Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

A Tory to the left of me, and a Tory to the right! Jeb Bush, a Bloomberg clone…

September 19, 2015
It sounds like a broken record playing from the gun control crowd — we just need to pass more laws…

Mandatory waiting periods to buy guns – leaving those who likely need a gun the most, defenseless.

Universal background checks – resulting in the government having a complete list of guns and their owners.

Background check expansion laws – designed to seize guns from gun owners on the mere word of one “mental health staffer.”

Even if you watched the Late Show from front to back the other night—->you still would have missed seeing one of the top tier Presidential candidates describe a utopian gun control agenda – one that the candidate hopes will sweep the nation state by state.

You missed it because it didn’t air – after being taped – likely because the campaign staffers who heard it decided to pull it down for fear that it would hurt the candidate—->they were right.

But this wasn’t a tactical decision by Hillary Clinton’s folks. It wasn’t that loud-mouthed gun grabber Chris Christie who said this. And it wasn’t even something that was said by the radical Bernie Sanders. Nope…

Jeb Bush, when appearing on the debut episode of the new Late Show, came out in full support of radical gun control just a few days ago!

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what Jeb says for yourself by clicking on the video below.

Of course, Bush planted his words in his professed support for the 10th Amendment, stating that he would prefer each individual state enact the kinds of gun control, just like they did in his home state of Florida.

Worse, it’s obvious from the way he laid this out, that this is exactly what he would like to happen!

He didn’t stumble, he wasn’t trapped by a smart host, and he didn’t misspeak a word here or there. It sounded as if Bloomberg had crafted the words.

This is what Jeb Bush thinks about your gun rights!

Imagine being a homeowner in Ferguson, Mo., last year – watching your city burn – and being unable to buy a handgun to defend your family with because of a government mandated 72 hour waiting period.

Imagine being a homeowner in Boston, stunned as police chased a terrorism suspect around your city for 4 days, and you being left defenseless because some politician decided that you needed to wait 3 days to pick up your firearm.

In all of these scenarios, understand that the criminals are not going to wait around for 3 days to buy a weapon to carry out their plans to assault you or those you love.

You may be thinking, “So what, I’ve already got all the guns I need.” You and me both.

But what about everyone across the country who doesn’t? What about your children when they grow up? What about your granddaughter when she moves across the country for her first job as an adult?

Of course, Bush’s plan to change the mental health laws is designed to make it appear so reasonable that no one would oppose it.

But nothing is more dangerous, nothing is more subtle, than the gun control threat we face from a changing in the mental health code.

You see, under current law for someone who’s deranged to lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, they have to be “adjudicated” defective.

Adjudicated means that a judge or jury of your peers needs to be convinced to end those rights.
All of your due process rights are able to be used in this process. You can have an attorney present, produce evidence, confront evidence and witnesses being used against you, etc.

If the government is able to substitute “adjudication” for “declaration” then anyone authorized by the government can, unilaterally, declare you unfit to own firearms!

You can see now why this is so dangerous. This doesn’t affect the size of the magazine in your Colt .45 or whether or not you can own an AR-15. This just flat out leaves you prohibited from owning ANY firearms.

You’d have more rights contesting a traffic ticket than you would the seizure of your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms if Jeb Bush’s mental health plan became law at the state or federal level!

Just last year Wyoming Gun Owners, with your support, fought and successfully defeated the passage of a bill that would do exactly this right here in the Wyoming legislature!

Background check expansion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Fred Emerich in 2014 and would do exactly what I’ve described above!

With our agressive activism, gun owners mobilized enough to prevent this bill from becoming law here in Wyoming!

Clearly Jeb Bush and his pal Michael Bloomberg want to see this same type of law enacted state by state all over the country!

Jeb Bush and Michael Bloomberg caught while working on the same team

Don’t be lulled off guard by his talk of the 10th Amendment. This simply means that he’d happily see the state government crackdown on your gun rights as opposed to the federal government.

More and more this is exactly what the gun grabbers are doing in response to the stinging defeat they were handed by gun owners on Universal Background Check Legislation proposed in 2013: and now they are taking their fight to state legislatures all over the country.

We’ve been able to stop them so far here in Wyoming.

