I have never fired a gun in anger, or, as he would have described it, in self-defense. And I never will.

I’m not at all interested in having a gun pried from my cold, dead fingers after finishing second in a shootout. In my opinion, the best way to protect yourself from harm is to hand over your wallet and run like hell, or hide under the covers and let the burglars take what they want.

But I do want to keep my hunting rifle. That’s why I always tell the liberals: “Remember, guns don’t shoot people. Dick Cheney does.”

Comments Off

Unfortunately Gov. Bredesen vetoes guns in restaurants bill in Tennessee

Gov. Phil Bredesen has used his veto against HB962, which would allow handgun carry permit holders to carry their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol.

In front of a backdrop of law enforcement officials from across the state, including Metro Police Chief Ronal Serpas, Bredesen spoke of a firearms safety class he took in high school.
“I remember from the course there was one thing that teacher drove into us day in and day out … that message was guns and alcohol do not mix,” Bredesen said. “That was a common sense proposition back then, and it is every bit as true today.”

The bill would allow handgun carry permit holders to take their weapons into any restaurant that serves alcohol, unless the restaurant owner posted a sign banning the weapons from his or her business. Supporters have said the bill protects Tennesseans’ Second Amendment rights; opponents have said having guns in areas with alcohol could be unsafe.

“We cannot support legislation that openly allows consumption of alcohol where guns are present,” Serpas said. “Weapons in a bar fight are never a good thing.”

The veto can be overturned by the legislature with a simple majority vote, something Bredesen acknowledged could very well happen.
“I certainly understand there’s a great potential, probably the likelihood of an override for this,” Bredesen said.

Comments Off

Look out for our next supreme court justice

Sonia Sotomayor obama’s supreme court pick is anti firearm. In a ruling this crazy nut made she stated something to the effect of owning a gun is NOT a constitutional right. Obviously this ruling was appealed all the way to the supreme court, where she is about to sit. From what we have heard it will not get there any time soon. So this liberal Nazi will soon have the ability to vote on her own ruling that was overturned. I’m here to tell you, if this goes against the gun owner’s here in America, and the police or anyone else come’s for my firarm’s, there will be war. I’m cocked, locked, and ready to rock and roll. Are you?

Comments Off

Ruger PC4 carbine rifle review

Basics
The Ruger PC4 is a semi automatic pistol caliber carbine – a rifle that fires a pistol cartridge. The PC4 is chambered for .40 S&W, and there is also a 9mm version available (the PC9). The PC4 (and the PC9) use Ruger pistol magazines, which is especially nice for those who already have Ruger pistols. Both the PC4 (sometimes called the PC40) and PC9 weigh in at about 6.5 pound, with barrels that are just over 16″ in length. The PC4 and PC9 are blowback operated, which is somewhat rare for such carbines. Sighting options include standard iron sights, or ghost ring sights. The standard proprietary Ruger scope mounts are also built in to the receiver. Production of the PC4 and PC9 was stopped a few years ago, after Ruger decided there wasn’t enough demand to justify continued production. However they can still be found at gun stores and online. I found mine at a local gun store for under $600.

Safety Features
The PC4 and PC9 have automatic drop and firing pin safeties, along with a manual safety in the rear of the trigger guard. One interesting feature related to how these carbines are blowback operated. One of the downsides to blowback operation is that the action is not usually locked closed, but is instead only held closed by spring pressure. If the firearm is dropped or jarred, it is possible for the action to partially open, preventing proper operation of the firearm until the user notices those problem and closes it back up. Ruger fixes this by having the action lock closed, and then unlock as either the trigger is pulled, or as the action is manually operated. This feature is very well done, and I didn’t even notice it at first until I read more about the PC4 online after I bought it.

Ergonomics
The PC4 feels great to hold, and is pretty well balanced. Balance can be a problem with blowback operated firearms, due to the need to have the action be heavy enough to stay closed as the bullet travels down the barrel, leading to too much weight in one place. Ruger avoided this problem as well, by using weights on the end of a light weight bar to better distribute the weight. The result is a well balanced carbine that is comfortable to hold and shoot. The one thing that I don’t like is the recoil pad. It is made of a rather rigid rubbery material, with ridges in it. I would have preferred a recoil pad that was either a bit softer, or that didn’t have those ridges. I don’t care enough to change the recoil pad, but I thought I would still mention this.

Firing the PC4
This is a fun carbine to shoot, and accuracy was great. I was firing offhand on a 50′ indoor range, and managed to shoot 1″ groups pretty easily. I look forward to going to an outdoor range to see how the PC4 does at longer distances. I will say that recoil was a bit heavier that I expected, given that I was only firing .40 S&W pistol cartridges, although the recoil was by no means unpleasant. I’m guessing the recoil felt heavier than I expected because this carbine is blowback operated, meaning that the action does very little to soften the felt recoil. That said, I do want to be clear that this recoil was quite light compared to any shotgun or centerfire rifle I’ve ever fired, and should not pose a problem for even the most recoil sensitive people.

Conclusion
The PC4 is a nice carbine, especially for those of us who already have pistols chambered for .40 S&W (or the PC9 for those who have pistols chambered for 9mm). Accuracy is good, recoil is light, and a variety of hard-to-notice features relating to safety and the blowback action are nice touches as well. The blowback operation is simple and reliable. Since this carbine is no longer in production, finding one may be slightly difficult, but is worth the effort.

Comments Off

Search:

Enter your email address:


Subscribe in a reader

Sponsored links:


Categories

Monthly Archives

Meta