Now we need to ensure that Wyomingites know all about Jeb Bush’s state-based gun control scheme and that Bush knows that Wyomingites won’t put up with it. Please help us get the word out by:

  1. Calling Bush’s campaign boss David Kochel and owner of the political consultant firm Redwave in Iowa. Call (515) 421-4404 to leave David a message. Make sure he knows you’re calling from Wyoming, that you’re a voter, and that Jeb’s statement on the Late Show tells you all you need to know about his views on the 2nd Amendment.
  2. Contacting Jeb’s national apparatus by leaving him the message on his facebook page. click here
  3. Sharing this email with every gun owner you know in Wyoming – make sure they have the facts about where Jeb stands.

Wyoming Senators: Silence is anything but golden!

June 4, 2015
We lost by a mere 16 votes, but thanks to your grassroots activism, U.S. Senate Leadership took it in the shorts.

First, the scary stuff…

Obama’s declaration of victory on the passage in the Senate by a 67-32 vote:

Immediately signing the wrongly named USA Freedom Act, Obama stated, “my administration will work expeditiously to ensure our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need…

Now the back story…

While Senator(s) Barrasso and Enzi voted NO on the so-called USA Freedom Act, other Republican Senators who also voted NO, admitted that they did so because the measure “didn’t go far enough” to spy on Americans.

Several hours of floor debate revealed the real imbalance in Congress — only one Republican Senator shined by standing up and pushing real freedom.

Samuel Adams said it best ~ “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

If you want to see this played out in modern politics — watch Senator Rand Paul setting the brushfire on the Senate floor, by clicking here.

The good news is that every single poisonous amendment was voted down, despite the foolish utterances by phony Republican Mitch McConnell.

McConnell proposed four amendments to address what he called the bill’s “serious flaws.”

You just can’t make this stuff up!

McConnell even suggested that Obama’s failed foreign policy was somehow equated to the Senate’s refusal to accept his dangerous amendments that would have further violated the privacy of Americans.

As I watched Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell during this historic defeat, I must admit…it was truly a rewarding experience to see him to burn in the flames.

And you can be proud of being a part of the grassroots brushfire.

But, at the risk of being redundant, Barrasso and Enzi voted correctly while remaining silent.

While thankful that they both voted right, we are at a loss that the Wyoming delegation didn’t stand with Rand Paul in the vocal debate.

Like most politicians, our Senators love to receive accolades for their display of rhetoric in front of Fox News cameras — but where it matters most on the Senate floor, they remain closemouthed.

If the Wyoming Senators want us to believe they were standing on the proper side of the fence — they should have been setting their own brushfires of freedom — instead of leaving the fight to Republican Senator Rand Paul, who single-handedly pushed back at the entire establishment.

For Freedom,

   Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

Civil War in these not so United States..?

September 19, 2014

This has been an ongoing discussion for many years. Indeed, when I still worked in emergency services it was always a scenario that was discussed and planned for. I retired in 2001, so this really isn’t anything new.

Why then is this being taken so seriously now? In a word, Obama.

Can America survive another Civil War?

Michael Savage starts off his upcoming book “Stop the Coming Civil War: My Savage Truth” with the words:

People can justify a government’s controversial policies and actions for only so long until they see a pattern of abuse of power. Then, even the most devout supporters of any regime must decide if they support these extreme policies and actions or oppose them.

My question is this, he continues. Will the Obama inner circle of extremist left-wing radicals trigger an event that will provoke an American insurrection, even a civil war?

Is this concern to be dismissed as a “right-wing conspiracy theory”?

My own thoughts are along the lines of this being no longer the realm of kooks and conspiracy types. It’s mainstream America, and includes all races and cultures. We are no longer a melting pot. Nor are we kissing cousins. There are a whole lot of very angry people out there, and they are angry for many different reasons. This is indeed a recipe for a not so civil war…

Canadian’s Version of David Letterman’s Top 10. This is Canada’s Top Ten List of America’s Stupidity: From a Yahoo Board…

March 22, 2014

10) Only in America … could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
9) Only in America … could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal work force is black while only 14% of the population is black. 40+% of all federal entitlements go to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!
8) Only in America … could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
7) Only in America … can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
6) Only in America … would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.
5) Only in America … could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”
4) Only in America … could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
3) Only in America … could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
2) Only in America … could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
1) Only in America … could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

Gun Owners Spank Bloomberg, Schumer, IRS & Governor “Moonbeam” Brown

February 24, 2014

And GOA submits new brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to help.

“[New Jersey has] subordinated the People’s right to keep and bear arms to the state’s alleged interest in promoting public safety. It is not, however, within the authority of courts to override the Constitution as ratified by the People.” — Gun Owners of America’s legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake v. Jerejian, February 12, 2014

Pro-gun victories are coming so fast and furiously (no pun intended) that it’s difficult to keep up with them.

Here is a sample of good news.


On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show “good cause” were unconstitutional under the Heller decision.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” said Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.

Gun Owners of America is pursuing an almost identical challenge to New Jersey’s onerous and restrictive concealed carry law. GOA (and its foundation) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court just one day prior to last week’s Ninth Circuit decision, challenging the New Jersey control scheme that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In several instances, the Ninth Circuit opinion critiques the Third Circuit’s opinion by using arguments very similar to the ones GOA presented in our amicus brief. Overall the opinion is a refreshing change from most lower federal court decisions, which have refused to engage in the textual and historical analysis required by Heller and McDonald.

As we see it, the Ninth Circuit decision should add weight in favor of the Supreme Court hearing one of these cases to resolve the circuit split. And hopefully the five justice majority from Heller will seize on these two cases because of the Ninth Circuit’s detailed and careful review of the history that supports public carry of weapons for self-defense.

Go here to read more about this case — including the GOA/GOF brief.

Go here to make a tax deductible contribution in assisting Gun Owners Foundation to continue bringing legal challenges like this.


Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had intended to turn New Hampshire into his most recent “victory for gun control” — joining a handful of states that enacted stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newton school yard tragedy.

Bloomberg figured that New Hampshire would be easy pickings. After all, the “Granite State” had a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic anti-gun governor.

Gun Owners of America countered Bloomberg’s muscle by aiding several local gun groups in the state to rally grassroots gun owners in opposition to the bill.

Well, the final shootout occurred last Wednesday. And after the smoke cleared, Bloomberg and his “human props” were sent packing, with their tails between their legs. After a series of votes — and an hour and a half of parliamentary wrangling — the Democratic House declared that a Manchin-Toomey-type universal gun registry bill was “inexpedient to legislate.”

Having failed to buy Congress with his billions of anti-gun dollars, Bloomberg has attempted to buy the legislatures of states like New Hampshire. But, with the exception of seven states with legislatures dominated by anti-gun legislators and governors, Bloomberg has been humiliated.

And “red state Democrats” running for reelection in the Senate are running from Bloomberg even faster than they’re running from Obama.

As a result, Bloomberg has now modified his strategy to turn the country blue by legalizing millions of anti-gun voters who broke the law to get here. And to that end, Bloomberg has announced that he will use his billions to support “red state Democrats” who opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment — language imposing universal background checks around the nation — so long as such Senators agree to support the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.


Three weeks ago, it looked like an immigration amnesty bill to create 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters was on the “fast track” in the U.S. House.

That was before you burned up the telephone lines and internet accounts of House Republicans. At a Republican “retreat,” dozens of congressmen lined up to oppose the bill. And Speaker John Boehner was forced to concede that Republicans could not “trust” Obama to implement the enforcement provisions of the bill.

Now, reeling from another defeat, New York Senator Charles Schumer has threatened to file a “discharge petition” to force the House to consider the anti-gun bill, over Republican objections.

The problem is that Schumer, to be successful, would have to convince over a dozen Republicans to openly betray their colleagues, in order to garner the necessary 217 or 218 signatures (depending on the number of House vacancies). For this reason, discharge petitions almost never succeed.


Fresh from a scandal in which it tried to harass conservatives applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, the IRS has spent the last several months trying to put GOA out of business.

It did this by threatening regulations which would define a broad range of policy activities (including voting guides) as political activities.

But, in its arrogance, the IRS overstepped its bounds. So many policy-related activities would be limited under the IRS rules that a broad range of both conservative and liberal 501(c)(4)’s blasted the proposals. In addition, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) which would prohibit the IRS regs from being issued. Given the broad support from both ends of the political spectrum, the Camp bill would surely be passed overwhelmingly.

As a result, the IRS has now meekly testified that it will not push its proposals in 2014.

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives love dead kids.

February 18, 2014

Since the other post got fouled up somehow here is a repeat.

Agenda drives the left, in all things. The more dead kids there are, the more fodder for the leftest agenda. Alinsky would be proud. The more that we learn about the mass killers the more we find out how they are drugged, and supporters of leftest ideologies. I for one am going to start referring to the entire lot of them as murderers. Because that is what they are.

When others talk of full blown revolution I will no longer speak about temperance. I’m not, after all, that kind of a Christian. More power to the people of America as envisioned by those that established this great nation!

A bunch of kid killers support the Free Fire Zones. Let us be diligent in reminding them about that at every turn!

Fast Track to Gun Control?

February 17, 2014

Take a deep breath! You’re in for a wild ride.

“‘Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls,’ Gun Owners of America warned its members and supporters in a January 24 alert.” — The Examiner, January 29, 2014

For months, as you know, GOA has been battling against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill, which would add 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.

The political left has attacked Gun Owners of America for rallying gun owners to oppose the anti-gun amnesty legislation. One liberal website even (mockingly) characterized our view as saying that “immigrants must suffer because of their supposed political views.”

Of course, that’s not what we’re saying, but then again, we wouldn’t expect anti-gun liberals to understand.

There were even some conservatives who had misgivings. For example, one pro-gun author confessed that he initially “harbored some doubts” about GOA’s position and even argued that immigration overhaul could actually help gun ownership in the U.S.

But after reading our alerts, he admitted that such a rosy scenario was “probably very wishful thinking” on his part, especially considering the 2013 “Pew poll indicating an electoral bonanza for Democrats — and therefore for ‘gun control’ — should illegal aliens gain the right to vote.”

GOA is very thankful for thoughtful journalists like the one above who took the time to really research the issue — and grateful for many gun owners like yourself who have taken action on our alerts.

The result has been an intense outpouring of “political heat” on politicians in Washington (especially Republicans).

A couple of weeks ago, GOA asked you to contact your Republican Congressman, prior to their retreat, to let them know that their grassroots base (that is, gun owners) do not support anything that resembles amnesty. Other groups have joined the chorus as well.

Since then, media reports indicated that the phones rang off the hook on Capitol Hill — especially in Speaker Boehner’s office.

All of this culminated in newspaper headlines around the country reporting, on Friday, that the anti-gun amnesty bill was dead and we had won:

* “Hope dims for immigration bill,” trumpeted USA Today.

* “Boehner Doubts Immigration Bill Will Pass in 2014,” said the New York Times.

* “Immigration Overhaul Stalls,” said the front-page headline of the Wall Street Journal.

For us to have reached this point was an enormous victory for your activism. And GOA is grateful for all you who made calls and helped tie up the phone lines on Capitol Hill opposing this bill.

But the battle is clearly not over, for buried deep in the articles was a more nuanced story. The Journal said that a pro-immigration leader “was told by congressional aides to ‘take a deep breath’ and that ‘the wheels continue to turn.'”

Thus, there is still some degree of danger that Speaker John Boehner could push the anti-gun bill after primary filing season had closed — perhaps in May, June or July.

This would not be the first time that we have seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. In fact, you might remember our most recent alert over the weekend which explained how a Senate committee ambushed pro-gun Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in an attempt to defeat his language repealing the Post Office gun ban.

[GOA has posted an update here which further explains how players behind the scenes — like Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) — worked overtime to ambush Rand Paul and sack his pro-gun agenda.]

So one might wonder: Is this battle over anti-gun amnesty just another political ambush, similar to the one gun owners saw play out in the battle to repeal the post office gun ban?

Well, consider the multiple levels of perfidy that are at play.

Fast Track to Gun Control?

Many of the same business interests that support immigration — for short-term “balance sheet” motives — also support a bill to allow Barack Obama to write virtually any multilateral trade treaties he wants — with little or no ability to stop them when we “find out what’s in them.”

The bill is called “fast track.” The way it would work is that Obama could negotiate treaties, and, once they were negotiated, they would have to be considered under the Senate rules … they could not be filibustered … they would be approved by a simple majority … and they would be unamendable.

Obviously, if the Obama treaties contained provisions limiting the import and export of guns, we would not have the votes to do anything about it, if “fast track” were in place.

Why is this relevant?

MSNBC and the New York Times have floated a “deal” to pass the anti-gun immigration bill. Obama would “give” Republicans “fast track” — because many in the GOP business interests support “fast track” and many Democrats oppose it. In exchange, Republicans would “give” Obama immigration amnesty.

Obviously, some Washington-centered business interests would view this as a win-win.

For gun owners, it would be a lose-lose. There would be 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters, and California-style gun control would be inevitable. On the other hand, newly drafted Obama anti-gun treaties, which could resemble the UN Arms Trade Treaty, would be almost impossible to stop.

Think Obama is so honorable that he would not use treaties to ban guns? Does anyone think that?

ACTION: For now, let’s receive our apparent victory graciously — knowing that we’re going to have to be continually vigilant to make sure the amnesty bill doesn’t raise its ugly head again. So urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session. So Take Action and urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session.

The Next Big Gun Fight: Stopping 8 Million New Anti-gun Voters

January 26, 2014

“[A] Pew poll suggests that illegal immigrants, if given citizenship, would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.” – GOA’s Erich Pratt, commenting on Pew poll findings as reported in The Washington Post (7/22/13)

Next Wednesday, the House Republican leadership will announce a set of “principles” for immigration reform.  Supposedly, if these “principles” are not well-received, the House will shelve the issue for the remainder of the year.

To be blunt:  The health of the Second Amendment relies on demolishing these “principles.”

Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.  There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States.  And, a Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.

This is exactly what happened to California — which was once a Red State.  Because of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill of 1986, the state lurched violently to the left and now can’t pass gun control restrictions fast enough.

If this were to happen at the national level, we would lose the ability to stop massive gun bans and gun registration schemes.  And all of this occurs at a time when a Fox poll shows the American people oppose Obama’s immigration policies by a margin of 36% to 54%.

The first reality is this:  If the House passes ANYTHING, the Senate will tack on its amnesty bill and send it to conference.  And the national conversation will turn off of ObamaCare and onto immigration.

And guess what?  Every gun-hating institution which moved heaven and earth to pass gun control will move heaven and earth to get the House to retreat — if not to a “pathway to citizenship,” to a “pathway to legalization.”

They will have created the biggest and most motivated Obama-loving movement in the country — devoted to electing anti-gun politicians and retaining Harry Reid’s control of the Senate.

What will Republicans get, in exchange for creating an army of pro-Obama election warriors?

Very little.  (Be sure to read GOA legislative counsel Michael Hammond’s analysis, which shows, in great detail, how the Republican leadership’s “principles” will end up back-firing on gun owners.)

The bottom line is that there is a reason why Barack Obama and his “puppet press” have been campaigning for a year to force the Republican House to wade into “immigration reform.”  It is nothing but benefits for anti-gun politicians, and nothing but pain for pro-gun legislators.

Who would be stupid enough to inflict that level of pain on themselves?

ACTION:   Contact your Representative.  If he is a Republican, the pre-written letter will ask him to reject the ridiculous “immigration principles” being hawked by the leadership — principles that will eventually destroy the pro-gun movement in America.  The pre-written letter for Democrats is a generic opposition letter.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE:  Remember that clicking on the first “submit” button on the GOA Engage site (where you input your name and address), only submits your information so that your correct legislators can be identified.  Hence, the first “submit” button does not actually send your letter.  Instead, it brings you to the next page where you can actually review the pre-written letter.  The second “submit” button actually sends the letter.

Just as Obamacare isn’t at all about healthcare, immigration reform is not about immigration.

More Ex Post Facto Law; Guess who it’s being brought to you by?

December 3, 2013

I mean seriously people… Lautemberg is barely in his grave and what? A Monument to his utter treason?


Legislative Time Bomb Could Retroactively Outlaw the Possession of Virtually all Guns with Non-Metal parts
Wood stocks could be prohibited

“We look at [the plastic gun ban] as an infringement,” said GOA’s Erich Pratt.  “The law does nothing to keep undetectable guns out of the hands of criminals [who have] no regard for the law in the first place.” — The Hill, November 28, 2013

URGENT ACTION:  The House did not take up the plastic gun ban yesterday.   So please continue contacting your legislators — especially your Representative — with today’s new message.  The House will most certainly vote today.  If you can, please call your Rep. at 202-225-3121.

Gun ban would be mischief for an anti-gun administration.

Sometimes it takes decades for a poorly-drafted anti-gun law to rise up and bite you. The 1968 gun ban for “mental defectives” sat around for 25 years before an anti-gun Clinton administration decided to use it to disarm more than 150,000 law-abiding veterans who had never been before a court.

The “plastic gun ban” is another massive time bomb sitting in federal law. And it will be reauthorized (for as much as a decade) in the next two weeks — if we don’t stop it.

Unless it existed before December 10, 1988, the plastic gun ban absolutely bans any gun that is not as detectable in a “walk-through metal detector” as a Security Exemplar [18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(A) and (6)].

The “Security Exemplar” is a piece of metal that the ATF uses to calibrate how much steel a manufacturer needs to put in the gun to make it beep in the metal detector.  Other than the fact that it has to contain 3.7 ounces of steel and look sort of like a gun, anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder can determine, by regulatory fiat, the characteristics of the Exemplar.

He can determine whether you test guns with a “top flight” metal detector — or a crummy one. He can determine how many times (or thousands of times) a gun has to pass in order not to be banned.

In addition, every “major component” of every firearm has to pass through an airport x-ray in such a way that its shape is “accurately” depicted [18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(B)].

The statute contains a list of parts of guns which are definitely “major components.”  But is that list exclusive?  If we didn’t have a President and an Attorney General who have violated and perverted the law again and again and again, we might be able to conclude that it was exclusive.  But the language is not so definitive as to protect us against an administration intent on destroying us.

So what if Holder determines that a wooden stock is a “major component”?

According to an expert we consulted, a wooden stock would produce an x-ray image which is “fuzzier” (less “accurate”) than a metal gun would produce.  Interestingly, a wholly plastic gun would also produce an x-ray image, according to this expert, although it would be “fuzzier” (less “accurate”) than that of a metal gun.

So, for those Republicans who are talking about locking us into an extension of this statute that could ban lots of guns … tell them, “please don’t.”

A couple of more points:

* It is simply not true that, if this statute is allowed to lapse, “killers can freely go into airports, courthouses, and schools to commit mass murder and mayhem.”

X-ray machines will pick up the images of plastic guns.  And, unfortunately for the safety of the inhabitants, guns in airports, courthouses, and schools will remain illegal under 18 U.S.C. 922(q) and 930.

* And it is foolish to assume that the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas of the world — intent on committing mass murder — would somehow be deterred by a plastic gun ban.  That genie is already out of the bottle.

* Finally, it appears that New York Senator Chuck Schumer would like to take the potentially significant gun ban and expand it even further.

Thursday, November 21, Schumer tried to pass an expansion though the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent without even usual a standard Senate procedure for notifying other senators, called hot-lining. Almost two weeks AFTER HE TRIED TO PASS IT, the text of the Schumer bill was still not available.

But we do know that Schumer has been working all year to expand the plastic gun ban to shut down every gun manufacturer in America who makes guns using a mold.  We also know that Schumer has been trying to extend it even more explicitly to gun parts and magazines — although it’s hard to see what danger a plastic magazine would pose.

ACTION:   Click here to contact your senators and representative.  Tell them to oppose this effort to ban guns with wooden stocks. Call him or her at 202-225-3121.

Words once spoken…

October 10, 2013

Stolen from TexasFred

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006~

“America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Barack Hussein Obama IS that failure of leadership, and he is right, Americans DO deserve better.

Pass it on ’til eternity… It was so nice of him to give us this great quote for posterity! SO, USE IT!

The following was sent to me via email, I have no link to it for citation, so please, just take it as it is written and if you agree, fine, if not, oh well, I am tired of arguing with the BRAIN DEAD of America.

The Truth about the Health Care Bills

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.

What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

Once again, a Texan is speaking the truth, and another Texan, yours truly, is spreading the word and fanning the flames.

Are you listening America?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers

%d bloggers like this: